they shared different versions of the same seeker, the aim4g has an entirely different missile body, aim4d didn’t have the ability to slave to the radar. Also it was used first on the aim4g then shared with the older missiles.
Only 200 lbs more thrust (about 5% increase against AIM-4D baseline) for 0.63 seconds. Per the SMCs of the AIM-4D and AIM-4G, the 4D has greater total impulse, specific impulse and TWR than the 4G.
I have no idea where you’re getting those warhead masses from. The 4D has 2.75lb HBX-1 and the 4G has 5lb HBX-3. It’s smaller, but the difference is nowhere as big as you’re suggesting.
7 Likes
You assume they have a source, and that this isn’t just what is most convenient.
1 Like
The AIM-4s are also hit to kill missiles in game, so the warhead mass is largely irrelevant in the context of WT to boot. The hit to kill stingers with like 500 grams of filler kill almost everything on a successful hit.
From here in a dev server replay it just looks like super falcons simply don’t fit into the side doors, as in the bug report
4 Likes
well, they are in the game with a different skin now. Let’s hope this means it’s coming to the 102 as well…
5 Likes
don’t get my hopes us gaijin will actually do something properly
1 Like
HAHAHAHAHAHA, they seriously believe that AIM-4A/C/D missiles are INFERIOR to AIM-4F/G missiles.
7 Likes
the devs seemingly do not know much about the missiles they are adding, as RB28 is clearly superior to the AIM-4G for example… how on earth are we going to convince them of this???
I’m half sure they dont know RB28 = AIM-4D
I’m going to try my luck by writing a bug report
I am hoping the bug reporting managers are separate from the dev team and this dumb manager is the only reason so far that it is like this
Whoever the Bug Reporting Manager #1 is, whether it’s one of the developers or not, either way, it’s clearly stated that the developers, plural, themselves decided that the AIM-4F/G are superior and, therefore, the AIM-4A/C/D missiles are not needed according to them.
i kinda wanna keep both
I’m pretty sure there are like hundreds and the #1 is the first one to look at the issue and the second one is the second to respond and so on and so forth
also heres my bug report: [DEV] F-102 Missile Armament Incorrect (missing AIM-4A/C/D) // Gaijin.net // Issues 
Nope, it won’t. It seems it got closed too. Utterly unfathomable.
@Smin1080p_WT, with all due respect, this really needs to be reevaluated. Considerable data, including not only real documents but also in-game experiments, have shown unequivocally that the early AIM-4 Falcons, with their shorter-burning but more powerful engines, can accelerate to much higher speeds at lower altitudes than the later Super Falcons, making them superior to the Super Falcons for the slower F-102, and for the typical War Thunder meta.
Further, it has been shown via documentation and by simply looking at the in-game model that the F-102 was physically incapable of equipping the Super Falcons, as they were too large to fit in the weapons bay (with the sole exception of the centerline bays, but only after the widening modification to fit the AIM-26B, which renders the side racks beside the modified bay unusable). Thus, the argument of “technical compatibility” falls flat, and the ahistorical Super Falcon loadouts should be removed.
Bug Report: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/VdgPfytXaUgv
In the face of this evidence, the only way to make the F-102 historically accurate at all is to remove the Super Falcons and replace them with earlier Falcon missiles, mostly the AIM-4A and AIM-4D. Why, then, is seemingly nothing being done, and why is our evidence being disregarded by the developers with no chance of counterargument?
4 Likes
This is just depressing to read. I am speechless at this level of stupidity
the supers should removed due the fact they can’t fit alone just like how 9M was removed from the F-15 MRML this major but apparently they have different standards for the F-102 now
continuing here