Apparently some changes are gonna happen Soon ™
In short, better motor, less pull, worse seeker
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…
The current “MICA motor” does have an sustainer;
(+) initial weight
(1) mass after main boost
(2) mass after sustainer
(1) main boost operating time
(2) sustainer operating time
(1) main boost thrust
(2) sustainer thrust
But now its going to be a single-stage motor with 7.5 seconds burn time, slightly reduced drag, max G-load reduced and 20100 thrust, new end mass is 155kg. It now also has range and dogfight range tables, have to see how these affect its performance, but overall its still not as its supposed to be.
1 Like
Yea, if it doesnt have a sustainer it still might not be the “big change” we hoped for. It’s delta V after booster is ~808 m/s (if my math is right). Sure it has more weight after booster but it would have lower speed.
1 Like
Its a lot more useable than on Dev Server, however, it still has the intitial lofting, which causes the missile to “overloft” and loose speed too quickly. Even though its approach speed is higher than AIM-120B.
Launch: 12k, Mach 1.16 head-on, 70km distance
For comparison; the AIM-120B has an loft elevation angle of 7.5, while AAM-4 still has the old one (based on Dev Server MICA EM) at 25.
More testing to be done, I’ll also make a fixed version again with adjusted loft evolve and see how it performs then again.
8 Likes
The loft more reminds me of like the Derby for example, going real high up and then diving down (which isn’t inherently bad either I’d say) and doesn’t take much speed relatively speaking at least when the motor is burning; the reason the missile could even go that far though was due to the fact you seemed to have fired it unrealistically high for a battle and at a speed most planes would not reach necessarily at those speeds-
EDIT: just found out they updated the missile already so that’s probably why the two are performing so similarly
Hotpatch is already up, which is interesting
Loft has been fixed in 2.37.0.13
Test; 12km, Mach 1.16 head-on, 70km distance
Test Clip
Test; 8km, Mach 1.1 head-on, 70km distance
Test Clip
Test; 6.5km, Mach 1.08 head-on, 70km distance
Test Clip
Test; 3km, Mach 1 head-on, 30km distance
Test Clip
However, further changes will be necessary to ensure that the AAM-4 is at least at AIM-120B level across the board, currently the AMRAAM is still better in time to target in vast majority of cases.
8 Likes
From what I’ve been informed of, thats somewhat accurate in the sense of the very first model of the AAM-4, before any or the major upgrades (which there is supposedly 2 others besides the 4B with AESA track radar)
If the target is within that 11-12km mark theyre about the same, the AAM-4 has a better acceleration curve and from what I’ve been told that isnt classified, that is actually pretty accurate. The R-77 is going to have much better acceleration but the AMRAAM and AAM-4 will both be pretty competitive between 12-18km Id say in average, maybe even pushing 25km depending on positioning
Never heard of any other than AAM-4 and AAM-4B. Even Japanese sources and Docs don’t mention other variants or mid-life changes.
1 Like
Good to note the AAM-4 got better since server up, though seems still some work to go. Personally it seems if it had more burn time it would be ideal?
Would the issue with flight speed be resolved if a sustainer or Dual Thrust Rocket Motor were implemented as per historical accuracy?
Considering that Japan already had AIM-120Bs in inventory, the AAM-4 was developed from the AIM-7s and the age of the AAM-4; its highly doubtful that Japan developed a missile with worse thrust output than its own predecessor and worse kinetics than the older American equivalents.
Since the AAM-4 basically uses the structural basis of the AIM-7M, it should at least be assumed that the motor has remained similar, if not unchanged. Unfortunately, the documentation for this is also missing; at the moment we only have a source for a dual-stage motor, we hope to get something more from an requested AAM-4 document, but it could be months, if not years, before we get that.
Applying e.g. the AIM-7M motor and higher drag would solve the issue indeed.
4 Likes
I always assumed AAM-4s were basically heavier AIM-120s that took a while to accelerate but were insanely fast and that also gave it a bigger range. I wonder what the point is in carrying the AAM-4 if it’s going to possibly be pretty much an AIM-120B but basically twice as heavy. I hope Gaijin figures it out and gives it something unique that matters.
At least the AAM-3 is a superior AIM-9M thanks to low drag giving it greater range and also having a bit more pull (which we can now use better with HMD).
1 Like
In my limited testing of launching at a aircraft flying straight at a few km away at max gimbal, it really doesn’t like to pull G’s until the last few seconds where it pulls 40 G’s but by that point it was already too late so it misses
It pulls more but that doesn’t mean it pulls max shots, though that also depends on speeds between aircraft too.
You just get more opportunities to get more pull due to not needing to point the nose at the target.
If the AAM-4, which cannot be equipped without developing the AIM-120, is inferior in performance, then what is the point of the AAM-4 being implemented? Reversing the position seems more reasonable. And delete the 9M and replace it with the AAM-3. Don’t put equipment that is not deployed in between… More development time and effort…
Why does no one question that F-15J is equipped with AIM-9M?
1 Like
I have just finished the F-15JM grind, however its on a low priority for me to purchase and to stock grind this. Until there is an answer to the MAWS and the aam4 being better than aim120, I just dont have the motivation to buy this and play. :/
-
The MAWS likely won’t come about unless the normal F-15 gets BOL pods because right now the Japanese F-15 is slightly better than the US one as is, or is the same otherwise.
-
The AAM-4 is now officially an actual side-grade so to speak compared to the 120 and will either stay the same or get better, meaning it’s not worthless to go for. The weight it has and slightly lower drag compared to before makes it go quite a ways unpowered while at higher altitudes, where as the lighter 120 is a bit more responsive off the rails and accelerates slightly better while at lower altitudes. The AAM-4 does still have the lowest delta V compared to all ARH’s (including Pheonixs) Which does somewhat hold it back for acceleration but, it’s range is only slightly shorter than an AIM-120A/B if at all. Upside is you get 6-7kg more tnt in the explosive which is nice for proxy shots at least.
1 Like