Talk:AIM-120 AMRAAM/Archive 1

Flags in Infobox
The use of flag icons is not recommended by both WP:AIR and WP:MILHIST. In addition, the Infobox is not intended as a detailed list, merely an overview. Therefore, I propose ammending the "Launch platform" field to only list the aircraft, not the individial users. This information would then be moved to the operators list in the text, which currently only lists the countries. - BillCJ 16:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. - Aerobird 18:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fox Three
Text states: brevity code Fox Three in radio communication. Is this correct? Even if it is, we need a verifiable source. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Fox 3 call was originated with Phoenix and has been in use for 3 decades or more. AMRAAM has better range than Sparrow and terminal active capability like Phoenix so it qualified to also use the "Fox 3" radio call. Haven't seen it written down though, but I'll keep my eyes open for it. Cheers, HJ HJ 06:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I know I had read that the Phoenix was given "Fox 3", that's why I wanted confirmation on it now being used by the Amraam. Your word is good enough for me, but we still have to have weitten source. I'll check around and see if I can find anything also. - BillCJ 07:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fox Three signifies an ARH guidance system, so Phoenix, and now AMRAAM both can use the reference. 141.213.198.251 08:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys but I pulled this off: When an AMRAAM missile is being launched, NATO pilots use the brevity code Fox Three in radio communication. My understanding was that 'Fox Three' was for guns. Suggest that until a citation can be given, may be better to leave it off entirely. BlakJakNZ 11:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You can hear them using "Fox Three" when firing the AIM-120 in this sound clip by the way: http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/splash.mp3 A MiG-29 was destroyed in this sound clip. From here: http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/dirk.html Zeroyon 05:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have attached the following screen shot of a PDF file of the AFTTP 3-1 Volume 1 Attachment 1 - The Air Force Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, 3-1 Volume 1 - Tactical Employment, General Planning and Employment Considerations. While the main manual is classified, the Attachment 1 is unclassified, as you can see in the graphic. Dougsnow 20:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslavia, Iraq etc. etc.
Not compares in AMRAAM page.. Combat results are far less than the 95% claimed --Stefanomencarelli 15:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Range?
searching thru the article, i could not find the actual range of the missile, which is a VERY IMPORTANT info of a missile (missile range, missile dimensions and weight, warhead weight, effective range...) 80.31.103.68 21:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's the main Infobox at the top-right, "General characteristics" section, right after "Speed", and before "Warhead". - BillCJ 23:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Maddog" launches?
I have heard that the brevity code "maddog" is used when an AIM-120 is launched without a lock, in the hopes that it's active seeker will pick up an enemy in front without recieving any guidance from the launching aircraft at all. It's featured in the game Falcon 4.0: Allied Force and I have heard it mentioned elsewhere. If someone could look into this, it might make a nice addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.225.161 (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No Chilean missiles
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1152 Q: Mr. Minister, realizing the negotiations are continuing is Chile willing to accept the F-16s without AMRAAMs?

Fernandez: Yes, and Chile actually never requested AMRAAM missile capability on the F-16s. The position that has been negotiated between the administration and Congress is perfectly acceptable to the government of Chile, and this is also in line with the policy of the United States with regard to the transfer of technologies to Latin America or any other part of the world, for that matter.

Hcobb (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Questioning Range?
There is no section qualifying what range means eg. what profile this is in. Also, it is poorly sourced with a 105km claim for the C-5 and a source for the A/B models stating the AMRAAM (not a particular model) has a 48km range. That is the ONLY actual range I have ever seen in a source for the AMRAAM with a "50% increase" claimed for the AMRAAM-D. I think there needs to be a section explaining this and there certainly needs to be better sourcing!--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite and rephrasing
The "Kill probability and tactics" section does not cite any sources. It is also not written in an encyclopedic manner. This is especially true for the "similarly armed targets" subsection. I recommend that the section be removed if no citations are available or rephrased if citations are available.

I made several changes to the Operational History section: 1) I changed "...the AIM-120 AMRAAM has shot down nine enemy aircraft" to "the AIM-120 AMRAAM has shot down nine aircraft" because "enemy" is a very relative term.

2) Saying that Iraqi aircraft "violated" the no-fly-zone is an opinion and it is used (wrongly) as a justification of the hostile actions.. The Iraqis, and indeed most of the world, did not view the US/UK imposed no-fly-zone as legitimate and therefore would not consider Iraqi aircraft flying in Northern or Southern Iraq to be a "Violation". It could be argued however that the US and UK were violating sovereign Iraqi airspace. Therefore I have replaced the opinionated statements (e.g. violating southern no-fly-zone) with statements of fact (e.g. Iraqi aircraft flying in southern Iraq).
 * a)I replaced "Iraqi aircraft violating the No-Fly-Zone" to "Iraqi aircraft flying in Iraq"
 * b)I replaced "the Southern No-Fly Zone" with "Southern Iraqi airspace" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbolen (talk • contribs) 07:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC) XXVII (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Was the No-fly zone not agreed to by the Iraqi government at the end of the First Gulf War as part of the Cease fire/Armistice? If so, it's not opinion to refer to the No-fly Zone. That's like saying it's only an opinion that the allies could occupy Germany after WW2! Please gain a consesnus befor reverting my revert of your changes, per WP:BRD. - BilCat (talk)

Citation needed for comparison
Although in this regard the RVV-AE (which is the missile's export name or R-77 the official Russian Air force designation) does have an advantage as it has a greater range than the AMRAAM (when the AIM-120D is deployed the AMRAAM will have 30+ miles more range than the standard R-77).

One, I am wondering where the source of the bolded statement comes from, as the information in the article itself only states that the AIM-120D has 50% more range than the already upgraded range of the AIM-120C.

Two, I am wondering why the person(s) who wrote that section, compared a Basic R-77 to an upgraded variant of the AIM-120. I am also wondering why the person(s) who wrote that section didn't also compare the upgraded variants of the R-77, which could be classified in the Long-Range missile category in their own rite.

And finally, I am also wondering why the person(s) who wrote that section didn't mention the maneuverability of the R-77, which, by the facts known, is superior in that regards to the AIM-120.

If we are to have a comparison between different military equipment, lets not leave things out, shall we? Victory in Germany (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why two pics of a HMMWV?
I suggest dropping one of the the two HMMWV pics and keeping the remaining one in the surface to air section, especially as the program has been canceled. Hcobb (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

JDRADM no longer a red link
JDRADM is no longer a red link. Hop over and complain or if you really must, improve. Hcobb (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

AIM-120D
AIM-120D is not in servise, it is just a planned upgrade, then why is it mentioned as a variant, With range pointed out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.46.37 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Especially since it's about to die? http://www.forexyard.com/en/news/to-detail-Pentagon-savings-cuts-sources-2011-01-04T012000Z-US


 * Other reports finger SLAMRAAM as the victim. We'll see on Thursday. Hcobb (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Cancellation attempt
This article describes how the AMRAAM was proposed for cancellation and allegedly is unwanted by the military. --Kvng (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Range figures again.
Somebody has been adjusting the range figures again. This time to very low numbers. The AIM-120C7 does not have a range of just 48km. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.244.73 (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have no missiles
I put the breakdown of the production line under Operational History, for lack of a better place to put it. I can't recall another case where a modern missile production line just fails like this. Hcobb (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A) What you can think of is not terribly relevant.
 * B) What production line failure are you talking about? Your recent addition does not suggest a production line failure. They are behind schedule on deliveries, but that is not uncommon in the defense contractor world.
 * C) Despite your title, we do indeed have missiles. We have 359 out of the 552 scheduled for delivery as stated in your own source, and we have the missiles already within the stockpiles.
 * So, what exactly are you on about this time? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Maddog
I moddified the section about short range shot. The code is not Maddog but Fox 3 close. Also i created a new section about boresight mode (the real maddog shot), when the missile is fired without lock.

235.Corsair (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Excessive jargon and vagueness
"While still under evaluation for replacement of current U.S. Army assets...." All writers in the Wikipdia need to get rid of jargon words, and vague words, like "assets", "platform", and so forth. The whole reason that chrome-domes for the military and the navy created those was to be vague AND not to have to expend the normal mental energy to say and write speciifics like "missile", "weapons system", "air-to-air missile", ""surface-to-air missile", "fighter plane", "bomber", defense system, and heaven forbid "atomic bomb]", or "[[hydrogen bomb". Oh, that "asset" was made to kill a lot of people! Write specifically, use real English instead of jargon, and face up to the fact what these things really ARE. 98.81.4.52 (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Shoot like an Egyptian
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Egypt-to-Spend-32B-in-Updating-F-16CD-Fleet-05860/

No AMRAAMs for Egypt, as they ain't Gulf Arabs. Hcobb (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Drop the attitude, your article makes no such claim. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Instead of relying on the modern, active-homing AIM-120 AMRAAM as their medium range air to air missile, Egypt’s F-16s depend on the older AIM-7P Sparrow." Seems clear enough to me. Hcobb (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't your claim. Your claim was that they aren't getting AMRAAMs because they are not "Gulf Arabs." Your discussion title is also quite inappropriate, if not outright bigoted. Drop. The. Attitude. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My bad. The pattern is that it is Egypt that is singled out amongst American Arab allies to not get the AMRAAM.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories417.htm


 * The three countries, in the order they signed their LOAs, are Kuwait, Morocco and Jordan, according to a statement issued Nov 15 at the Dubai Air Show.


 * And neither Morocco nor Jordan border on the Persian Gulf. Hcobb (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The name of that body of water is the Persian Gulf, and it has been for centuries. Referring to it as "Iran's Gulf" just shows ignorance. Some might wish to call it the "Arabian Gulf", but that is another issue, and it is a neologism, too. 98.81.4.52 (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Production
Someone has mentioned "Raytheon" only, but didn't you know that the whole idea of the D.O.D. was to have the AMRAAM made by multiple sources? They compete in price, too. E.G. the Hughes Aircraft missile group, Raytheon, Ford Aerospace, maybe Boeing. Look it up and cover a vital fact about the production of the AMRAAM. This isn't really a new idea, either, since the Sidewinder has been produced by Philco/Ford Aerospace, Raytheon, Hughes, some European countries, Japan, etc. Do something useful instead of whining about things. 98.81.4.52 (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Lot of empty boasting
> Once in its terminal mode, the missile's advanced electronic counter countermeasures (ECCM) support and good maneuverability mean that the chance of it hitting or exploding close to the target is high (on the order of 90%) <

This is probably bogus. The size of AIM-120's radar dish is that of an ashtray. The size of its radar chip package is the size of a food tin can. Modern fighters have built-in jammers, plus they can carry underwing ECM pods, which add up to half-ton of equally advanced electronics. The airplane's jammer defence will win, simply because it has an incomparably larger number of transistors and EM emitters onboard to fool the Amraam.

AIM-120's reputation is based on kills against 1960's era former yugoslav Galeb light jets, which had no electronics whatsoever and old soviet / french jetfighters ran by incompetent arabs in Iraq. It is very unlikely the AMRAAM could hit a 4 or 4.5 gen fighter, if it is properly loaded with extra ECM pods.

Also, latest Sukhoi variants will reportedly feature a very rapid Gatling rotary cannon instead of a single barreled one and they will have a last ditch "kamikaze" defence mode, where the incoming amraam is aimed at by intercepting its radar signal, then the plane automatically turns head-on and evaporates the missile by autocannon fire (the method is based on the Kashtan close-in defence system for naval ships). 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention that home-on-jamming is useless, because all modern fighters use towed jammers, which hang on a very long rope, so the explosion will not hurt the aircraft, even if the AMRAAM hits the jammer directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

O.K, you are doing a lot of empty boasting about Russian aircraft then. I mean seriously, CIWS autocannon? Are you crazy? Second, Russian aircraft don't have towed decoys, which means that the HOJ mode does work. And yes, the radar is small, but there are other ways of defeating jamming than by just raw power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.56.131 (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, and everything you say is golden. RaptorR3d (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kill probability and tactics
The document listed as a reference has no official seal, indicating that it isn't the official document it seems to claim to be. All that's known is that 10 kills have been made with 17 missiles. Furthermore, some of that paragraph is simply impossible for anyone to know. Whether the enemy's RWR was working, or whether they turned is only known by the enemy pilot, who is now dead. It's widely made out that none of the Iraqi pilots used evasive manoeuvres but first hand witness testimony from USAF pilots in the History Channel's 'Dogfights' series says they did in 1991. See from 59:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP3DzDb47KA This footage of the first AIM-120 kill also shows the vector of the enemy aircraft change rapidly post launch at 2:30.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKZjWT-i_Hk  The Iraqis had spent 10 years fighting an air war before the 1990s, so conjecture that they didn't have a clue is just that. BVR vs WVR is also damn difficult to ascertain since visual range varies depending on a variety of factors, so I don't really think we can accurately claim that only 6 kills were BVR and we should just stick to known facts about missiles fired and kills made and it's frankly almost arbitrary whether a larger fighter is just visable when engaged, or whether a smaller fighter is closer but not visible. Is it visible at launch or post-kill that counts? It's a rabbit hole, so I move to just keep it simple. or just get rid of that section altogether, it's very small and has all the hallmarks of someone trolling to try prove that BVR air combat is ineffective.Z07x10 (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What do Iraqi tactics in 1991 pertain to? AMRAAMs weren't used against Iraq in 1991. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No but the video shows that Iraqi pilots of the 1990s era likely did have functional RWR and did perform evasive manoeuvres, as does the video of the first AIM-120 kill. You can see the indicated target vector changing both during radar lock and post launch in the above video.  This source also puts the Pk to rest.  10 kills with 17 missiles is what it states, despite taking a very skeptical view of the missile overall.http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-070109-1.html  The source claiming to be official with no seal also lists a J-21 Jastreb as one of the targets, which is a Saab.  The actual target was a G-2 Galeb.http://ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.htmlZ07x10 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is purely WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. In no way is an analysis of a youtube video acceptable in an article.  I have removed it pending further discussion.  Rwessel (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This section needs to stick to the facts *and* proper references. I think that's where I've left it, although I'd like to see "only 6 BVR" re-added.  Again, the presence or lack of a seal is *not* an indication of a source's reliability, the two sources (one currently removed, should probably be re-added) mentioning six BVR kills appear reasonable.  Rwessel (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already mentioned why determination of BVR or WVR is difficult. The visual range depends on the size of the aircraft and the conditions.  A larger fighter, like a MiG-25, in good weather could be seen from further away than a MiG-29, add bad weather to the latter and it could get a lot closer without being seen visually.  Then are we talking about whether the target was visible at launch or at impact?  If the latter, are we talking about the visibility of the explosion, or the aircraft just before the explosion?  Do vapour trails count as seeing the aircraft?  It's just too complicated for anyone to assess.  The only thing for sure is that 17 missiles were fired and 10 hit home, so we should leave it at that.  This isn't supposed to be a study of BVR combat lethality, it's an article on the AIM-120.Z07x10 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Effective against Mig-25?
The article states that missile proved to be effective against Mig-25. First of all, each Mig-25 faced multiple opponents armed with a variety of missiles. Judging the capability of a missile in such a biased environment is not really a good method of evaluation. Also, accident has been reported when two Mig-25s approached two F-15s, engaged (with old missiles), which missed, and then it turned around and started running, while F-15s engaged with their missiles (which well might have been the ones this article is about), then two more F-15s engaged Migs, all in all, 10 missiles were fired, but none hit Migs. Even if you wish to discard this incident, for which I can later find sources, evaluating a missile when your forces have 10:1 advantage over the enemy is not really an evaluation. --9K58 (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Only 17 AIM-120s have been fired in combat in total and 10 resulted in kills, so 10 AIM-120s have never missed any MiG-25 in any incident ever.http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-070109-1.html Z07x10 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 one external links on AIM-120 AMRAAM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120119111003/http://www.dtic.mil/dticasd/sbir/sbir041/srch/af276.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/dticasd/sbir/sbir041/srch/af276.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120209014757/http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/lbrevity.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/lbrevity.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130328015036/http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=149999&TICK=RTN&STORY=/www/story/08-05-2008/0004861926&EDATE=Aug+5,+2008 to http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=149999&TICK=RTN&STORY=/www/story/08-05-2008/0004861926&EDATE=Aug+5,+2008
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120307150630/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/DSCA091108.xml&headline=DSCA%20Announces%20Billions%20In%20Military%20Sales to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/DSCA091108.xml&headline=DSCA%20Announces%20Billions%20In%20Military%20Sales
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150113101907/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2009/MFC_032509_LockheedMartinsHIMARSLauncher.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2009/MFC_032509_LockheedMartinsHIMARSLauncher.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140202092357/http://www.deagel.com/equipment/Air-to-Air-Missiles-AIM-120-AMRAAM-a001164.aspx to http://www.deagel.com/equipment/Air-to-Air-Missiles-AIM-120-AMRAAM-a001164.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150705134733/http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=149999&TICK=RTN&STORY=/www/story/01-15-2007/0004505958&EDATE=Jan+15,+2007 to http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=149999&TICK=RTN&STORY=/www/story/01-15-2007/0004505958&EDATE=Jan+15,+2007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on AIM-120 AMRAAM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/655STChge?url=http://www.rusarm.com/arhiv/n2_2008/zarubezhnye_rakety_vozduh-vozduh/ to http://www.rusarm.com/arhiv/n2_2008/zarubezhnye_rakety_vozduh-vozduh/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=149999&TICK=RTN&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F01-15-2007%2F0004505958&EDATE=Jan+15%2C+2007
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/655SgpI4u?url=http://www.radio.cz/en/section/news/news-2005-04-06 to http://www.radio.cz/en/news/65161

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2019
These missiles were used by the Pakistan Air Force in a dog fight with the Indian Air Force Mig 21s. In the battle, the Mig 21 Bison shot down the F16. The Mig 21 was also shot down and its pilot was taken into Pakistani custody. 161.253.125.32 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Please take note that WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, our article pages must be both 100% factual and accurate, we don't aim to be fast in bringing any breaking news to the world because that's not our job. That is the job of news agencies out there and we can wait for the actual news agencies to ascertain and establish the facts first before deciding to publish the factual truth. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * On 27 th february,2019, PAF shot down 02 fighters http://dailymailnews.com/2019/02/27/paf-shoots-down-2-indian-aircraft-inside-pakistani-airspace-two-pilots-arrested/ . 01 by JF-17 and other with F-16. india claimed that they shot down an F-16 but negated by PAF and official statements as no proof was provied excepted one piece of AAMRAAM 120C with sr no of some third country. https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/no-proof-india-shot-down-pakistan-f-16/

Ahmadbinnadeem (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019
There’s no compelling evidence offered as of yet that an F-16 would have been shot down, and all signs point to MiG-21 wreckage having been on display thus far. Blacksaber99 (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019
please change X to Y "The same MiG-21 shot down an F-16 per the IAF using a R-73E missile" to "There’s no compelling evidence offered as of yet that an F-16 would have been shot down, and all signs point to MiG-21 wreckage having been on display thus far." Blacksaber99 (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The original text "The same MiG-21 shot down an F-16 per the IAF using a R-73E missile" does not appear in the article at present. NiciVampireHeart 00:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019
"On February 27, 2019, a Pakistan Air Force F-16 shot down an Indian Air Force MiG-21 with an AIM-1205C AMRAAM" is a highly disputed story with PAF denying use of F16 or AMRAAMs for the kill. I would request that the line under mention be deleted. Pgp20002 (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As a potentially controversial request, this cannot be completed as an edit request per unless a clear consensus already exists. Please seek consensus prior to using the  template. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The retirement of the F-14 Tomcat
No, the Navy did not decide on an arbitrary whim to eliminate the F-14, as had been implied here. The F-14 had become old and worn out, especially with years of operation from aircraft carriers (wear-and-tear) and operation in lots of salty air. Also, the threat had changed radically sibce the Soviet Union had collapsed, and along with that, most of its Air Force and the Soviet Navy. The Warsaw Pact also collapsed, so there was no threat of attacks from its air forces onto our aircraft carriers. No more East German Air Force, for example. Please pay attention to the real facts about the F-14. It was just its time to go to the boneyard, along with its Phoenix missiles, along with the A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, B-52G, old-model C-130 Hercules, C-141 Starlifter, old-model P-3 Orion, SR-71, and now, the KC-135 Stratotanker and old units of the C-5A Galaxy. 98.81.4.52 (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And you have refs for all of this? Hcobb (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just read the article on the F-14, dummy. 98.81.4.52 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * See Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet article

Grumman F-14 Tomcat was the Navy's primary air superiority fighter and fleet defense interceptor. Then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney described the F-14 as 1960s technology, and drastically cut back F-14D procurement in 1989 before cancelling production altogether in 1991, in favor of the updated F/A-18E/F. The Navy retained the F/A-18 designation to help sell the program to Congress as a low-risk "derivative", though the Super Hornet is largely a new aircraft. The Hornet and Super Hornet share many characteristics, including avionics, ejection seats, radar, armament, mission computer software, and maintenance/operating procedures. The initial F/A-18E/F retained most of the avionics systems from the F/A-18C/D's configuration at the time I have direct copied 2 segment - that had references Wfoj3 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Top speed
Missile's speed (Mach 4) does not require (citation needed), it is well cited Taiko 911 (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ - BilCat (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Main image
The main image should be a clearer image showing the entire missile in profile. It's very difficult to tell exactly what it looks like from that foreshortened angle in the present photo. In fact, down through the article, most of the images either don't show the entire missile, or show it too indistinctly to see it clearly. The first good, full image of the missile is way down the page and is of poor definition. Surely there are thousands of available images of this missile to choose from? - 64.222.115.36 (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, that's a very good point. I've accordingly gone ahead and changed it to a better shot of a displayed missile. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

form-and-fit factor?
In the intro, what's a "form-and-fit factor"? I googled it, and couldn't find anything useful. At least nothing that can be measured in inches/millimeters. Can someone clarify what it means? I think most laymen wouldn't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kot8 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's basically like the Loading gauge, i.e. the overall external dimensions. A missile with the same form and fit factor as the AIM-7 can be carried in the same semi-recessed launchers on the F-4 or F-14 or F-15. It can be somewhat smaller, but it cannot be larger. Many IR missiles have the same form factor as the AIM-9, so they can easily be carried on wingtip launchers meant for the AIM-9, or at least modification is straightforward. I believe it also has to do with logistics, such as the machines that they use to load and transport the missiles, or cell or pod launchers. 64.223.218.84 (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Couple of points
In the text there is a sentence that says "The AIM-120A is no longer in production and shares the enlarged wings and fins with the successor AIM-120B." Is this correct? Isn't the truth that the AIM-120C has REDUCED size wings, and the AIM-120A has the original wings? It that case they are not "enlarged", merely larger. Enlarged means to make something larger than it was, and I don't see how the wings of the A version, which was first, could be "enlarged" from anything, unless maybe the prototype. Second, "The lighter weight of the advanced AMRAAM enables an F/A-18E/F pilot greater bring-back weight upon carrier landings." I don't see how this works. THe bring-back weight is a fixed number for a given plane and atmospheric conditions. It includes the weight of all remaining fuel and ordnance. You cannot magically increase this number by carrying a different sort of missile. However, carrying a lighter missile means that you can land with more fuel or other ordnance than you could otherwise. The total bring-back weight stays the same, but the missile uses less of it up, so you don't need to jettison as much fuel, or unexpended bombs, as long as the total weight is within safe limits for the airframe. This is sort of like saying "using lighter body components increases the Gross Weight Rating of a vehicle". No, the Gross Weight remains the same, but any weight you save through reducing the weight of the vehicle itself can be replaced with n increased cargo load, while staying within the same Gross Weight. It would increase the net weight, not the gross weight. And bring back weight is a gross measurement, the total weight the landing gear and structure can safely withstand on landing, regardless of what the actual load is. Lighter ordnance means more fuel, or more ordnance, both for gross takeoff weight and landing weight.

64.223.218.84 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Fix them if you can verify though reliable sources that you aren't unintentionally producing errors in the process. But honestly, while technically correct, at least at my first glance, thesd may also just be semantical. We all know the sun doesn't technically rise and set, yet we all still say it because its descriptively true. So if you want to spend the time and effort correcting these things, go right ahead. But just posting notes that are mostly nitpicking across a number of talk pages as you've been doing isn't really all that helpful, and can quickly become annoying to other users. It's fine to post problems like these as a notice that you intend to fix them, or to solicit options for fixing them if you're not sure what is best. But in general, it's best to limit the talk page posts to problems for which you don't know the solution, rather than expecting others to spend their time and effort on your nitpicks. They most likley won't have your passion for fixing these problem, and so they will probably never be fixed anyway. (Also, it doesn't help that you're using an IP address that is dynamic and changes almost every time you log onto your device or computer. That means you're not likely to even know anyone has responded to your posts unless you make an effort to check back. You also won't know anyone has posted on your current talk as a further response because you'll. probably never log in on that IP again. So it'd be helpful. to the rest of us if you'd create and use an account.) BilCat (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)