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.
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.
Even with relative scenerios, in game right now the AAM-4 does technically match this 1.11x range estimate, atleast in maximum range. when tested at 30k feet/0.9 mach, as the JASDF uses for it’s reference range.
in terms of effective range, the missile is maybe lacking a little bit compared to what it should. But it’s been very hard to prove, video footage aligns it’s acceleration very closely with what it has in game, atleast from what can be seen. Even though that should be effective range not maximum that’s 1.1x.
Now, there is some reason to think the missile might be underperforming in terms of range, but it’s not just that it says it has a higher range number. The AAM-4B is known to have approximately 20% longer range, from many sources including that one. The -4 and -4B use the same motor, and 20% longer range is, borderline impossible with the current motor. As gaijin is usually pretty generous with lofting optimizations already.
Due to this, there is a possibility the sustainer should be a little bit better, but there’s not any really any evidence besides just conjecture based on how things feel. To the best of our knowledge, the missile is fairly close to what it should be, as best as we can tell.
Also i should say, despite that image being taken from an official JMOD document, it is a just taking numbers from Janes.
Don’t overlook the Japanese word “等” And it has solid credibility. B and B+(C-5) have the same self-guiding distance, which is correct. However, the standoff range increases. This is correct as the motor has been changed.
Yes, your claim is that there is no source so the AAM-4 report he created is trash lol
It is known that the documents mentioned were public Japanese documents, and that the source must be provided when preparing them. Pointless, please understand rather than translate Japanese.
I think that one thing that should be noted is that the AAM-4 figures should be official and its only the other missile figures that are taken from those other sources. Since it’s a reference scale based on accurate AAM-4 figures, the numbers for the AAM-4 can be extrapolated if the incorrect numbers for the other missiles are maintained as the reference.
I mean i know the A-Bs have a range of 75 kilometers for certain . Cs i don’t have any official sources for, however estimates put them between 85 and 100 kilometers.
The actual C-5 is similar to the AAM-4(at least in this case). And the C-7 appears to have increased range with its loft. If the relative position is correct, it can be said to be historical. If C-5 uses magic, you’ll need to rethink it.
Is there any information on the increase in range due to the navigation of the C-5? If that is due to a change in the motor, the stand-off range will be affected by the motor. The possibilities for 4B different propellants, motors are even greater.
