what are your thoughts about Su 30 mk2 receiving R77 and R73 with a bigger loadout than the F2 ?
is there any chance of us getting XAAM4 for the F2 ADTW? ofc it’s br should go up to 13.3
nope, f2 adtw is fine in 13.0 just the br system not exist and 10/8 play fulluptier. meanwhile the f16 blk15 and 20 carry the aim120 in 13.3 and the su30 have extreme overnerfed flight model and have useless radar. only the tt f2a need better aam4 like the aam4b for balancing the r77-1 and the endless aim120 spam.
I asked internally back when it was first added, and apparently the F-2 ADTW* is actually supposed to be a late F-2, meaning it could in theory use the AAM-4/B and the AAM-5/B. However it not doing so is purely for balance reasons.
*Despite being listed as such, the added F-2 ADTW is not actually of the same specifications of the one suggested, and is instead the same airframe but at a completely different point in its life to the suggestion.
how is the AAM4 modeling kinetically wise in game compared to irl? like its drag, motor and all that stuff etc
Very subpar. Motor is missing around a full third of its total thrust compared to irl (1253.9 m/s deltaV versus 842.7).
Drag I can’t speak confidently on. It seems in the correct ballpark atleast for what it should be.
The reason for ambiguity over the XAAM-4’s range is over whether or not the J/ARG-1 was fitted to the test launch platform, while in WT this would limit it to the somewhat it to the 21km max lock range for ARHs, irl it would still have been usable in LOAL via inertial navigation (the AAM-4’s IOG is also underperforming in game, atleast relative to other ARHs). Which does decrease the max effective range by a good bit, but not that much.
The reason for this ambiguity of the J/ARG-1’s installation is because 1. The J/ARG-1 required installation of a new mission computer, and its unclear if the ADTW got it due to it being before the IRAN that added it to the rest, but i personally believe it still had it. And 2. The bigger one, no evidence of its integration on the supposed EJ kai test bed. The EJ kai test is a whole mess, every primary test of the missile is known to have been from a F-15J. However there are also unaccounted for XAAM-4s, which were tested, however its never noted what by, for, or when they were actually used.
Anyways, for AAM-4s on the F-2 without datalink. It wouldn’t really need to be a XAAM-4. AAM-4s were mounted on some early F-2 ADTWs without the J/ARG-1, so no DL, and thus less effective range, and much lower performance due to the missile’s heavy reliance on DL. Also XAAM-4 were never mounted on it anyways.
tbh it would be much better for them to just buff its motor then instead of adding AAM4B
what is the new number by the motor? red lettering makes it kinda hard to read
30750 newtons, sorry for the bad image compression lmao.
so its actually supposed to have a much larger sustainer rather than a first stage motor
I tried putting in the new values for the main and sustainer motor with new weight got these result simulated with a launch from 10k meter at a target at 10k meter at 35km away from each other. yeah its probably not the most accurate test it would be better to edit all values in to the missile in the files and test it in game.
Yeah i was gonna test them but my game no longer likes custom missions after i messed with some drive partitions so I can’t test them
It is like, comically fast though yeah
would aam-4b have more range than aam4 in game?
From what I can tell, it’s literally the same missile but with aesa seekerhead,
how would aesa seekerhead give more range? All i can think of is battery life
It had some guidence optimizations, but honestly for the range extension thats stated on it all I can think of is battery life.
Only issue with this is we know the 4B has a battery life of 80s, and even at 80s with the new motor values, this is only pushing around the values that would be expected from a base 4. Maybe the missile’s drag is too high, or the motor is even heavier? (This was not the maximum motor weight alloted by my calculations, but the median possible). But either way its unclear, and unclear what the base AAM-4’s battery life would be to get a 20% range difference.
1 Like
Any chance TT F2 Receives AAM-5 or AAM-4B and get up to 14.3 or 14.0
and give the ADTW AAM4 and raise it to like 13.3 or 13.7 ? 👀.
I mean Come on even the F16 ADF is 13.3 with 6 AIM-120 , some would argue that it does not have IRCCM missiles but Come on, 6 Aim-120 at 13.3 . while yes the F2 carries 2 more missiles only 4 can be ARH/SARH
No chance but dosent matter all arh missle is overnerfed. Reason the low skill players can easili dodge everything.
1 Like
Do you know why Japan pulled out of the meteor program with the aam4b seekerhead on a meteor? Also are they still developing indigenous missiles or are they satisfied with the aim 120s they’re receiving?
Why is the maneuverability unchanged? There’s an accepted report which would limit it to 25G, even worse than the currently overnerfed AIM-120s.
they should give it hmd and two extra arh missiles and just move it to 14.0