Clearly, you won’t.
Can you read?
1 Like
That’s my only direct input:
Can you please screenshot the source and its cover? You can PM me if you don’t want to share it here.
It’s possible that the British had modified their AMRAAMs … AFAIK they did so with the Sidewinders …
And even on the US side, the weight varies between AF and Navy manuals
F-16C manual lists 341 lb while F/A-18C and F/A-18E manuals list 348 lb.
It’s possible that the Navy AMRAAMs are slightly different due to the requirements of carrier operations.
But either way, at least for the US, 345 which is mentioned by many official DoD documents and many scientific studies is nicely right in between the F-16C manual’s 341 lb and F/A-18C and F/A-18E manuals’ 348 lb.
Weights differ by year of the manual as well in some cases - none of these manuals date to 1991 or earlier afaik. The AMRAAM (AIM-120A) weight in some manuals is actually 326-328 pounds as shown to you already. I ask again - where did the weight come from?
The redesign was complete prior to the 1985 SAR & yet the weights given are not removed from the document. This is because the actual weight isn’t listed and there is no need to redact incorrect information.
I’m still waiting for you to show that manual
You mean in the magazine that claims an IOC of 1986?
Obviously from the initial development estimate from the beginning of the program in 1978 … As that’s where the 1986 IOC claim comes from …
In 1985 the IOC date was changed to 1989, and then later further pushed back to 1991:
So obviously the information in that magazine is from before 1985 and reflects the fantastic initial development estimate that Hughes had cooked up to get the contract.
Why would they ever remove the weight?
The original development estimate weight of 327 lb is still there in the AMRAAM SAR 2018.
What matters is the “current estimate” which was updated in SAR FY 1986.
LOL
The actual weight is listed, and it’s called “current estimate”.
If you look at the AMRAAM’s weight in the F-16 program’s SAR, “Current estimate” is the measured weight of the missile on the ground.
“Demonstrated performance” is the weight of the missile that was also flight tested on the aircraft.
1 Like
Was already posted. Keep up now.
Not a magazine, also yes.
Initial development estimate was 300 pounds with a maximum threshold of 350
Wrong
They’d remove it if it was classified - as the weight of the AMRAAM is STILL classified. Yet it wasn’t redacted because the actual weight isn’t listed.
That’s totally irrelevant.
So not tactical weight?
Where does it say this?
1993
Spoiler
1998
2006
1998
Spoiler
after 1996
These are all 100% deep state ONI-USAFISR[NSA(CIA))/FBI]CIS(MIAMI division)HATO{MoDMi6)}DGSE backed deception psyops indoctrination propaganda misinformation figures because compartmentalization within government and international organizations absolutely does NOT exist and surely not any other kind of errors or slight differences you are not aware of.
5 Likes
They’re wrong, that’s obvious
Well let me add one to the mix:
2003:
Spoiler
In my experience generally the Navy listings are heavier than the AF ones.
1 Like
You still never answered;
Where does the additional weight come from?
AR 380-5 Appendix G Security Classification Guide Preparation:
AR 380-5 Section 3-Performance and Capabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Classification Declassification or review
Remarks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
31. Missile
a. Altitude
(1) Maximum C DECL 10 Jun 92
(2) Minimum U
b. Range
(1) Maximum S OADR
""In excess of
10 km'' is
UNCLASSIFIED.
(2) Minimum U
c. Velocity C OADR
See Note 9.
d. Acceleration C OADR
See Note 9.
e. Maneuverability S DECL 10 Jun 92
Downgrade to
CONFIDENTIAL
upon IOC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
AR 380-5 Section 4-Specifications
(As suggested in DOD 5200.1-H, this section should address the
characteristics of the system and how it operates-not its
capabilities or level of performance, which should be covered in
Section 3. For example, for our imaginary XXXXX Missile System,
ranges, velocities, and acceleration are discussed in Section 3.
Details of rocket motor functioning, though, are included in this
section.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Classification Declassification or review
Remarks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
40. Rocket motor
a. Size, weight, details of U
construction
b. Fuel
(1) Components of Mixture U
(2) Proportion of Components C DECL 3 May 93
in Mixture
c. Burn rate C DECL 3 May 93
d. Thrust Achieved C DECL 3 May 93
Thrust, stated
alone, is UN-
CLASSIFIED un-
less it is the
maximum achieved
in flight.
Thrust in terms
of time from ig-
nition or launch
is CONFIDENTIAL.
e. Fuel capacity, fuel load U
weight, and volume
(Physical characteristics such as size, weight, power output,
transportability, etc., should also be discussed here.)
1 Like
…
1 Like
The extra weight wont change anything as the drag and thrust variables would be changed to continue matching the known engagement distances and time to targets.
I never said there will be a drastic change.
But it will change the missile’s “behavior” … This could even be a buff …
1 Like
You still didn’t explain anything and used an old version of outsider’s view that is still highly redacted. Speak plainly. What are you trying to say?
All you did was repost a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant to the question.
You don’t know what it would affect?
Missile weights are usually not classified
Because you have to let a lot of people throughout your logistics chain and ground crew know about it anyways … Also not very useful information for the enemy without knowing the motor thrust.
1 Like
They were in the case of the AIM-54, and it is one of the parameters specified in the Outsider’s view document. That still does not answer any of my questions whatsoever or justify your absurd claims.
The ground crews generally carry a secret clearance, I do not see why the weight would need to be declassified for that. Even people loading and unloading cargo aircraft generally carry a secret clearance or are required to follow military law in regards to operational security measures and cannot release or discuss classified information.
