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…
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?