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
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.
3 Likes
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
4 Likes
Thank you for your bug report on the second stage booster. I pray that this time the report on AAM-4 will pass.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lbMyuUDJAP5w
7 Likes
Besides being lazy and arrogant, I can’t figure out why gaijin would supply such a weak missile. They had a long time to implement the changes, but they didn’t, until I got this missile and found little change.
4 Likes
Report got sent to devs :P
2 Likes
I am now astonished.
I hope it will improve for the better.
2 Likes
Look, I was grasping as a silver lining somewhere at the very least
3 Likes
I’m really glad I had hope. The rest depends on the mood of the gaijin…
3 Likes
Yeaaaah !! my Monday fatigue has disappeared. :D
At the very least, I would like to see the AAM-4’s long-range performance adjusted to exceed that of the AIM-120A/B.
2 Likes
as japan tech tree player, aren’t we all?
for real though, japan secrecy has been grinding my gears
i know why they are doing that, but damn it’s still made me malding looking for sources.
At this point, I feel like the AAM-4 is a downgrade at worst, considering the TOT for the AIM-120A seems faster, the missile itself is lighter, and turns better
Not to mention the higher spawn cost to utilize the AAM-4 in GRB, when in fact it’s said to be at least equal to the AIM-120B.
Gaijin has only really put a bandaid to their gimped flight model on patch release as an low-effort measure to keep things in balance and placate our complaints (or whatever their arbitrary game fixing methodology is). If it was a true sidegrade, then I think a longer range but heavier and sluggish missile is acceptable, and it wouldn’t be gamebreaking while offering players an alternate option to the AIM-120A.
Honestly, it would be cool if they were like HVAAs from AC7, in that they weren’t very maneuverable but they were the fastest missiles that zoomed to your target. Would make the AAM-4s unique and balanced.
4 Likes