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)
7 Likes
Seems as though the folks in charge of the communities issues tab see otherwise to any source ya throw at them; cryin’ shame that is
1 Like
My better guess is they want to be ultra particular on what data they get from nations other than Russia because A) They can readily get Russian/USSR files themselves without much assistance, and B) Things like the 2S38 are in the game when it hasn’t even entered into official Russian Service.
Also, chances are it isn’t them, the people typing responses, who is making the call and they could very well just be the mouthpiece of the manager of the department. I don’t know the inner workings and I’m not going to throw insults because it doesn’t help, and will likely make them less willing to work anything out.
1 Like
People in the Japanese wiki community have found an introductory page to the XAAM-4 practical exam document. This information may have already been published here, but I’m sharing it because it may be material to get AAM-4 bug reports approved.
2 Likes
There is said that researching about new missile started in 1988 year.
Don’t you have the similar info about AAM-3, AAM-5, Type 91 (Or other missiles) when researches about this missiles started and by what companies?
It is useful for search patents at j-platpat
1 Like
The information I can share at this time is an archive of documents related to JSDF missiles that volunteers have gathered through disclosure requests.
If I find any more information in the future, I will share it.
3 Likes
Thank you very much.
I’ve already found many interesting info about Type 91 seeker for example and info about companies will help in this work
1 Like
If anyone lives in tokyo they could try to borrow it from the library, seems to be in use until the 20th of june sadly.
Who knows maybe someone is trying to find info for warthunder :P
2 Likes
It was also a hot topic on the Japanese Warthunder website a few hours ago, so someone must have borrowed it.
2 Likes
Let us hope that they find something, who knows potentially they might even find the source to this tabel.
The issue begins when the Russian sources on western weapons and vehicles are guesswork/estimation to begin with, and are treated as primary sources when modelling said things.
Its just seeing so many vehicles that have readily available, or at least less guesstimation, sources be over poorly modelled due to their favoring sources that fits their language. Furthermore any such attempts to correct are met with them stonewalling via “requires proper documentation/sources” when provided sources are at least more credible than what was used to model it to begin with.
And in general, it would be a lot less infuriating if there was documentation from their side of what the performance that they’re trying to achieve is instead of the magical “here it is because I made it” excuse that they have going on. Neither side is completely right, but if one side is using erroneous information willfully, then of course the other side would be understandably upset.
2 Likes
I have this, but I don’t think I can use it for bug reports
2 Likes
Here’s hoping the missile is fixed/buffed ehen the update drops tonight/tomorrow
2 Likes
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, I bit the bullet for the name of testing.
The missile is still worthless and the F-15J(M) is best off bringing the AMRAAM A model instead, because the AAM-4 is just, not functional, and Gaijin has made it clear that won’t be changing without some classified detail breach at this point. The missile’s ass shake is also back as well, because of course it is
2 Likes
Unless some new source (that they accept) shows up, we probably wont see much done to this missile…AAM-4B will probably be the same thing but with AESA 💀
No because they didn’t accept those sources either as well as stating they weren’t for the right missile on top of it.
2 Likes
Weird to see the motor be single stage, when it’s said to be explicitly dual stage with higher power than AIM-7 in sources.
My guess is, going by their 32G load (lower than AIM-120 despite sources suggesting either slightly more or equal) it is instead based on AIM-120C-5 as that’s what it’s often compared to. Specifically older articles stating it to lose maneuverability compared to earlier models.
Then again I’ve been told it has more AoA than the AMRAAM still, so maybe they’re using some of their own Russian sources we simply haven’t seen, or are mak8ng it up as they feel fit.
4 Likes
Interesting, does it not have a sustainer in game right now? If so then its not much better than before…