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
BTW it’s not just “SARs” or F/A-18 NATOPS performance data supplement:
4- ADA357045 Distributed Simulation Testing for Weapons System Performance of the FA-18 and AIM-120 AMRAAM 1998 LCDR Tom Watson Naval Weapons Test Squadron, Page 3:
ADA357045 Distributed Simulation Testing for Weapons System Performance of the FA-18 and AIM-120 AMRAAM 1998 LCDR Tom Watson Naval Weapons Test Squadron, Page 3 - Album on Imgur
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA355385.pdfIt specifies 345 lb nominal weight for AIM-120A. Note that this is a report about simulation testing of the weapon’s performance dated 1998. I don’t think you can get a higher quality source than this …
5- Solid Propulsion Enabling Technologies and Milestones for Navy Air-launched Tactical Missiles Thomas Moore 2011 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, page 13:
Solid Propulsion Enabling Technologies and Milestones for Navy Air-launched Tactical Missiles Thomas Moore and Thomas Moore 2011 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics page 13 - Album on Imgur
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2011-69416- Critical examination of a complex and critical major acquisition for the Department of Defense the advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) MIT 1994 Robbins, James F, page 16:
Critical examination of a complex and critical major acquisition for the Department of Defense the advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) MIT 1994 Robbins, James F, page 16 - Album on Imgur
Critical examination of a complex and critical major acquisition for the Department of Defense : the advanced medium range air-to-air missle (AMRAAM)7- Encyclopedia of Modern U.S. Military Weapons 1995 COLONEL TIMOTHY M. LAUR AND STEVEN L. LLANSO Edited by Walter J. Boyne, Page 238:
Encyclopedia of Modern U.S. Military Weapons 1995 COLONEL TIMOTHY M. LAUR AND STEVEN L. LLANSO Edited by Walter J. Boyne, Page 238 - Album on Imgur
http://danida.vnu.edu.vn/cpis/files/Encyclo_All/Encyclopedia%20of%20Modern%20US%20Military%20Weapons.pdf
If your magazine counts as “Hughes said” then the 345 lb value specified in this book (which is from 1995) is also what “Hughes said”
Why do you ignore what “Hughes is saying”?
1 Like
BTW, I just noticed.
This (and not necessarily the cost) might be the reason behind the change in the materials (which resulted in the weight getting changed from 335 lb to 345 lb in the SARs FY 1990:
This is getting more interesting (and clear) the more I dig into this
1 Like
It doesn’t mention any specific variant but we can confirm it’s the A or B variant since the drawing has sharp front fins and not clipped ones like the C variant.
Likely just an '06 document that leaked real values instead of the permissible “false” ones.
The picture you’re painting in your head doesn’t quite align with reality.
How have you guys been arguing for this long over ~30lbs in weight?
Or maybe it’s PSYOP :)
How so?
The missile has structural issues due to vibrations and g-loads on the F-15
The delivery gets refused and stopped by the USAF in Feb 1990
SAR FY 1990 records a weight change with explanation: “Missile weight increased due to a change in materials”
The May 1990 report I posted above also reports the weight of AMRAAM at 345 lb:
Literally on NAVAIR’s website:
https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/AMRAAM
Specifications
Primary Function: Air-to-air missile
Contractor: Raytheon Missiles & Defense
Propulsion: Solid-fuel rocket motor
Length: 12 feet
Diameter: 7 inches
Wingspan: AIM-120A/B, 21 inches; AIM-120C/D, 19 inches
Weight: AIM-120A/B/C/C-4/ 348 pounds; AIM-120C5/6/7, 356 pounds; AIM-120D, 358 pounds
Speed: Classified
Range: Classified
Guidance System: Active radar
Warhead: Blast fragmentation
@MiG_23M Why doesn’t it list the weight as classified?
1 Like
5-15 lbs
That is possible, yes
That is a valid explanation for a weight increase but I don’t think it has anything to do with the missile body and instead the well known change to the pylons.
Some basic values are given false or generic weights - in this case it is highly unlikely the weights are 356+ pounds seeing as there was a threshold of 350 for stores purposes and the 2015+ SAR reports make no mention of this threshold being increased. Demonstrated performance remains at 344 pounds, allegedly. Or (as I said before) They are reusing false numbers.
It’s quite possible that USN AMRAAMs are a bit different due to the requirements of the carrier operations.
Keep in mind that the USAF was the manager of the AMRAAM project while USN was a participant. So would make sense if their estimates didn’t reflect USN’s modifications specifically.
19 lb
Currently it’s 326 lb
It should be 345 lb
Yet they’re supplied from the same lot #'s as the AF. Lot 38 for example is going to several countries operating unique aircraft. Japan, Ukraine, multiple NATO member states operating either F-15, F-16, F-18, or even F-35.
Similarly, lot’s 1-4 are equipping both AF and NAVY planes. Any differences would be uniform between all missiles of each given lot # and they weren’t ordered for specific branch specifications.
Can someone tell me why the Su-27 or Typhoon or Rafale, when hit head-on with 120, don’t fall apart? And even the 9M now has a high destruction rate? Why do Rafale and Typhoon just stupidly ignore this missile? A month ago, a 120 missile fired head-on from five kilometers away was a guaranteed exit to the hangar, now it’s some kind of sluggish missile.
is there anyone alive on the English-language forum?
not in the topics “oh what a cool patch! oh what great gaijins!”
It’s not exclusively a Typhoon or Rafale issue.
Getting some hits with the 120s and Aim9m
1 Like
“AIM120 USE BIG BRIAN ING AND DL TO RETRACT me”