Or just write software half intelligently for once. And fix French missiles for once. Or actually implement them vaguely on par with reality, especially range.
Maybe
And same for loft
Its in another thread and I don’t know how to link it here but someone already did a comparison video of the AIM-120 and AAM-4 launches at different altitude and ranges. The AAM-4 draws a steeper parabola and at all ranges except within 10km (or was it 7), the AAM-4 reaches the target later than the AIM-120 due to the steeper climb. This eats significantly into the energy available to the missile as its fighting more gravity during this period and additionally causes a moment of higher parasitic drag due to expending energy to maneuver into the attitude for the “loft”.
So altogether its:
-Booster only is really bad for this missile as its heavy so it cant accelerate like the R77.
-The larger diameter means that it has more drag as well.
-The additional weight is the only saving grace as its more inertia and less affected by the parasitic drag.
A sustainer would make it function more like the AIM-7 where it is very deadly past 4 km but closer range is much easier to dodge as the missile will maintain and even gain energy for a much longer distance from the mothership. The launch from the rails feel a lot more sluggish as well with this as it will take significantly longer to reach optimal maneuvering conditions for the missile, but its a trade im willing to take.
2 Likes
It doesn’t, it has no sustainer unlike the AMRAAM.
How is a sustainer motor gonna make it worse?
Have more force in 0.75 sec more amount of time, idk
They might change total force, make it reduced
This only comes true at an launch altitude of over ~13km, any lower the AIM-120A/B will defeat the AAM-4 (currently).
Here;
3 Likes
Btw, still true
That doesn’t compensate for a sustainer.
And they’d be wrong yet again, so we’re back to the topic of the AAM-4 implementation being entirely fictional.
Well, depends on how they will make sustainer for aam4
Cause conjecture is not evidence.
There’s a interesting bug report for the aam-4 in Chinese, which has paper sources besides the Wikipedia and web source at the bottom, that gave some details on the warhead I didn’t know Community Bug Reporting System
There’s also the currently acknowledged report for the aam-4 booster Community Bug Reporting System
It’s good to have these reports saved or posted somewhere because the search engine will not give you the bug report
2 Likes
32g isn’t even bad dawg
The AAM-4 is overperfoming in turning performance, funnily enough. Going by the patent on it’s guidance logic, it only maxes out at roughly 25Gs, not even 32, let alone the 40 a lot of people think.
Also, to clarify, contrary to previously believed, we do not have evidence the missile supports roll control. The directional fragmentation of the AAM-4 works by using a multi-detonator system, to direct the blast in the quadrant detected by the proximity fuse. It does not rotate to point the warhead at the target.
3 Likes
single plane
Yes, the missile does not support roll control so this is single plane.
Also, since its guidence method uses target manueverimg loads instead of PID fin deflection authority, even in a dual plane situation the G-performance would not exceed this value.
1 Like
not support roll control
no evidence
The only evidence we had saying it supported roll control was a misunderstanding of how it’s directional warhead works. It was assumed that it worked by being a fixed warhead with the missile rolling to align itself with target. But as per documents we’ve obtained (99式空対空誘導弾（B）CPS-U13200-4), it instead uses a multi-detonator system. Meaning there’s zero evidence indicating it uses BTT.
And, again, as i said, due to how it uses target manuevering load for it’s guidence logic, this is actually one of the few missiles where it would not actually gain turning performance in a dual plane scenerio.
2 Likes
This looks like chatgpt. Ingane aam4b is already arguably better than amraam.
AAM-4 is currently one of the worse missiles. Mid range its fairly good
however I think what they are trying to say is simply. Reinstate the AAM-4’s previous status (before they nerfed it) as currently we have MICA-EM which can pull 50g whilst being pretty light etc
as the AAM-4 was nerfed to “fit the meta of missiles” thus in its current state its not even near historical/ahistorical standards
its just straight up nerfed into the ground
Besides missing high advanced guidance logic (which is not exclusive to AAM-4), the AAM-4 is fairly close to its IRL counterpart, but also has a too high max G-load in-game.
4 Likes