mvsgas Posted August 31, 2009 Posted August 31, 2009 I was looking for photos of the AIM-120 and I stumble on this 2007 article, you guys read or have heard about this before? http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123042792 To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
Pilotasso Posted August 31, 2009 Posted August 31, 2009 Doesnt make sense to transfer motors that are nearing their service life limit into newer missiles. We would need more info to make sense of this article. Since they are talking about the B version I think the bulk of C5 and C7's might have skiped this problem. .
topol-m Posted August 31, 2009 Posted August 31, 2009 Doesnt make sense to transfer motors that are nearing their service life limit into newer missiles. We would need more info to make sense of this article. Since they are talking about the B version I think the bulk of C5 and C7's might have skiped this problem. "The AIM-120As have all the good rocket motors in them, while the AIM-120 Bs and Cs have the faulty rocket motors." What does "faulty" motor mean? What does this "mild" defect consist in? How does it affect missiles performance? Are they capable of reaching the target at all? :huh: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Vekkinho Posted August 31, 2009 Posted August 31, 2009 Well, most of the fired Charlie AMRAAMs reached the target and made a kill so this "engine problem" could be completely irrelevant... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Recommended Posts