Funny, because I have top tier Sweden (air and ground), top tier Russia (air and ground), top tier China (air and ground), top tier Israel (air), top tier Britain (Air and Ground), and top tier Italy (ground). Far cry from being a premium tard. Would you like to see my line ups, or would you rather 1v1?
Nope
These clips literally do not contest my claims. The first clip is literally them at a medium altitude and medium range, hitting less then a second apart (as i said, the AAM-4 is better at altitude, the amraams are better on the deck). And the second clip is off the rail manueverability, yes the AAM-4 is better at it. But as i said, the amraam has better manueverability at range (due to its better energy retention, maximum pull, and weight).
2 Likes
Ok? So why does nothing change when it’s a 500m to 2000m launch?
Even if the target is offset near 90°, they both impact within 1 second.
Meanwhile it does have an actual advantage in Off-bore shots, which is what actually makes an ARH good.
So yes. The AAM-4 is a direct upgrade to the AIM-120, for everything but killing bad players that can’t avoid any ARHs. Because guess what? That’s all that any ARH fired outside of 20km is!
You tell me what you would rather have.
1 Like
i can feel ts lobotomizing me. so many things wrong. The US Strike Eagle is arguably more held back than the F-15I
@warthogboy09 get a load of this guy
Firstly, the charts you used are horrible for conveying actual relavant information. Here’s a much better one:
As it shows, when fired from below at the altitudes you used, the AAM-4 is faster up to a point of roughly 15 kilometers. Honestly not a lot better, like 0.4s at most, but it’s still better.
Secondly, I have no idea what you did to your target, but the AMRAAM pulls much tighter in past very close range.
Like, yeah, as i’ve said this whole time, up close or in certain altitude situations, the AAM-4 is deffinitly better. But there’s also definitely (arguably more) situations where the AMRAAM is better, like for any shot above 20km.
Now, I will admit i got something wrong, I said the AMRAAM was better on the deck and the AAM-4 was better at altitude, i got that backwards, which is kinda a big goof on my part. But it still shows that the missiles each have their strengths and weaknesses.
If they were IRL accurate, the AAM-4 would behave slightly better at ranges, and would perform a bit worse up close. Which would kinda swap the dynamic between it and the amraam around, but it’s not that far off in performance honestly. Literally just the same hair’s breadth off AMRAAMs, just in the other direction.
2 Likes
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.