Don’t forget that there is little thrust. And keep an eye on the C-5 to prevent excessive performance.
And there is no basis for single plane.
AAM-4 previous status was the result of the missile having its stats copied from the MICA, at least that’s how it was on the dev server for ARH introduction
After that it wasn’t nerfed again as far as i’m aware
The missile isn’t thrust vectoring nor does it have the control surfaces to pull 50G like the MICA does
Also genuine question :
What does the weight of a missile have to do with G overload ? As a matter of fact, one would think a missile could turn on a dime more easily when it’s lighter
1 Like
-
That’s not how it works, for warthunder proof has to be provided that the missile can roll for dual plane values to be used.
-
As i’ve said, due to the guidance logic, dual plane literally would not increase it’s turning performance.
2 Likes
Even though on Dev you could hold your own against the Gripen with F16C, let alone A, at the time. But that’s fine. And it just went downhill from there, to the point it’s underperforming even documents designed to sell a competitor which understates the Gripen’s efficacy compared to nigh every other document.
1 Like
That doesn’t “mean” single plane.
Do you know that the logic is AAM-4’s inductive logic and is actually adopted?
Dude what i sent is literally from the patent on the AAM-4’s guidence logic. Missile roll orientation is not factored in for the manuever target. If you wanna nitpick over the whole thing i can just send it for you for you to try to read, but im not bothing continuing this conversation.
Irl, and for what should be in warthunder, the AAM-4 should be 25Gs maximum overload, simple as.
2 Likes
need public information on whether this is used in actual products.
Simply trade it for a range of C-5 or better.
It is public information on the AAM-4 guidance. Doesn’t get much clearer than that really.
2 Likes
Even with corrected thrust, the missile would end up with the exact same range it currently has.
1 Like
The C-5 has the same range as the AAM-4, i.e. the 120B.
What’s your source for this? All I see is other people who have been working on bug reports and finding sources for many of the JASDF aircraft provide sources for their statements, even providing papers and the such while you have provided nothing.
3 Likes
I looked at the PDF of the induction logic, but it is not evidence, it is just technical patent information. There is no actual information that shows that the flawed reasoning is wrong. Build a perpetual motion machine.
It literally states that the prototype for the guidence logic was tested on XAAM-4s, and that this was meant for production AAM-4s,
2 Likes
Again, this is just technical patent information. If there is such a statement in the PDF, please be specific. Japanese.
Find it yourself, i honestly dont care enough to. Ive sent you reasonable enough evidence, if you wanna doubt it further you can read through it on your own.
2 Likes
There is no Japanese in the PDF that indicates that it is a patent related to XAAM-4. It is inherently inadequate, not that it doesn’t care, it doesn’t exist.
Dude, how many other ARHs do you think japan was working on in 1997. Because if you can find some other one, then sure go ahead it might be for that. The document (along with others, like TRDI60), confirm that real tests were done for the tuning of the logic, qnd its not like japan had any other real ARHs to test.
Now, we did look into it. And you are kinda correct that there’s no proof the production series used the exact same guidence logic. As there was a period of time between the patent being filed, and the end of testing for the XAAM-4, so it could be different. However from what im aware later testing was mostly warhead related stuff, so it wouldnt have really changed the guidence logic (dont have a source on this, so take it with a pinch of salt, we’re looking).
Honestly? Yeah there might’ve been changes to the exact values between this and the final design. But it still uses this kind of logic, theres not patents for any other. And theres no evidence of it supporting roll control for the original point. I and some others will continue digging for more information on when testing was carried out for which parts of the missile to see if guidence logic was still being tested and changed after the date of this, we’ll have a response at some point.
5 Likes
The biggest thing that is holding AAM-4 back is its BVR. It was designed with newer chemical propellant and overall longer burntime on its engine and longer sustainer. Ingame it had the longer engine but its overall engine power is not accurate to various sources with many claiming the missile to have capability of Mach 4.5 and the drag coefficient ingame also holds it back.
Currently the burntime of the sustainer is 4.5 seconds while Aim-120 is 5.8
The upsides over Aim-120 it has 0.3 second guidance delay when 120 has 0.6 and larger warhead better for multipathing enemies.
Also ingame currently all ARH internal seekers use the same stats (except mica after angle gating change) if they wanted they could buff the AAM-4 seekerhead has it does also use newer and more advanced seekerhead technology over the A and B AMRAAM
Theres no evidence on this, the chemical propellent is never said but its assumed to be the same or similar to amraams from the time. Also from video analysis the AAM-4’s motor in game matches very closely to IRL.
And if anything the AAM-4’s seeker head is overperforming a bit, with it being known to have not great performance against manuevering targets (its ability to be notched is mentioned quite a bit, and the missile has a poor track rate).
Now, if it got its proper datalink, it would perform a bit better then current missiles, with its datalink bringing up its notch resistence to a competative level, as well as making the missile nearly immune to chaff and multi-pathing. But its unlikely we’ll see it in game (although gaijin has accepted a bug report on it.
2 Likes
Then we evaluate the business. It’s the relative values that matter.
