I know its not what actually happened but i like to think that because they were so mad about losing the Amraam contract that Raytheon bought out Hughes.
It is funny to think of it that way, funnier to think Raytheon’s AIM-260 is basically just the Raytheon AIM-120 concept (wingless tail controlled missile utilizing body lift)…
@sudo_su1 you have continuously purposefully misread or discarded every source that disagrees with you thus far. @Flame2512 and @Gunjob as well as myself have showed you quite clearly that 345 pounds is the generic public number given to avoid discussion of the real classified number. The real weight as shown in their sources and mine is less and between 326 - 335 pounds.
Beyond this, the missile in-game is adjusted to meet the real life performance data. Adjustment of the weight in the manner you’re suggesting does absolutely nothing for the game and is a waste of time.
1 Like
LOL
I didn’t see Flame2512 posting anything regard this
BTW, the 3 (allegedly) of you posted 2 “sources” in total
One is a magazine from 1985 or before, before the missile was redesigned and the weight estimate was changed in SAR FY 1986 (and the magazine itself makes fantastical claims such as IOC of 1986 when in reality the IOC date was 1991, and that it will be installed on Tornado ADV F.2 …)
The other one is a document from UK, which is from 1992, i.e.:
A- 2 years before the AIM-120B’s production actually started
B- 3 years before AIM-120B entered UK service
C- The document itself explicitly says “327 lb (Designed)” i.e. it’s either some old information based on the initial development estimate of the AMRAAM project, or Hughes was at it again with fantastical claims and was telling the Brits that the B variant will be redesigned to hit the initial development estimate unlike AIM-120A which couldn’t …
D- It talks about “other requirements” and gives a range for min launch speed …
I don’t know why you think if you talk a lot people will accept your claims …
Talk less and post actual evidence …
Of course it will change the missile’s behavior
It’s also important that the missiles get their real life parameters, as this plays into the development and adjustment of the game engine which simulates the missiles …
If it changes nothing, why do you waste your time and mine arguing about it?
BTW, if anything this might be a buff for the future AIM-120C-5
Since now they would have to adjust A/B’s drag or loft profile to be able to hit the range with a higher mass, and that would positively affect the future variants that get a better motor with no extra weight …
1 Like
Most of the sources given for British vehicles come from him, as posted by Gunjob. My mistake.
Incorrect
Also incorrect
So why the allegedly erroneous estimate?
Are you sure about that
It’s astounding how you come up with such abhorrent conclusions.
Ok, and?
I didn’t re-share the links in every single comment therefore I’m wrong for not dismissing all available articles of information as you have repeatedly? Every time you’ve gone and done this kind of biased interpretive dance your reports were closed as not a bug. Take a step back and look at the complete picture.
That is a very good question.
It is important to understand where the additional mass is coming from. Without this information it is impossible to say whether or not it is beneficial. If additional mass comes from propellant - it will certainly be an advantage. If it is electronics, it could certainly be additional dead weight. In any case - the missile is tailored for a specific middle altitude condition and it will need a bunch of minor inconsequential changes to ensure it remains the same after such a ridiculously absurd complaint / change.
Let us see the date of that magazine then
Whether it’s from 1985, before, or early 1986 it’s very clear that it is based on the fantastic initial estimate
As it claims an IOC date of 1986, when in reality the date was pushed back to 1991, because the missile had to be redesigned …
LOL
Re-share?
You post random links thinking people will get fooled somehow …
I’m still waiting for you to screenshot the Korean studies “that have good information” or “TO-34-16C”
Why did you go silent about it?!
Spoiler
Screenshot the weight or “other good information” from the Korean study that you linked or “the other good articles that are there” or “TO-34-16C”
You just keep posting random links to deceive people into thinking you have a source for your claims …
LOL
As if Gaijin is the ultimate judge of truth :)
MANPADs something something
AIM-54 maneuverability something something
…
BTW, don’t count your chickens before they hatch :)
LOL
It comes from the seeker and guidance section …
The missile was never 327 lb to begin with … That was just Hughes fantastical initial development estimate to get the contract …
They also said it will reach IOC by 1986 …
When in reality they had to redesign the seeker and guidance section because the electronic technology just wasn’t there to realize their fantastical claims …
And the IOC was pushed back to 1991 …
I never said it will be beneficial to AIM-120A/B :)
But it could be beneficial to C-5 as it will replace some of the weight of the seeker and guidance section with additional propellant
LOL
1 Like
What is fantastic about a 15-20 pound weight difference. Where did the additional weight come from then? The other document makes it clear that the redesigns already occurred prior to the IOT&E and predating the initial full scale production contract in 1988.
source (since you need it posted every single time it is referenced now, for some reason)
So how did it conduct IOT&E and subsequently enter production 15-20 pounds heavier? Can you show further changes had to be made prior to the full scale production without further IOT&E?
In fact, the source for the information is a 1987 document (that this 1991 document references);
In 1987 they had made no note of additional redesigns or changes yet to be made and suggested that the initial production run was to be 15,450 missiles starting in 1987 (as we know, it was delayed further to 1988). At this time IOT&E was to be completed - redesigns would have delayed IOT&E.
If there were changes after 1984/85 that suddenly added additional weight it would be for subsequent models of the missile and not for the initial AIM-120A. It was designed from the onset with a pre-planned product improvement program (P3I). They had already planned out the future upgrade path of the missile and it was designed modularly to accommodate these changes. The expected weight growth from the very beginning was a peak of 350 pounds. That does not mean that the AIM-120A was 345 pounds from the start of production.
What the f are you on about
Can’t you read? Or do you try to deceive people intentionally?
It doesn’t say the redesign was completed in 1984
It says they were redesigning it in and/or prior to 1984, and that’s why they were behind schedule. (The missile was supposed to IOC in 1986, which was pushed back 5 years, to 1991)
It also literally does not matter when the circuit board design was finished
What matters is when the missile’s weight estimate was updated.
This happened between SAR FY 1985 and SAR FY 1986.
Weight estimate was updated between SAR FY 1985 and SAR FY 1986
Low rate initial production deliveries started in Sep 88
Developmental IOT&E wasn’t completed until Jan 89
Production IOT&E was completed in Jun 90
No it literally wasn’t, as I’ve explained above
But I’m not sure how this even matters
Your magazine is from 1985 or before or at most early 1986, as it literally says:
“Our correspondent describes the weapon system which, beginning in 1986, will replace the AIM-7 Sparrow missile with the united states Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, …”
I’ve showed you tons of studies and official government documents
And you claim they are all wrong, because of some stupid magazine that was based on the fantastical initial development estimate …
All the official DoD documents and various studies are all “PSYOP”
But the stupid magazine that says the missile will IOC in 1986 is telling the truth about the weight …
2 Likes
Lies after lies after lies
Cropping the picture to make it seem that the information in the 1991 report is from a 1987 document.
The authors merely state that they had made a report about the reason behind the doubling of the program cost estimates in 1987:
Not that this even matters … You don’t even have an argument here … But why lie?
3 Likes
“A 1984 study commissioned by the House Armed Services Committee determined that the program HAD EXPERIENCED significant delayS due to the redesign of the terminal seeker and guidance system.”
Not
“A 1984 study commissioned by the House Armed Services Committee determined that the program WILL EXPERIENCE a significant delay due to the upcoming redesign of the terminal seeker and guidance system”.
You show that the IOT&E was completed in 1989 as proof that further changes could have been made? That’s not how this works.
Here we can see that it was certified in February 1986, this is the finalized form of the missile before LRIP begins. LRIP began with Milestone IIIA (DAB) in 1987. Technically, Full rate production did not occur until 1992 and even then no additional OT&E needed to be conducted.
You ask about the “magazine” (Weapons’ system series by Ezio Bonsignore) and that was produced in July of 1988. The quote from Hughes therefore goes to stand that the initial LRIP AMRAAM’s (AIM-120A) for IOT&E weighed in at (tactically) 326 pounds. This is as it would be mounted on the plane and ready to fire.
The 1991 report is not reporting information from the same year - it is quite literally quoting older documentation and information. What are you talking about? The source for their information goes beyond the quote. Please see above, the missile as quoted from Hughes in 1988 is 326 pounds. LRIP went ahead after certification which was after the redesign. It could not possibly have gained 15-20 pounds in this timeframe without major concerns and starting over IOT&E.
I’ve already explained this:
If the magazine is from 1988 it’s even more stupid and unreliable
As it literally says:
“Our correspondent describes the weapon system which, beginning in 1986, will replace the AIM-7 Sparrow missile with the united states Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, …”
Lies after lies after lies
It says “our correspondent”
And if the magazine is really from 1988 then its information is completely garbage, as it says the missile will IOC in 1986.
How does that even matter
Weight estimate change happened between SAR FY 1985 and SAR FY 1986
Certification happened in Feb 1986
1 Like
The redesign occurred prior to the 1984 commission. The LRIP contract was awarded after they negotiated with other manufacturers to reduce cost. The IOT&E had already begun. Changes that drastic would require further OT&E which was not necessary or conducted.
The irony about all this weight arguing is that even if it was slightly heavier it wouldnt change its in-game performance. As we have all the data to show its nearly exact performance the thrust/turn/energy figures would all be adjusted upwards.
The only possible effect would be an incredibly minor shift in weight as carried.
2 Likes
All of this literally does not matter, as what matters is when the weight estimate was updated.
But the fact that the weight estimate remained 328 until SAR FY 1986 shows that they were still working on the design.
Range is not the only parameter for a missile
It will change the missile’s behavior (though be it not a drastic change. Weight after burnout will change from 101.33 kg to 109.95 kg)
And it could also affect the future AIM-120-C5, as that missile will have the same total weight but a higher propellant fraction
(if they change AIM-120A/B’s drag or loft profile to hit the range with a higher mass it could have a positive effect on the C-5)
1 Like
The JULY 1984 SAR Report shows they put off (deferred) production of 154 missiles and discusses already well over 100 million in cost overruns. They were not using full-up rounds yet for IOT&E because of the redesigns and issues we now know about. This means that the first missiles used in IOT&E would be the aforementioned 326-328 pounds.
Source
The slight additional weight (if added to base mass that remains after motor burnout) would actually aid it in keeping energy as it dives on targets post-loft.
Seeing as they already know the full-up weight of the C-5, propellant mass, and have charts for it… they really won’t be getting any changes based on the AIM-120A being +/- 18 pounds.
I don’t even know why I’m entertaining a troll who has already openly admitted to using an alt account.
Doesn’t matter
IOT&E starts with captive carry
And even when they do live fires it does not mean the said prototype has the same performance as the final product and meets the program requirements (In terms of range and ECCM and manufacturability and cost and many many other parameters that it has to meet)
We don’t have “AMRAAM 1983 Prototype” in the game … We have AIM-120A/B …
19 pounds as currently AIM-120A/B are 326 lb in the game.
If this change happens the weight after burnout will change from 101.33 kg to 109.95 kg.
Yes not a drastic change … But an inaccuracy nonetheless …
LOL
Lost the fact based argument, switched to ad hominem …
People already hide their in-game nickname on Youtube and Twitch videos for privacy reasons.
The game doesn’t (yet) allow you to hide your in-game nickname on the forums.
So what if I don’t want people to know my in-game nickname.
How does that change the validity of my arguments which are based on (tons of) evidence?
2 Likes
Certification verifies the final product and Milestone III is requesting production go-ahead. Doesn’t change anything, we have the correct AIM-120A weight in-game. Next slide.
AFAIK it does for staff.
I didn’t say that invalidated your argument at all. I just exasperated myself arguing with a brick wall that has time and time again that they are unwilling to admit they were wrong.
Why do you keep on lying
The certification happened in 1986 and Milestone III was reached in 1987
Weight estimate was updated between SAR FY 1985 and SAR FY 1986
BTW, up until and including SAR FY 1991 the program name was “AMRAAM AIM-120A”:
In SAR FY 1992, the program name was changed to “AMRAAM AIM-120”:
So the weight in in SARs from 1986 to 1991 definitely refers to AIM-120A (It literally says AIM-120A in the headers and in program name).
In fact P3I program was initiated in FY 1990, the contract was awarded to Hughes in March 1991, and the critical design review was completed in Jan 1993:
So the idea that the demonstrated and estimated weights from SARs FY 1986 to 1991 refer to “future upgraded variants” is ridiculous …
1 Like
Well, I’m not “staff” :)
Well, demonstrate I’m wrong and I will admit it.
As I have done so in the past (for example, regarding Sedjeel & Fakour’s explosive mass).
I’m showing you all these official DoD documents as well as studies etc
But you are saying they are all wrong based on some stupid magazine from (allegedly) 1988 that says the missile will reach IOC in 1986 …
1 Like
That’s what I said, and since the re-design occurred in 1984 or earlier (the reason the missile procurement was deferred for those 154 rounds)… the official weight of the AIM-120A is ~326-328 pounds.
If there were changes after lot numbers 1-4 those would likely be what is being discussed as part of the P3I.
Typos are corrected over time, generally.
Seeing as the missile was intended to be upgraded over time from the very start - this comment of yours is ridiculous.