Japan Su-27

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
138

Yes, development was started in 1985, while the AIM-120B was bought for testing in the late 90s. The AAM-4 was built entirely from scratch, with arguably similar dimensions to the AIM-7 it was supposed to replace.

Interesting, I remember the AIM-7 being a bit longer and thinner in diameter by a few millimeters respectively. A quick google search confirmed that, but I know that isn’t the best source.

The control surfaces of the AAM-4 are the main difference. Not only are they different in both shape and wingspan (77cm forthe AAM-4), but they have a much different control setup. The AIM-7 has the main maneuvering control surfaces in the center and static fins in the back, while the AAM-4 has the control surfaces in the rear, providing significantly higher leverage.

I simply wanted to make clear that the very much external changes of the control surfaces are a very significant difference as well.

Anyways since I may actually be wrong about the missile dimensions themselves I’ll give you that as a similarity to the AIM-7. Even if it’s the only practical difference this opens the possibility that development might have actually started as a modified AIM-7, which would technically mean you were correct even if there is a significant difference between the AIM-7 and the finished AAM-4.

We should stop arguing about this. I apologize for starting an argument about such an irrelevant technicality.

Probably not, but a difference is a difference. It is a faster missile even if only by 0.5 mach at most.

Wasn’t it the other way around? Or did the clipped AIM-120C wings help maneuverability?

I still believe it would be more agile due to the way the control surfaces are set up.

I even remember some study on a modified Sparrow reaching 100G with a simiar setup, but I don’t remember the source and the study was on BTT steering, so the AAM-4 is probably still nowhere near those 100Gs. I do still think that ~40G seem possible, maybe even a bit higher.

So it’s at least somewhat safe to say it’ll be superior to the AIM-120B (which I assume will be the first we’ll see in game) in every way except maximum range by a rather small extent.

Then again I probably shouldn’t argue against it considering how much I want to see it in game. And with AAM-4 not being carried on the Sidewinder pylons the missile might still be well balanced by simply having it limited to 4, so half the amount of AMRAAMs on an F-15 or R-77 on an Su-27.

139

So…?
They’re the exact same dimensions.

Same diameter, and they are both 366cm long.

Where are you getting 77cm? I’m seeing 80cm from the 2016 Defense Panorama.

I’m not claiming there isn’t an indifference, just making a statement on that basis.

I just wish there was more open information as to what the systems of the AAM-4 are. We don’t even know the radar on the base model.

As long as it isn’t the primary topic, I don’t see it as an issue. It’s only a minor addition to our current debate.

I’d say it depends wholly on the duration of that speed… Which again, there doesn’t seem to be any information on.
Screw you japan.

It’s primarily due to the longer burning though slightly less powerful single stage motor, while the earlier 120A/Bs use a booster + sustainer. It reaches a lower top speed, though it holds that for almost all of the flight duration, hence the added maneuverability as well.
The wings slightly hampered it, though it decreased drag by a miniscule amount. That’s not entirely relevant, though.

Seeing as it’s the common statistics for most ARH missiles from the 1980s and 1990s, I don’t see it struggling with that.

The only thing that I find questionable is its sustained performance, seeing as there’s little known about the engine.

140

It was from memory. But as I looked it up just now the Japanese Wiki states the same, citing 朝雲新聞社編集局 2006 (ISBN 4-7509-1027-9), specifically page 433

Spoiler

AAM-4-air-to-air-missile
The AIM-7 has noticably slightly larger wingspan. I am leaning towards 80cm being a rounded number.

1 Like
141

Ah, what I was referencing must have been referring to the aft surfaces.

142

Am I reading a Fool’s day joke?

143

90% of this forum is an April Fool’s joke.

6 Likes
144

Yes please, would still be more accurate than the Fake-16AJ

145

No

8 Likes
146

Given that the Gaijin is looking into the addition of more minor nations to bolster the Japanese tech tree, the proposed idea of an Indonesian Su-27 being in the Japanese tech tree isnt too far fetched.

Japan and Indonesia have good modern relations, both are relatively close and share history with each other.

The caviate to this is that the version of Su-27 that Indonesia fields is the Su-27SKM which I believe is far too advanced for War Thunder right now.

My stance is this, in time consider it please but right now it’s not needed. I’m all for making Japan more fun to play without having to try and justify something silly like the AJ.

5 Likes
148

Maybe I’m reading this wrong but how is the Su-27 any less silly than the AJ

149

The F-16AJ is made up and based entirely on the fact that Japan expressed interested in the fighter.

The Indonesian Su-27 however exists and if i remember correctly Indonesia procurred 5 Su-27SKMs for their air force as well as a few Su-30s. Indonesia is a fair candidate for addition to Japan just like how Sweden has Finnish/Norweigian vehicles. (VIDAR is even South Korean but dont get me started on that).

1 Like
150

It’s absolutely not. It could been added yesterday and nothing would change in terms of balance. Just slightly upgraded Su-27 with ability to use R-77, still be useless due to crap fm. Only sensitive upgrade for game would be better RWR.

151

The AJ was only added as a stop gap prior to the F-15 and F-2, it’s really stretching the boundaries of a Japanese aircraft but I don’t see how an Su-27 Indonesian or otherwise fits the tree any better (or is even necessary since the game has moved forward into the F-15s, and Sweden is just it’s own special case at this point, hello totally Swedish T-80U/Mi-28 and now King Tiger)

152

I look beyond trying to keep Japan pure and focus on making it as fun of a nation as possible and the Su-27 from Indonesia is no more silly than the Hungarian Gripen for Italy in my eyes. For me this isn’t about “needs”.

A little bit of open minded thinking isnt poisonous when discussing theoreticals.

153

I dont agree to adding this when there are upcoming Thai vehicles that is going to be added to address this very problem. Its not real and was never in service. Moreso the cheeky posting it on the Machinery of War Discussions instead on the Suggestions must mean that there never was really any chance its going to be approved for Suggestions.

154

And instead leave japan without a capable fighter from the EJ Kai to the F-15J? It’s only a Block 10 F-16.

1 Like
155

Fair enough, I don’t think opening the floodgates like tossing Gripens to several nations was a great idea either but I see where you’re coming from.

156

If Gaijin hadnt pulled the trigger themselves I wouldnt be for it to be honest.

157

If its the AJ you guys are worried about, its more than likely to be replaced by a Thai variant. As for an Indonesian SU-27 to be added, its an alright suggestion to keep but it should be placed on the back burner until the Thai subtree is fully implemented and even then I would only agree to it on the basis that its either a premium or something.

As far as I am concerned, ASEAN vehicles COULD be placed as an expanded Thai subtree but that should be in keeping with Thai vehicles. If it were up to me, the tree development would be Thailand → SEATO → ASEAN.

1 Like
158

Funny you mention additional Thai vehicles

Its probably posted here on accident but thats for the OP to clarify.