It was bought but never delivered because Japan realized that the effectiveness of it on the mainland would have been very little. Due to its weight and the fact it would most certainly bogg down. However, all the information gained was used to improve shelved designs.It’s one of those cases where Japan leased out the vehicle back to Germany where it was apparently captured in France.
Nope nope and nope again,…
But ok,… let’s inform yourself:
The Heavy Tank N°6 was about to be shipped, when D-Day came in. Therefore it was re-tasked to fight of the allies in europe.
AAM-4 is likely a bit later judging by performance. But Japan did have AIM-120B that can fill the role instead.
As far as I know the AAM-4 was not based on the AIM-7, but rather on AIM-120B/C models. It is quite a bit heavier, but also faster and (if the large control surfaces don’t fool me) a bit more agile as well.
I’d assume that Japan will start out into the FOX 3 era with AIM-120B on the F-15J. Maybe there is a chance to see AAM-4 earlier, balancing their performance by the lower amount carried (only 4 on the F-15 instead of 8 for the AMRAAM)
No. For the simple fact of preserving uniqueness towards nations.
Both are capable of 75-100km at long range, and have an average range of about 15-20km at low altitude.
The AAM-4 was a direct successor of the AIM-7 design. Unlike the AIM-120, it used the exact same dimensions, save the obvious changes needed to house internal domestic parts.
There is a noticeable difference between the AIM-120 and AAM-4 in general dimensions and shape, let alone control surfaces and weight.
Both are capable of Mach 4 - 4.5, the AAM-4 is ~60kg heavier, and matches the AIM-120A/B in maneuverability, being in the low 30g range.
The AAM-4 is one of the many domestic-made missiles that are primarily used on the F-15J and F-2A.
Hense i said it was leased back to the Germans. Simple history isn’t always correct about everything and given its called simple history it simplifies history to something more digestible without all the details.
AAM-4 maximum range is 100km which is slightly lower than the stated 105km, but in practice likely similar. However range was not what I meant with that. I meant that this is a 1999 missile that had been based on AIM-120Bs bought by Japan for testing. It is highly unlikely that it wouldn’t have been an improvement.
It was meant to replace the AIM-7 in Japanese service and had fairly similar dimensions, however it uses completely different guidance, propulsion and control schemes much closer to the AIM-120. But it is not a copy of either missile, it’s a domestic development, so this is irrelevant either way.
The AAM-4 is said to be capable of mach 4-5, which means it is likely faster than an AIM-120.
Similarly at an increase of ~25mm of missile diameter and ~17mm of length it has ~230mm larger wingspan compared to the AIM-120B, so an increase in maneuverability is rather likely.
It’s a 1999 missile, so the radar found on the missile is also likely superior to that of the AIM-120B from 1994.
1 Like
It wasn’t based on the AIM-120 at all, it was designed parallel to it. Very few systems are shared between the missiles, differing in propulsion, guidance, and seeker technology.
Funny though, as the AAM-4 shares the same exact dimensions as the AIM-7M/P. It’s the same exact length, differs in weight by about 10kg, and even has the same 80cm control surfaces. The diameter is even the exact same at 20.3cm, too.
Quite literally the exact same, as I’ve just mentioned.
Woah, thanks for reiterating exactly what I had said! If you need a reminder, since it doesn’t seem you can read it that well, here you go.
Alright, then let’s step that up.
AAM-4 to Mach 4 - 5
AIM-120B to Mach 4 - 4.5
I’m sure this change is just as drastic as the one existing between the AIM-7M and the R-27ER, right…?
For the AIM-120B? Oh absolutely. I got my variants mixed up in my head as I was typing, with the C-3 - C-5 being slower yet more maneuverable than all A/B variants.
Its maneuverability should be expected to be the exact same as the AIM-7, being ~10kg lighter with the same dimensions and a better overall system suite.
It has ECCM, has “better” target chasing capabilities, and… Barely anything else is known about the exact radar.
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.
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.
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
The AIM-7 has noticably slightly larger wingspan. I am leaning towards 80cm being a rounded number.
1 Like
Ah, what I was referencing must have been referring to the aft surfaces.
Am I reading a Fool’s day joke?
90% of this forum is an April Fool’s joke.
6 Likes
Yes please, would still be more accurate than the Fake-16AJ
No
7 Likes
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.
4 Likes
Maybe I’m reading this wrong but how is the Su-27 any less silly than the AJ
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
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.