Talk:AIM-120 AMRAAM

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Couple of points 

message: In the Foreign Sales section of the article, it is mentioned that Canada had placed an initial order of 256 AIM-120's, but cancelled half of them after engine ignition problems due to cold weather conditions. The article continues by reporting that the AIM-9X & AIM-7 were ordered as replacements, however none of this has been sourced. 
I have been able to locate both photo evidence of RCAF Hornets with Aim-120C-5s, and the occasional C-7, as well as documentation with information on the 2003 proposal for 97 Aim-120Cs (of unspecified sub-variant) however, in my research, nothing has verified these two claims of both the number of AMRAAMs and also the replacements with Aim-7s and most questionably, Aim-9X missiles. 
Now I can assure you that the RCAF has never operated the Aim-9X variant*, instead relying on the vast stocks of Aim-9L and M Sidewinders already in service. The idea of the Aim-7 replacing the supposed cancellation is possible, as Canada had already been operating the Aim-7M since the 1980s, but once again, none of this has been sourced or verified.
*It is worth noting however that the RCAF recently was approved to purchase 50 Aim-9X Block IIs, but that was in 2020, and not in the early 2000s. Perhaps some confusion with dates?
It is entirely feasible that I am missing something, which is very possible due the vast sea that is the internet, however the lack of sourcing and the mentioning of the Aim-9X may be pedaling a false, or at least a modified narrative that will be interpreted as fact.
If someone can verify the claims, I would greatly appreciate it, and will apologize for the accusation, but if not, I will be removing this section of the article as there is no evidence to back it up.
Thank you! Leo Gibney (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not finding anything, I'd go ahead and remove the unsourced content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada's Missing AMRAAMs? 

message: Hello. I uploaded a few months ago some .SVG's that may be useful for the article:
AIM-120
File:AIM-120C5.svg
File:Vista frontal del misil AIM-120C.svg
File:AIM-120C5 AMRAAM rear view.svg
CATM-120
File:CATM-120C.svg
File:CATM-120C AMRAAM rear view.svg
100Polar (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIM-120 .SVG images