(+) 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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).
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
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?
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.
As for AAM-4, there is currently no unexpected advantage of having a large amount of explosives, and there is almost no reason to use it considering various disadvantages such as increased weight during transportation.
If the proximity fuze is set to a more advanced configuration, it might be able to make better use of the warhead’s explosive power.
The directional warhead is also not being accurately represented
