Was the aam4 seeker pesa, or was that the arh type 81 missile
That was the ARH Type 81 (C) missile, AAM-4 just uses a PD radar.
I should hope they won’t make the AAM-4 coming to the game the full capacity of the real one only because it would likely get nerfed down and not necessarily removed later when necessary- and a Ka band AESA radar would likely render it immune to RWR detections at least on most aircraft and rotary aircraft- notching would also be much harder
I feel like this is something we have to accept they’ll never do for game balance. It is never fun to get swatted out of the sky with no warning or ability to react to make some counterplay. This is why multipathing is exaggerated as is. BVR will just never be meta because for most players that’s not fun.
4 Likes
Fun Fact; not only is the skin from the AAM-4B, but also the weight
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/DrXP5HPtwz0f?comment=LbhloTdoqqz8KRIkwyxWvMAC
8 Likes
I’m fine accepting it, I have no problems with it. Multipathing should be turned down a but but not entirely limited- perhaps just flying low to the ground shouldn’t be enough, but combined with a slight bit of angling and a pop of chaff it would ward off a missile with just a slight bit of timing?
It might be an interesting idea to perhaps have the exaggerated effects of multipathing to be only present when used with chaff yea.
1 Like
I know someone was doing testing and for them, missiles don’t really like tracking (at least for them) well at 100m of sea level or lower. I know I’ve seen radar missiles track below that threshold but, being as that was done at sea level, so the altimeter read 100 meters proper, if that’s how they’ve gone and done it.
Bad news bears; the AAM-4 is still effectively non-practical even with the last potential update of the dev server. It can get up to speed, kind of, but once the burner and sustainer are off it just dumps all of it as if it’s a really, really draggy missile even though it should be one of the least draggy ones.
Burner is still too weak, sustainer as well, and drag still too high to do anything with for testing purposes.
The Drag is fine (and close to AIM-120), the actual problem is that parts of the Missile (especially the motor) are C&P from MICA EM, but also the end masses are too low and unrealistic.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/DrXP5HPtwz0f
I used drag as just an example more than anything; I don’t know what is causing the missile to bleed all of the speed it gets more than anything. The motor is underpowered, sure, but is it just because the end mass means it can’t carry any momentum forward while still having a drag similar to an aim-120 which is modeled to be around 30% heavier yet?
The MICA EM weights just 112kg at the begining. The AAM-4 weights 223kg, but is powered by the MICA EM motor at the moment, which is too weak for this missile. Using the motor of the AIM-7M (thrust and burntimes) and adjusting the weight of the AAM-4 in all three stages (initial, after booster and sustainer) to the roughly correct numbers, brings the missile on par, if not slightly above, the current AIM-120A/B.
Although we are not yet at AIM-120B+ level with these adjustments, we are far from where the missile is currently on Dev.
6 Likes
this dev server shutdown not update anything about f15j kai and aam4 i think, it still fly like drunk
1 Like
Server updated from 2.36.0.16 to 2.36.0.18 and, to no one’s surprise- they didn’t change the weight or burner on the AAM-4 as a quick numbers swap. Still the MICA stats.
Was probably a minor change. I’d imagine we’ll see bigger changes towards the end of the week as they have time to cook, so to speak.
It might be a quick numbers change, but that’s also why it’s low priority until bigger issues are sorted.
Well, unless they open another dev server at the end of the week, I don’t see it happening in this run unless they do it on the 5th when they plan on closing the server entirely.
Suppose we’ll have to cross our fingers and pray it isn’t the final version of the missile.
These days they just keep the dev server open and then update it everyday, sometimes extending it.
I think the update is next week so hopefully whatever they get done this week is substantial.
Haven’t been on the dev server yet after the update but this should be pretty nice change.
That should help with the Apache Hellfire’s and F-16AJ/Tai Fighter’s AGM-65’s at the very least
1 Like
well, thy says “not a bug”
I try to summarize the current data usage and source.
- ９９式空対空誘導弾（改）(aka. AAM-4B) 事前の事業評価 評価書
Type: government public information
Link: https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/11488652/www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/hyouka/seisaku/13/jizen/youshi/19.pdf
防衛省・自衛隊：平成13年度 事前の事業評価 評価書一覧
The page 3 show this table:
The Japanese government uses AAM-4 as a standard value (1.0) to evaluate the performance of other missiles.
We can draw the following conclusions:
Range: AAM-4 (1.0)>AIM-120B (0.9)>AA-12(R-77) (0.7)
Active guidance radar start-up distance: AAM-4 (1.0) = AIM-120B (1.0) > AA-12(R-77) (0.8)
The above data is from government public non-confidential information, and because it is goverment first hand data so it should be the most trust tier data.
So by goverment info, if AAM-4 are 100km range, AIM-120B should between ~90km, and R-77 should only 70 KM
And by this year (平成13年度 = 2001), I think this AIM-120B+ maybe AIM120-C5?
- 防衛庁技術研究本部五十年史 (English: Defense Agency Technical Research and Development Institute 50 Year History)
Type: government publications (防衛省)
Link: 国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション
II 技術研究開発 5.技術開発官（誘導武器担当）
TRDI50_07.pdf
Page: 177 (at II 技術研究開発 5.技術開発官（誘導武器担当）PDF page 11)
We can know the missle range is because
a. much powerful engine (高推力推進裝置)
b. lower air resistance (低空気抵抗機体形状)
c. best path planning (最適飛しよう航法を確立し)
8 Likes