AIM120D has not “demonstrated” such a thing, The US has claimed it has, just as China claims it’s missiles can do the same. If we’re going to apply this standard to China, then it must apply to the US as well.
So you want to see footage of said test to acknowledge it? Multiple sources have disclosed said information. All are lying?
The Drive happens to be a well-informed source in particular. It is not mirch masala like Global Village and Eurasian Times.
To give you some prespective, as per your line of thought, RQ-180, B-21 Raider, NGAD prototypes and other classified articles are also mere 'claims' because USA have not shown them to you in person. You see where this is heading now? This is not constructive line of thought and position.
Americans have declassification practice which is appreciation-worthy. Many countries do not have this practice and try to keep Public in the dark with politically-motivated "misconceptions." Give credit where due.
It does not say any of this in the article or anywhere else. You simply said it yourself.
I mean no offense, but I often find your statements to be biased in US favor when it comes to technology and I simply have to call it out the same way I’d call out a bias towards Chinese technology. Sometimes you are correct in this, for example when you tried to defend the M1 Abrams’ Pakistani trials while others were claiming it was somehow worst than a Type 59. But other times it just doesn’t come off the right way.
AIM260 is meant to restore the superiority of American missiles over the PL21 and R37M, I assume it will also have the capability to follow parabolic paths, US generals have themselves gone to say that it is meant to counter PL-21, R37M and PL-15, in which case it means surpassing them, because obviously US wants to hold the lead.
For now, I’ll stick to the same thing; these missiles are comparable until they get an actual combat record. Given the known advancements made in the technology and propellant of PL15 and AIM120D, one would even assume that PL-15 was better, however I wouldn’t agree to this given the American expertise in this regard.
You make this sound like as if USA is
not global technology leader since decades
but on catch-up trajectory against its perceived near-peer adversaries instead. The very computer systems WE all use are powered by American and British hardware components and software applications - without which these systems will be mere showpieces.
I never asserted that USA develops each and every item better than all potential competitors around the world. Different countries have rolled out excellent products from time-to-time, and have innovative contributions to mankind.
Americans invest the most in security applications however. This is a domain that they continue to take seriously.
There is much that USA could develop and operationalize long before others if not for the INF and START pacts with Russia but they committed to these ends to assuage global perceptions. This can change in coming times. Time will tell.
Americans have a history of overhyping technologies of its perceived near-peer adversaries when it suits them (to fund conceptualized countermeasures), to the point that this can undermine their own established narratives and positions from time-to-time. Their own try to set the record straight at some point but perceptions of some observers are hardened by then.
Some years ago, they were making hue and cry over a range of Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles. American senators were spooked by all the noise at the time. Come 2017 and suddenly multiple counter-options and countermeasures began to pop out from various quarters. I rolled my eyes while witnessing this game of narratives.
You are lashing out in frustration now.
I clearly pointed out in my first response to you in this thread that the maximum stated range of any missile is
not robust metric in view of target complexity and potential countermeasures among other factors.
In regards to maximum stated range of PL-15, if you check my posting history, you will notice that I always posted reliable information and was modest in my claims.
I never claimed that AIM-120D outranged PL-15 but I realized that both are 160+ KM capable in person. I avoided making arguments in this matter. This was
until recent live-fire intercept test of AIM-120D in which it put many claims to rest about it. So it makes sense to give credit where due. There is obvious difference between 'claimed' and 'operationally validated'.
Anyways, you can choose to not respond to me if my views tend to upset you. I will do the same as well if you desire this to be the case.