That’s what a lot of people, including myself, do here in regards to the weaponry and machinery in this game.
1 Like
Are you 14?
1 Like
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?
1 Like
OP probably could’ve just took info from the already existing AAM-4 thread that has a great amount of user research or the two bug reports (here and here) that was submitted via bug report website… but has since been rejected.
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.
4 Likes
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.
1 Like
It already have more range than amraam in wt, as must be
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.
For the record, MICA is underperforming significantly.
It is not a loft
Just like a start and fins up for a few seconds
And that’s possible, but who know about conditions
Maybe that will make even worser, if they will add sustainer
Trouble in TVC
Missing 30km of max range more like, alongside tvc that is horrendous compared to reality.
TVC tbh not needed in BVR cases
Maybe gaijin need to add mode switch
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