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.
3 Likes
A direct upgrade to the AIM-120 is now “one of the worst missiles” in-game?
if thats the case, why do I mostly see people using aim-120a’s over the aam4’s
and most complaining about the aam4 being “bad”
Because they don’t know that AAM-4s are just straight up better
2 Likes
Ehhh, in game it’s not really a direct upgrade, but it’s not really worse. It has more thrust but also higher drag, making it very much a sidegrade.
The AAM-4 is better at hitting high altitude targets (either from the same or lower altitude), as the higher TWR and lower drag at high altitudes help it accelerate upwards and get to a higher peak speed.
And the AMRAAM is better at lower altitude targets (either from the same, or higher altitude), as lower drag helps it retain speed in thicker air, or maintaining and reaching better speeds against targets which you naturally have the energy advantage against (targets below you).
I carry both when i fly the J(M) and which one i use for an individual shot depends on these two things more then any other. Simply having the option to have that extra performance in those situations makes the J(M) better then the other Cs, even though in a vacuum the missile isn’t really outright better.
3 Likes
Blame American mains. They cry for everything to be nerfed if it is somewhat better than their “number one” military might.
F-15I was nerfed because Americans cried that the Israeli had better engines and avionics.
AAMs were needed because American mains could not comprehend another nation having better missiles on “their plane”
Grippen was nerfed because American mains cried they couldn’t beat it with their F-16s
MiG 29 is nerfed because despite the MiG 29 (in real life) being able to out preform the F-16, American mains cried “Russian bias” until it was nerfed.
Su-27 and Su-30 had their capabilities nerfed as well, because despite being able to do funny manoeuvres in real life, American mains cried it was too unrealistic. We all saw this in real time during the Su-30 dev blog.
Eurofighter is severely nerfed, because only the Americans can dominate in BVR.
The PL-12 is a missile that exceeds the AIM 120B, and can even be comparable to the AIM 120C in real life. In game? The worst “Fox 3” in game. Doesn’t have the manoeuvrability, nor the range of its real life counterpart.
I can keep going, but the fact remains that whenever something gets heavily nerfed, there’s usually an American main that made many posts about it.
The gripen was overperforming, and of the dozens of sources people have pulled for the mig-29 outperforming the F-16, literally every one of them is from an interview or similar, which are not hard figures which can be used for balancing. The flankers can literally still do their funny maneuvers, just it’s not practical to do because dumping all your energy in a dogfight is a dumb idea. The rafale has gotten a buff for every nerf the EF has gotten so it’s not really just “oh US has to be best.”
Yeah the PL-12 is way gimped though.
The Grippen was never over preforming, that’s a blatant lie. The Grippen was pretty close to the real life counterpart, but I forget. No one is allowed to be better than America.
Mate, what sources were pulled out of their arse? Because there’s plenty more bollock sources, like how about the one where someone claimed the Fox turret was slower… when the engines are off… despite being a manual turret. Why, because American mains were crying their heavy tanks were being beaten by a literal small car. It never needed to be nerfed, but God forbid anyone defeat American mains.
At least we agree with the PL-12s, and Gaijin will never fix it. Why? Well, look at the forums, and you’ll see at least one American main crying that AIM 120s need buffs, and every other missile needs to be nerfed.