You failed to read, I stated “were”. Please don’t get sassy if it’s just going to result in further irony.
That is the point of the article. Such things were wishy washy and they needed to standardize methods of containing that information properly. Did you read the entire document?
What matters is that the missile weights are usually unclassified.
So your theory that all the DoD official documents and studies that state the missile’s weight are “PSYOP” is wrong (if not laughable).
That isn’t the case.
You continue to push that I said all the studies are psyop, I only stated that certain F-18 manuals were intentionally released with false information as a psyop.
Here is another spanner to be thrown in, AMRAAM is tuned to British data provided by the US and Hughes from the same documents that give the 327lb figure. So unless you’ve got more LSZ charts it’s not changing. As it’s tuned to that specific ~1992 version. Otherwise we’d be mixing different build standards with the wrong charts.
5 Likes
There are a few possibilities:
1- The charts are also calculated based on the initial development estimate and are unrealistic.
2- The charts are calculated based on updated information, but only that particular page with the weight which is mostly talking about AMRAAM project requirements and also says “327 lbs (designed)” is using information from another older document based on the initial development estimate.
3- The British AIM-120Bs are just built differently (see below).
@MiG_23M Seems like there was more (recent) changes than just seeker and guidance system.
In AMRAAM program’s SAR FY 1987 the “current estimate” was 335 lb with no “demonstrated performance”:
AMRAAM SAR FY 1988 was the first report to specify a “demonstrated performance” weight.
In AMRAAM SAR FY 1988 and SAR FY 1989 the “current estimate” was 335 lb with a “demonstrated performance” of 342 lb:
However, there was another change in current weight estimate in AMRAAM SAR FY 1990.
The whole “Performance Characteristics” section was redacted in SAR FY 1990 so we can’t see the weight estimates, but the reason for the change of weight estimates is not redacted, stating: “Missile weight increased due to a change in materials”:
Note that it’s erroneously included in the “Previous change explanations” section, even though the change was first made in AMRAAM SAR FY 1990 (this explanation nor any weight changes were present in the SAR FY 1989), so it should’ve been in the “Current Change Explanations” section.
The next year, in AMRAAM SAR FY 1991, the government employee doesn’t go overboard and doesn’t classify the whole “Performance Characteristics” section and leaves out the weight estimates. Here, compared to SAR FY 1988 & 1989, the “current estimate” for weight has changed from 335 to 345 lb, and the “demonstrated performance” has changed from 342 to 344 lb:
In AMRAAM SAR FY 1992 & 1993, again the nice lady working in the DoD redacts the whole “Performance Characteristics” section, so we can’t see the weight estimates (but we know there is no weight reduction, as the explanation for weight increase due to change in materials is still there, and there is no other weight change explanations to suggest a reduction):
But F-16 SAR FY 1993, which is also the first F-16 SAR to list a demonstrated performance for F-16C AMRAAM weight, lists “demonstrated performance” at 345 lb:
This would explain why the British manuals list AIM-120B at a lower weight compared to the weight listed for AIM-120A/B in the US aircraft manuals.
I.e. difference in the materials used, most likely to save cost. (US needed a lot more missiles than the British, and the program already had massive cost overruns)
This also explains the weight difference between the weight of AIM-120B in the F-16C manuals for the Hellenic Air Force (341 lb) and USN manuals (348 lb). Different materials.
2 Likes
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.