OP’s post is so poorly done it should be used as an example of what not to do. Any bit of research could be done and conclude that everything he stated is just a load of bull, like the statements he puts out contradict each other (i.e. “real world superiority over amraam” then “improve overall game balance”).
The reports from the dev server all have been denied, so what would make any difference by coming to forums and posting a horribly 5 minute ai-generated rant that has no sources backing it at all, with all speculative and intangible measurements buzzwords such as “advanced technology”, “sophisticated seeker”, and “true capabilities” without giving any definition to them.
Yes the AAM-4 has problems. Many of which that the Japanese faction enjoyers have already done extensive research, calculations to try and resolve, and submitted all possible sources they can find and report to substantiate changes however, trash posts like these provide, not just little but, no sway on whichever decision the devs will take on trying to fix any of these issues.
AAM-4 probably should be better than AMRAAM just down to that it doesn’t make much sense if it’s worse. Why would Japan procure a worse missile that they can carry fewer of when they already procured AMRAAM?
That being said, I feel you: AAM-4 feels pretty lackluster because there’s a lot of info floating around indicating that it could be better than what it is now.
the only thing is that its a lot of statements and not a lot of actual numbers. Plus the numbers we do have are extrapolated from other known values such as having “range that exceeds the AIM-120-C” or “is built off the AIM-7 body”.
It’s a missile in active service, of course a lot of information on it is classified. But pretending a modern missile like the AAM-4, that is much bigger than the AIM-120 has much lower range than it just makes no sense, and that’s the current state of its implementation.
absolute range in stat card says that, but in practice, it runs out of energy way earlier. my test conditions were M1.6 launch @ 10km altitude and using the test range mig-15s I could only hit the higher flying mig at up to 40km and the low flying one at 25km.
The way the loft code on it works also causes it to have a much longer time to target than the AMRAAM as well in addition to being a booster only motor.
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.
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.