I don’t think “different materials” explains anything, only complicates the matter and the weight is still too much. More than 330 pounds is not realistic for AIM-120A.
1 Like
I updated the report to reflect the new findings:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/8neWOIwbKGAr
Also solved the envelope issue:
9- I had previously made this report, but Gunjob had closed it citing a 1992 document from the UK which stated “Weight: 327 lbs (Designed)” for the AMRAAM:
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/c3Zavuod4L8o?comment=d8eGzGRgwYbuwZDta3qAk0Wg
https://imgur.com/a/pVWYf1MGunjob’s document does not apply to AIM-120A, because:
It’s from 1992. And it’s regarding AIM-120B as ordered by the UK military and produced to its requirements, which entered production in 1994.
This does not reflect AIM-120A as ordered by the US military and produced to its requirements.However, since this UK document is used for adjustment of AMRAAM’s performance envelope in the game, the devs could keep the AIM-120B as is, and copy-paste all of its parameters for the modeling of AIM-120A, but only change the weight to 345 lb.
This would reflect the AIM-120A much better and reflect US military’s decision to produce a heavier less performant but cheaper AMRAAM (as compared to UK’s AIM-120B) for itself.
Well, it was quite complicated in real life too.
I added some other interesting stuff to the report too:
Mystery solved?
The US still used both AIM-120A and B and according to you one should be heavier and one lighter, at this point you’re just trying to intentionally nerf the US if you want the AIM-120A to be heavier while not having the B variant…but this is expected while looking at your other reports
According to USN flight manuals both AIM-120A and AIM-120B weigh 348 lb.
So the US also used heavier materials for its AIM-120B …
Didn’t want to make it even more complicated.
LOL
I make reports to make things more accurate (also enjoy investigation).
Sometimes it’s a buff sometimes it’s a nerf.
Plus, I think making AIM-120A more accurate is actually good for the game right now, considering it outperforms all other missiles.
UK can get a pass since seems like they used the luxury material IRL and also their platforms are not as good so …
You’re not making the AIM-120A any more accurate than it already is, different manuals say different weights, A1-F18AE-LWS-000 “AIRBORNE WEAPON/STORES LOADING MANUAL F/A-18A/B/C/D” dated 1 JUL 2006 confirms 327 lbs weight for AIM-120.
I noticed you left out the part where they (once again) stated that these performance requirement changes were made prior to 1986. In fact, before 1984 the redesign took place as mentioned earlier.
This still does not explain the weight increase or what specifically was changed / modified post-1986 to increase the weight further as you claim.
He knows this, he’s intentionally discarding any and all sources that don’t agree with his report. It’s a pride thing I guess.
That’s not how missile production takes place.
1 Like
I have not seen that source
Feel free to add it to the report
Why not?
AIM-54B was basically AIM-54A produced with sheet metal instead of honeycomb structure in the wings and fins.
So you want to claim it’s a change from solid state to traveling tube and now you think it’s a change in materials? Why do manuals state varying weights between 326 and 348 pounds? You’ve explained nothing and reposted articles that are intentionally ambiguous.
The real answer, as I’ve said, is that the AMRAAM’s weight was classified and various manuals intentionally state erroneous data.
1 Like
Can you show me instances where missiles from the same lot number exported to Britain got special materials and modifications somehow compared to the American missiles of the same lot?
1 Like
You’ve already been informed that several manuals state the actual weight and you’ve ignored this & intentionally didn’t look for them (or more likely found and ignored them).
If you read the report I make it clear that the changes happen in multiple stages.
The change in the seeker and guidance section happens earlier and is reflected in the SARs FY 1986.
The change in material happens later and is reflected in SARs FY 1990.
What’s your source that AMRAAM’s weight was classified?
Attempted FOIA of the allegedly public weight resulted in a return stating the AIM-120A’s weight specifically is exempt from FOIA still until declassification currently scheduled in 2036.
Currently it is considered CUI as used in unclassified manuals stated above - and most documentation available although unclassified is restricted and exempt from FOIA.
1 Like
The catch is … It doesn’t even specify any variants.
I.e. they didn’t put much effort into specifying accurate weight information because it wasn’t deemed necessary. Weight is just some side information there and is not even referring to any specific variant.
F/A-18C & E NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL PERFORMANCE DATA are manuals which are more focused on the weight and drag of the stores and they say 348 and they specify each variant as well as their captive carry and telemetry variants separately.
1 Like
So flight manuals have erroneous data but SAR’s can’t?
Hughes states a number and that isn’t believable, but when every single flight manual differs in numbers we have a winner that you’ve just selected arbitrarily? Your argument is even less worthwhile when you consider that some of the flight manuals (for aircraft we have in-game) list it as 331 pounds (5 pounds more than current…)… like is it really that big of a problem?
1 Like
SARs reflect whether the contractor is meeting their obligations and program requirements or not.
And in the NATOPS flight performance data the weight and drag index values are supposed to be used for mission envelope calculations.
Whereas in the manual in question weight is for general familiarity. The ground crew are gonna just follow the loading procedures … They aren’t gonna use the missile’s weight parameter for anything …
Again … “Hughes said Hughes said”
Unnamed magazine correspondent =/= Hughes
It would only matter if the said manual was the source for the performance envelope
If they are basing the performance on the 327 lb weight document then obviously keeping all parameters (drag, thrust, loft etc) and changing the weight to 345 lb would make a difference.
If it’s not a big problem then why are you so defensive about it :)
1 Like