Talk:AMX International AMX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Permission

I emailed the user who claims this was with permission. Did anyone else contact them? This has now been on WP:CP for a very long time. —Morven 00:22, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Followed up and received this response:

I' ve put the article myself, and there was a piece of the article which I have in my website. If there is no problem you can live the article, or I will do a new one with the specifications of the aircraft and I will put a link to my website!!!
Thanks very much for your contact and the interest of wikipedia about copyrghts!!!
Sincerely
Leandro Maldonado

I think this is sufficient proof to revert back to the original posted text, though it needs a bit of Wikification. —Morven 00:40, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Saab involvement

Regarding the B3LA; the project actually started as a joint Swedish/Italian design. When the Swedish government pulled out, Aermacchi continued the project and rehashed it into the AMX with the new (but still similar) requirements from the Brasilian government. If you're already sitting on a more than half-finished design for a product, it makes no sense to scrap it and start on a blank page if the new requirements are very similar of the previous one. Here is a picture of the proposed B3LA http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft7X/FRHeft79/FRH7903/FR7903c1.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by T96 grh (talk • contribs) 13:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, that's fine--but we need a source for that and your source does not mention that level of involvement. And besides--it may look similar to the AMX, but so does the Aermacchi MB-339.--Dali-Llama 15:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Cited from the webpage "The B3LA was cancelled on cost grounds, instead a simplified trainer/attack version of it was suggested, and this got the designation A 38/Sk 38. It was cancelled as well, but sort of a 'B3LA' flies today as the Aeritalia-Aermacchi-Embraer AMX. (Saab cooperated with Aermacchi during the development.)" Since the aircraft had received a Sw. AF designation (B3LA/A 38/SK 38), it means that the project had proceeded quite far along - just short of a first prototype awaiting a go-ahead from the Swedish govermnent (which never came). This 'just-short-of-a-prototype' was what Aermacchi continued with Aeritalia and Embraer to refine into the AMX with new operational demands from other governments. T96 grh 16:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Dali on this. "Sort of" is not a strong term. In addition, the source doesn't say the development was "just-short-of-a-prototype", just that Saab cooperated with Aermacchi. In addition, the website is not specific about where the info came from, other than to state it came from a magazine. You'll need to cite the particular issues of the magazine to be used here, and the source will need to be much more specific on the nature of Saab'se involvement with in the AMX project. - BillCJ 17:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Bill beat me to the reply. =) Don't get me wrong--I have absolutely no problem in crediting Saab with any role they may have had in the aircraft's development, but I think that needs to be more precise than the source makes it out to be. Especially considering this is the only source I've seen so far that even mentions SAAB was involved with AMX.--Dali-Llama 17:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have asked the author of the webpage to look up the magazines he bases his article to so that I (or he) can more properly reference the text on the wikipage. I also base my statements on personal discussion with former Saab engineers involved in that project, but I suppose 'personal communication' is not 'kosher' on Wikipedia. T96 grh 17:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I would really like to see the original sources for this (IE: online or on a PDF). My problem, as I've mentioned, is that this not generally known, so if the only source for an extraordinary claim is an offline magazine, it'd be hard to accept it if it's the sole source. But I definitely empathize with the thing about "personal communications"--there many interesting and little-heard facts of history that I know from primary sources that unfortunately don't "make the cut" for inclusion.--Dali-Llama 18:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
For obvious reasons, there is very little talk on the Saab/Aermacchi development. Saab has no reasons to announce contributions to a project they canceled. Aermacchi has no reasons to announce that someone else helped lay the foundations. The only online source I can present right now is a cover page from a 2002 paper edition of a flight historic magazine in swedish. T96 grh 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC) http://www.sff.n.se/aktuellt_arkiv_2002.htm#Svensk%20Flyghistorisk%20Tidskrift%20nr%205/2002
I think my point is that if every other historical account of the development of the AMX does not mention SAAB, then per WP:REDFLAG you would need an exceptional body of evidence to support that assertion and warrant inclusion. But like I said, I am curious and would love to hear what other sources have to say about it.--Dali-Llama 20:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This italian airplane enthusiast webpage discusses the B3LA-AMX story as well and give it another dimension. After Aermacchi continued the project, Saab cars (during that time still the same company as Saab aero) recieved a car design (Saab 9000) from Alfa Romeo (164) in return for the aircraft design. Alfa and Aermacchi were under the ownership of Finnmeccanica, which in turn were owned by the Italian government. Both Saab and Alfa were under economic hardship at that time so the whole wheeling & dealing process makes sense. T96 grh 23:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC) http://www.icsm.it/articoli/daicsm/attuale/amxb3la.html

[edit] AMX, a long, sordid and unluckly history

Well, let's talk about AMX.

At first, Aermacchi made MB-326, a real good aircraft for training and then, attack missions. Aeritalia made G.91 and this was as well a light, successful aircraft in the first gen. The MB.326 was also produced in Brazil as Xavante, a trainer and attack aircraft.

While Aermacchi thinked to an improved trainer, that began to be MB.339, Aeritalia thinked to the improved G.91, the Y version. This was a not too good one not even added to PAN and sostantially, a sort of enhanced G.91T with F-5 engines. Having A/B engines and still, being subsonic not was really too good for G.91Y and operational costs were almost equal to F-104S.

To have a successor of G.91 for Aeritalia was important, while MB.339 could be good, but why not to have an more powerful aircraft? The only right thing was to join the forces and so it started to be the A-X aircraft. In the meanwhile Sweden choiced to develope two different aircraft A-20 and B3LA. This latter was somewhat much similar to the A-X, but there was no real link at the first. At one time, there was a relation because Fligvapnet and AMI had a sort of similarity for this light aircrafts, useful for advanced training and light attacks. Sweden had no money to make a medium fighter and a light-attack machine so they scrapped this program A20/BL3A. Instead, Saab started the Saab 39 Gripen project and was finally the Flygvapnet new and unic combat aircraft.

The swedish interest to collaborate with Italy for this light aircraft born and died in 1978, then Aermacchi and Aeritalia found an agreement with Embraer, thank to the MB.326 background. So born the AMX, a machine with 13 t at MTOW. It was not so different than Saab B3LA but if and how there was a knowledge exchange is unclear. What is sure is that, while JAS is totally different except for MTOW, B3LA was really much similar to a small AMX. If this led a 'distribution of knowledge', honestly i dont' know. If yes, it could had been happened for AMX, not surely to JAS-39.

AMX was meant as light attack aircraft that was agile, with long range, modern avionic, etc. etc. Eng. Da Silva said in 1985; 'with this plane Italy and Brazil will conquer the worl'. LOL. At this time, AMX still has no buyer and the production line was not longer opened. Even in 1998 Nativi reported that Alenia thinked that 'Super AMX' will conquered up to 20% of international market of fighters. Obviousely forgetting that this was not a fighter, instead it was a light daylight aircraft. Brazilian version was better with DEFA guns and Scipio radar. Engine plagued with poor reliability and low thrust the machine, the avionic was partially obsolete, the agility was very good at low speed, but who cared when the engine thrust not allowed to turn tight more than 180 degrees?

The efforts to improve AMX were slowly improving the machine for all the '90s, finally it was used in 1999 war (NW: without declare any war against Yugoslavia our government made a 'leeeeeegitime' bombing campaing like Nixon and Laos, ufficially for all the 78 days italians did not took part to that war 'actively', one of the most shameful time for our 'democracy'. AMX and TOrnado took off from airbases with bombs and returned without, and 'ufficially' we do not made bombings: what about one of our pilots was captured like happened to Cocciolone?). The cost of AMX is almost like a F-16, and the role is only to make an 'improved G.91Y' with xx cost. The machine, supposed to be a 'best seller' had no success at all, al.--Stefanomencarelli 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The B3LA design was concieved in early 1970s when Viggen entered service. Apparently, aircraft companies started designing the next fighter/attack plane as soon as the current one went in to production! Swedish government could not make up their mind on what they wanted to upgrade and for what money, so the B3LA was rehashed into the A 38/Sk 38. The design was ready with a complete mockup for fitting avionics etc. To reduce the cost, Italy was invited to join in April 1978 (there are Swe. government records on this) since they has similar requirements but apparently no finished design. Unfortunately, Swedish government decided in Oct. 1978 to pull out and build the Gripen instead. So, there we have one complete design in Sweden and one Italian government needing an aircraft... To complicate things further (or maybe assist things), Saab Cars was in dire need of a new car since the merger with Volvo had just been aborted. Alfa(and Alenia) under the ownership of Finmeccanica (partially owned by the Italian goverment), apparently had started working on the new 164 design.
So, now we have one Swedish owned aircraft company with an aircraft design (that they don't need) and without a car design (that they do need). The exact opposite in Italy with a car design, but no aircraft (that they do need). Surely, someone has to have said - Let's trade!
Problem is, where do you find information on all this? Little info exist in Swedish magazines, but more while talking to retired Saab engineers. (The AMX is called 'Betrella' (B3LA with Italian accent) by one). Surely, there must have been some talk in Italy as well? T96 grh 19:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but only as 'limited contacts'. Investigate on these stuff is always difficult, who knows not speaks. Remember the born of Kfir? Israeli and Mirage relations were 'confused' to say the least. The same with S.Africa (W Mandela, he got his Rugby cup) and this include Both Impala and Mirage. Sadly it's the terrain of speculation more than facts. But it's a fact that AMX was incidentally similar to B3LA, so what of them born first? At this point we should also take in account Su-25, not so different except for the engines.

Continuing with AMX. You must know that here in Italy AMX was poumped a lot by 'patriotic' press. It was natural, an advanced almost italian aircraft was not bad as 'advertising'.

Pros:

AMX had good points:

  • more range with loads than a F-16, not to talk of Mirage and F-18 (440km with 460 kg lo-lo-lo, 720 km Hi-lo-hi. 770/1,260 km with 1800 kg and two 1,100 l tanks)
  • excellent agility and command sistem at low altitudes (up to 22° sec at 0,45 mach)
  • a modern set of ECM with all the stuff internal, with ECM,RWR, Chaff/Flare dispenser. Not even Tornado had this stuff all internal (no wonder, Tornado is not a big fighter, just a pocket bomber)
  • Modern avionic set nav/attack: INS LN39, 1553ST bus, etc. etc.

But there were also cons:

  • Engine had quite low reliability, despite being well known, really compact, with very low SFC. It had a TBO called for 1000 hrs, instead it showed 200 hours, 400 from 1993, far less than 1000 also in 1998
  • Airframe was initially called for 4000 hrs, instead showed an apalling limit of 1000. Only with a extensive program of rebuilding it was possible to reach and exceed 4000 hrs to 6,000. But not before 1998, 14 years after the prototype flight.
  • Sensors were totally outclassed. EL-2001 radar was apalling, recce set in fuselage was obsolete and replaced by the Orpheus, some stuff like MAW were never bough.
  • Integration with modern weapons were slow, slow, slow.
  • Cost, basic, was paragonable to an F-16.

To me, F-16 look like Topolino aircraft (=fast, smart, nimble, lucky), while AMX resemble too much Paperino (=unlucky,sympatic and stupid) aircraft.

If Italy was a 'normal' cuntry we have not adopted F-16 in 2002, but in 1980 -together with almost all Europe. To me, the history should had been this: scrap AMX, scrap F-104ASA, buy 100+ F-16 and save $$$. But not, we have Fiat, go figure (i heard even of a total of 1000 billions euros as 'statal helps' in all her history). Luckily for Sweden, they gone with Gripen, a far better spent money. Gripen is a good last gen fighter, and the unic reasonably cheap, while AMX is a costly, limited, obsolescent machine. The first 21 AMX Batch 1 were scrapped already 10 years after the deliveries, the half of Batch 2 were 'cooconized' so just 80-100 machines were retained for service already in aerly '2000s, all remained of 187 single-seat and 54 double seat once programmed (but reduced to 136 totall, 110 single and 26 dual seat). Nobody knows how much moneys it costed as total program (developement, deliveries, updates). Only in 1994-1999 to it were dedicated 'ufficially' 1010 mld, rougly 500 millions euros. Until 1993 there were 1150 mld spent 'ufficially'.

References that i have: RID 8/93, 5/98, Aerei n.9/91, Aerei november-december 2004. A&D 3-4/1993.--Stefanomencarelli 20:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

PS about 'patriotic press'. As example, lo-lo range of AMX was initially known as 370 km with 2700 kg, lather it grew to 440 with 3600kg. Look, just what AMX needed to surclass F-16 (400km with 3,600 kg). Nobody explained why the former datas were 'outclassed' by the lather ones.--Stefanomencarelli 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

"Sordid"? "'normal' cuntry (sic)"? "who knows not speaks"? "AMX is a costly, limited, obsolescent machine"? "patriotic press"? F16=Topolino, AMX=Paperino? (Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck for english speaking people). What a nice forum is this! Is this a wikipedia article discussion page or a conspiracy forum ? I hope none of so NNPOV or so outdated evaluation theories (1993= 14 years) (1991= 16 years) will never being included in a wikipedia article. Attacking without evidences present days weapon systems gives flank to a legal action against wikipedia. Please give a look to WP:TALK before flooding wikipedia with such this non neutral point of view. Thanks. --EH101 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha, HE101 you can do better if anyting else, you are not even able to post one of your nice tags, like in wiki.it? Oh, dear.

This is a discussion page. I can speak about my tough here, because it's not the article, and discussion is not to say 'oh, my dear, oh, my sweet'. If you have problems to hear about this, stop to shadow me.

I cannot confirm that AMX is based on B3LA, but i can confirm, basically:

1-AMX was meant with superate tasks and tecnologies, starting with engine and radar

2-It costed a lot $$$$$$ to have a machine that nobody bough in almost 30 years of marketing. I said almost 30 years, but since first flight there were 23 until today. And Alenia and Embraer tried all the ways to sell it. Venezuela must bough some, but instead, has bough SU-30. Strangely enough.

3-It was affected by plagues, problems, cost increases, ridicolous life airframes, over 230 tecnical problems and so on. And still in 1998 Alenia thinked to gain 20% of market fighter with this stuff in 1998-2015. Compared to F-32, EFA, Rafaele, F-22, F-18E etc. etc. etc.(LOL)

4-It had his 'moment of glory' with a secret, long (78 days) and not legal war over Kossovo. Let's find where a Country can legally send her bombers over another sovereign territory, like happened with premier Mr. D'Alema in 1999.

5-You are hurted by my 'anti-patriotic statements'? it's your problem. I speak for truth, not for Alenia advertising, and i am out the influence of patriotist of any kind. You have simply no arguments, and not even basic experience. You even failed to discriminate between F-86F and F-86K...--Stefanomencarelli 22:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just to make

a little more effort to AMX stuff.

Here the avionic in AMX, as described in the former version, thank to A.Nativi article in August 1993:


Sensors:

  • Radar:ELTA EL/M-2001B, under the name of FIAR PM-2500, only range-finder radar system, reliability and efficience in european theatre was not to satisfied (bo be fair).
  • Altimeter radar (unknow model)
  • RWR, unknow model. Two antenna on the top of the tail, forward and posterior
  • ECM Elettronica ELT-156, two conical, vertical antennas behind the cockpit and under the belly
  • Chaff/Flare dispensers

Com/Nav:

  • INS Littion LN-39
  • SHARS (Secondary Attitude and Heading Reference System) LISA-2000
  • Radar altimeter (already considered above)
  • TACAN TCN-118
  • Air data computer
  • GPS(initially only as provision for accomodate it)
  • V/UHF SRT-651
  • IFF SIT-241 solid-state
  • Provision for a JTDS

External Sensors:

  • Recon set 1: LLDS, Low Level Day Subsystems, with 2 KA-60C cameras, vertical, and another one in obliqual position. Useful for 30-1,200 m heights, 180° couverture with vertical cameras, 40 with the oblique
  • Recon set 2: STOS, STand Off Subsistem, vertical or obliques cameras Zeiss TRb 60/25, 610 mm focal, for long range shots
  • Recon set 3: PHSD, Photoplaimetric Subsystem, a special cartographi machine with 150, 210 300 mm objectives, 30x30 miles form 3,000 m altitude with 150 mm. Existed also a TV system for the pilot

All these systems were built by Aeroelettronica, and all where fittable inside the bay under the fuselage (AMX, together with A-5, is the only tactical fighter with a bay, also air-conditioned, actually used for pilot's travel bags). But all these systems were developed in a too long time, with several problems, and at the end they were considered obsoletes. Instead of them, AMX had the huge and heavy Orpheus pod, with four cameras and an IR system, 700 kg total, capable both day and night recon.



Weights: 6,700 kg empty-9,600 internal fuel-11,000 with 6 Mk 82, 13,000 kg max, 3,600-3,950 kg max ext. loads, Wingload 400-619 kg/m2. Engine 5,106 kg at Sea Level, t/w ratio: 0,4-0,5. APU=yes


Dimensions: Wingspan 8,874 m+AIM tip, 9,968 m. 13,23 lenght, heigth, 4,576 m, wings sup 21 m2, tail span 5,2m, width, carriage, 2,15 m, carriage pace 4,74, wing lenght ratio 3,75.

Performances:

0,9 mach (max theorical), 972 km/h clean, cruise speed: 0.65-0,7 mach, stall around 100 knots, landing and take off around 125 knots.

Climb: 9,000 m in 5 min., rate climb 3,120 m/min, optimal climb speed 320 knots (around 400 km/h)

Take-off distance: 470 m clean (9,600 kg), 650 at 10.750 kg, maybe 1000+ at max. load.

Landing: min 500 m.

Agility: 60 m/SEC SEP, 22°/sec at 0.45 mach, 13-14°/sec at 0,6 mach, max 20° AoA 'ufficial', in practical up to 25-27°. A turn of 180 can be performed in just over 10 secs. Max G 7,33. Roll-rate over 200°sec, in trials over 240.

Fuel: 3,250 l or 2,620 kg, while two seats have 2,100 internal. Max 2300 l esternal.

Range: this is the most controversial data available. In 1992 Aereonautica$ Difesa, in reponse to one precise reader request, gave a series of datas. Nativi, with the next article on August 1993 gave a noticeable inflated datas, so what's of the two was the right one is unclear. As these datas, (A) is for A&D, (R) for RID, the Nativi's magazine:


Ordined for range:

  • lo-lo-lo: 3 Mk84 (2,700 kg)= 370 km(A)
  • lo-lo-lo: 6 Mk 82 retarded (1,500 kg)= 410 km(A)
  • lo-lo-lo: 4 Mk84 (3,600 kg)= 440 km(R)
  • lo-lo-lo: 6 Mk 82, slick (1,360kg)= 465 km(A)
  • hi-lo-lo: 3 Mk 84(2,700 kg)= 520 km(A)
  • lo-lo-lo: 1 Mk 84(900 kg)= 555 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 6 Mk 82(1,360 kg)= 575 km(A)
  • lo-lo-lo: 6 Mk 82+2x580 l(1,360 kg)= 650 km(A)
  • lo-lo-lo: 2 Mk 84+2x580 l(1,800 kg)= 650 km(A)
  • lo-lo-lo: 3 Mk 84+2x580 l(2,700 kg)= 630 km(R)
  • lo-lo-lo: 2 Mk 84+2x1,100 l(1,800 kg)= 770 km(R)
  • Unknown: Orpheus recce(700 kg)= 800 km(A)
  • Unknown: 2 Mk 83+ 2x1,100 l(900 kg)= 650 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 4 Mk 84 (3,600 kg)= 770 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 1 Mk 84(900 kg)= 890 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 2 Mk 84+ 2x580 l(1,800 kg)= 925 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 6 Mk 82+2x580 l(1,360 kg)=965 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 2 Mk 84+2x580 l(1,800 kg)=1,020 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 3 Mk 84+2x580 l(2,700 kg)= 1,080 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 2 Mk 84+2x1,100 l(1,800 kg)= 1,260 km(A)
  • hi-lo-lo-hi: 2 Mk 84+2x1,100 l(1,800 kg)=1,350 km when tanks are dropped(A)
  • Kormoran missile(650 kg)(A): 1350 km
  • Unknown: 2x860 l=1,450 km(A)
  • Max endurance, internal: 2600 km, with ext tanks 3,360 km or (R)3,600.


As payload/flight profile:

  • lo-lo-lo: 1 Mk 84(900 kg)= 555 km(A)
  • Unknown: 2 Mk 83+ 2x1,100 l(900 kg)= 650 km(A)
  • lo-lo-lo: 6 Mk 82, slick (1,360kg)= 465 km(A)
  • lo-lo-lo: 6 Mk 82 retarded (1,500 kg)= 410 km(A)
  • lo-lo-lo: 6 Mk 82+2x580 l(1,360 kg)= 650 km(A)
  • lo-lo-lo: 2 Mk 84+2x580 l(1,800 kg)= 650 km(A)
  • lo-lo-lo: 2 Mk 84+2x1,100 l(1,800 kg)= 770 km(R)
  • lo-lo-lo: 3 Mk84 (2,700 kg)= 370 km(A)
  • lo-lo-lo: 3 Mk 84+2x580 l(2,700 kg)= 630 km(R)
  • lo-lo-lo: 4 Mk 84 (3,600 kg)= 440 km(R)


  • hi-lo-hi: 1 Mk 84(900 kg)= 890 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 6 Mk 82(1,360 kg)= 575 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 6 Mk 82+2x580 l(1,360 kg)=965 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 2 Mk 84+2x580 l(1,800 kg)= 925 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 2 Mk 84+2x580 l(1,800 kg)=1,020 km(A)
  • hi-hi-hi: 2 Mk 84+2x1,100 l(1,800 kg)= 1,260 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 2 Mk 84+2x1,100 l(1,800 kg)=1,350 km when tanks are dropped(A)
  • hi-lo-lo: 3 Mk 84 (2,700 kg)= 520 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 3 Mk 84+2x580 l(2,700 kg)= 1,080 km(A)
  • hi-lo-hi: 4 Mk 84 (3,600 kg)= 770 km(A)


This is what i have.

Comments:

Let's figure how these datas are not matching one with the other:

  • lo-lo missions with 3 Mk 84 is 370 km, while with 4 is 440 km??
  • This latter is even greater than 6x Mk 82 retarded= 1,500 kg/410 km compared to 3,600 kg/440 km, that obviousely not matches also with 6 Mk 82/slick/465 km (1360kg compared to 3,600 kg, just think to the doubling of run take-off).
  • 2x580 l tanks are not well armonized as well with performances: 200 km more (not surprising, it's 1160 l more than 3200 internal) with Mk 82, began 260 km with 3 Mk 84s.

F-16C, as example, has 400 km with 4 Mk 84, 300 gal tank, 2 AIM-9, 152 m at 740 kmh, with 100 km at 925, 2 360 degrees turns (RID).

F-18 with 2,270 kg, 2 AIM-9, 2 AIM-7, ? tanks, sea level: 290 km (RID)

So let's see how the latter performances have miracolously made 'better' 10% AMX than F-16 (despite the old performances were known for many years..).--Stefanomencarelli 12:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: This not means that the above performances are not reliable or verifiables, but just that there are different performances and whatever. Seen that there is no way to decide what is right of them, the only way wuold be to add both, make it clear the ranging between minor and better performance, as example: lo-lo range with heavy payload: 370 km with 2,700 kg (other sources: 440 km with 3,600 kg). This because the former range is usually reported, but RID article was latest and well complete, so it's not disprechable. Another way could be simply put the range list, with the indication of the sources.--Stefanomencarelli 15:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

More about range: in may 1998 A.Nativi returned to test AMX-T and he flew in a dual-seat machine. He stated that the starting was with 2,100 kg plus 2x1,100 l. tanks (total 4,800 l or 3,900 kg). The flight lasted for 2 hours 15 mins, with a mid-air refuilling. The fuel was added in a measure of 500 kg, a bit more than the one still inside the aircraft at landing. This was 135' min, and 3,900kg/4,800 l. Still, around 35 l. or 28kg/min as average, with a quite steady flight at medioum level without any weapon except 120 20mm rounds, used for a series of tests on a surface target. Except these and a bit of acrobacy, the flight was 'normal', no exasperate speed, no low flight levels, no weapons external.

So, with an amount of fuel and an air refuelling was possible to perform a normal flight of 135 min, that as average of, let's say, 800 km/h, were a total of 1,800 km. This gives much more than the 'theorical values' the range of AMX. Another report, Aerei sept 1997 states that one AMX-T with 2x580 l. and 2,600 internal for a total of 3,800 l. had, after around 100 min, still almost 1,300 l. inside, so the avg cons was around 25 l/min. despite a flight low-level and high speed, but with return part apparently at high levels. No weapons, just chaffs. The reserve was enough for more than 2 hours flight. In every case, the range could be said about 2 hours pratically. The range was not affected by heavy loads, seen that at 11,600 kg the take off distance was about 900 m. The latter report is a bit suspicius as fuel cons. The two Nativi articles stated an average of

In all the respects, with AMX the practical range should been around 2 hours with without weapons but with some acrobatic manouver performed. This acconts for a total of 800-900 km range, pratical. --Stefanomencarelli 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)