F-4EJ Kai is incompatible with the AAM-4, it’s Radar and guidance systems can’t operate a AAM-4.
it’s also why it shouldn’t be capable of operating the AAM-3 as I mentioned before until my post were removed.
Using visual evidence of the F-4EJ Kai’s Radar and the systems in the cockpit.
It lacks the ability to track multiple targets.
It’s original radar was incapable of firering Radar guided munitions in the first place, It had to be modified to allow firering and guidance of radar guided missiles.
The AAM-4 can only be launched from jets such as the F-2 and F-15J
AAM-3 came after the EJ Kai and is made incompatible with launching due to missing the required wirering to launch that missile.
unless you want to fire off that missile like a dumbfire rocket.
The X/AAM-4 is, however, explicitly capable of working without a functional host radar (It’s mentioned as part of it’s ECCM, it can function even in conditions where the host radar is inoperable). Now, sure, the missile is very very bad without a host radar, and the fire control system still has to be modified with interface units to launch it. But it’s not as simple as the radar lacking DL making it have no chance at being used.
Also, again, there’s actually hundreds of images of the AAM-3 on EJ Kais, i have genuinely no idea why you think it can’t.
Reread my prior statement on how I know that the XAAM-4 was tested on the F-15J, however that there are unacounted for XAAM-4s, leaving the possibility of it being tested on other things. And that while I personally agree that I do not think it is likely it tested it, I also have to state there is evidence and valid reason to believe it was.
Evidence has been posted that the JDAMs were not fully operable, yes. But a single image is not the same as hundreds of instances of the plane being used, and the JASDF listing AAM-3s publicly as a functional armament.
However there was a large amount of XAAM-4s produced, so it’s
possible it could’ve been done after initial testing.
There were atleast 27 XAAM-4s produced,
as It was stated to be over double the amount of XAAM-5s, which there were 13 of iirc;
Meanwhile there were only 25 XAAM-4s used for the initial testing of the missile.
This leaves atleast 2 units which potentially could’ve been tested on the F-4EJ Kai,
even if the initial development testing was done on the F-15J.
Again F-4EJ Kai lacks the weapon systems to utilise and the hardpoints to fire that missile, the only other plane at the time that could have been used to test the X/AAM-4 was the F-15J and probably the XF-2A.
Honestly getting tired of arguing about the XAAM-4, as you’re entirely missing my point. I literally agree I don’t think it’s likely it was used on the F-4EJ Kai, all I’m saying is that there is evidence that it may have, which you shouldn’t entirely dismiss.
And, no, the GCS-1 is entirely compatable with the EJ Kai, and literally everything else. It requires no wiring past that of a normal dumb mk 82. As i’ve said in the past, space permitting you could literally slap it on a kfir and it would work.
Tbh, even if it is true that GCS programm was canceled very early (not really important), there are much more important issues in GCS-1 work logic and biggest of them is uncapability to choose correct target before drop
So question “if it can lock tanks why it was canceled” is not correct
Just like the F-15J came before the AAM-3, even 8 years before the F-4EJ Kai, yet didn’t need any known modifications to use it?
This is simply not true, there are many images of live AAM-3 on the F-4EJ Kai, as well as training / live AIM-9L used during the same timeframe.
What modification does GCS-1 need? It is used like a dumb munition with the entire guidance being self contained. It doesn’t receive any guidance input from the host aircraft, it’s only dropped the same was regular Mk82 or JM117 are.
it’s plausible that they considered a stopgap improvement of EJ Kais by fitting them with AAM-4s (and if that pilot interview is to be believed, tested XAAM-4 on EJ Kai), but this was then dropped.
Reason why is because the F-15J is compatible with the AIM-9M’s, They both came in service at around the same time.
Japan doesn’t use AIM-9M’s but most of the AAM-3’s data is copied from the AIM-9M’s data.
Also regarding the GCS-1
It can’t attack ground targets
The reason why the GCS-1 did not adopt the laser-guided or TV-guided systems used by other countries’ guided bombs is thought to be because it does not require special modifications to the onboard mother aircraft and because it does not seek a ground attack capability to avoid posing a threat to neighboring countries, specializing in an anti-ship attack only type.
The AIM-9M was not bought by Japan and was never intended for or used with the F-4EJ Kai. It also shares the same LAU-114 rails as the AIM-9L, same as the AAM-3.
I’d also like to see how “most of the AAM-3 is copied from the AIM-9M”, when Japan never had any and the missiles are very different in seeker, control scheme and control surface design especially. It seems more likely that experience with the AIM-9L alongside previous Japanese missile projects was used, but not AIM-9M.
Yes, it’s a specialized weapon meant for use against ships, this is not new information. But I also feel like you are misinterpreting the message. It only states that the purpose of it is for use against ships, since at the time it was very politically controversial to employ guided ground attack weapons. This is a common issue with Japanese procurement.
But just because that is the purpose doesn’t deny basic physics. An IR signature is still just that, no matter where it is. Ground and sea targets also generally share the same signature range, so there is no inherent difference besides their size.
The backdrop of the target can effect the range at which it is reliably tracked, but not make it fully impossible. This is the reason that even in-game the ASM-2 can be used against ground targets in limited scenarios, or for a real world example it’s the reason the AIM-9 was able to hit ground targets as well.
Of course this doesn’t mean it’s effective against ground targets, it still can’t be used against a designated target, will likely have decreased range and struggle with obstacles like trees and buildings obstructing the target.
But just saying it can’t based on Japanese defense politics isn’t right.
On another note, this does also confirm that the system is self contained and doesn’t need any modifications to the aircraft, which also means the F-4 that was shown carrying both types of GCS-1 can in fact carry it.
