3 Likes
I wish Japan wasn’t a puppet to the US, and maybe then they would actually have a good military.
2 Likes
goofiest thing ive ever read, japan has an incredibly good military, their airforce is very good and their navy is incredibly good, they have great air defense and excellet ground forces for an island nation.
most of their equipment is domestic too
1 Like
Some of their equipment is too good to be added to the game at this point because Japan would be too good compared to other nations in their current state.
The other are just Gaijin laziness because it’s easier to do ctrl+c ctrl+v than make something new
not to mention artificial nerfs on currently implemented vehicles
don’t even start me on those
1 Like
tbh the aam4 thrust seems to be pretty crazy irl compared to ingame
1 Like
There is nothing potential in Japan what would be bias and could not be balanced using BR system
AAM-5 quick example of equipment that would leave other nations in their current state behind
But other nations would be able to get equal if not better missiles not to mention AAM-5 would go to old F-15JM and slow F-2 platforms which will get their BRs raised and just perform worse against better planes
AAM-5 is literally same in its performances in compare with IRIS-T, AIM-9X, MICA-IR and any other IIR short range missile with nothing outstanding.
AAM-5 has less capabilities than AIM-9X Block 2, for example, because of missing Datalink
The range, maneuverability, and seeker capacity are likely better than 9X Block 2 given the increased size, newer tech, and I’m fairly sure the missile still retains Lock After Launch as well as part of the configuration as far as I recall.
The IRIS-T and MICA-IR also have superior qualities to the 9X on the whole from my understanding as the 9X family is somewhat limited in range primarily due to the small body chassis that’s been used since the early sidewinder programs
Even now AAM-3 has better performances than AIM-9 and it is not “outstanding bias”. It is just better and in balance and with AAM-5 will be same story.
Good question how long range it has because AAM-5 sizes not the biggest between IR missiles
And it is worse than 9X Block 2
AAM-5:
Dual-band
LOAL
9X Block 2:
Dual-band
LOAL
Datalink
They both has it
So returning to the first person who said “AAM-5 quick example of equipment that would leave other nations in their current state behind”.
What is in AAM-5 so better in compare with other missiles?
The AAM-3 is not massively better than a 9M, it is slightly to moderately better in some specific features, but otherwise it isn’t all that much different in game. There is a relatively slim edge case where in an AAM-3 will hit a target that the 9M will not.
Data link is not a seeker function, and is not inherently going to be better just by having it if it’s in an EM disrupted space
Again, the AAM-5 would potentially have longer range than the 9X similar to the MICA-IR and the IRIS-T while also being more agile given the longitudinal strakes, and something like the Python-5 would almost certainly beat it in shear agility and all-direction attack capabilities at some range limitations. The 9X also has a smaller blasting charge compared to the other missiles listed, though the AAM-5 does not list one on the wiki article as of now.
I still don’t really understand about what you argue to me?
Gorni9 said that AAM-5 is missile with stats which overperforming any other weapon and because of it won’t be added. I said that it is not true and now we have this clueless dispute
I united it in total “guidance” and because of it wrote there about LOAL which is also not seeker capabilities
Sorry what? Do you see EM in game now? Or any plans that it will be 100% added in same update with IIR missiles?
I don’t understand why real advantage of one missile over another just ignored
Same situation as AAM-3 talked before
So there isn’t anything “outstanding” which was literally the start of whole dispute
Why? All of this missiles has same aerodynamic structure and vector control
This is really not proofed and non-sense. AAM-5 and Python 5 are very different. We don’t know turning capsbilities of AAM-5 to say that it will be like Python 5 but we know that AAM-5 is similar to IRIS-T and MICA-IR so why it should be much better in agile than this missiles?
As again, whole conversation is about the fact that AAM-5 is not the bias which can’t be added in game because “too strong”. If you think so too so you either underestimate the characteristics of other missiles or invent too high characteristics for AAM-5.
1 Like
I take it English is not your first language, which may explain some confusion as things get lost in translation
9x blk 2 isnt dual band, also its only 128x128, where as i believe the aam-5 is 256x256, although i cant remember the exact source. Although it does have issues with preflaring moreso then other types so…
I will say, i do expect the AAM-5 to outperform the 9x atleast, in range and in manueverability. As its total motor weight indicates it likely has more fuel then the 9x, and it does have more wing area. But its not by an amount that would put it out of line with others.
Id say its on the better end of gen 5 IIRs, but nothing out of the expected range in performance for them. And deffinitly worse then say a MICA IR.
2 Likes
Is it? I thought block 2 got it after simple 9X which was missing dual-band
For AAM-5 seeker we know only that it has matrix format like 128x128, 256x256, but correct number is unknown as I remember. And anyway in WT it doesn’t matter as I understand
It is what I mean from the start. AAM-5 is not missile which can’t be added because of its totally high performances
1 Like
Mhm of course, I was just throwing in my 2 cents on my apprasial of why I agree with that.
The Blk1 and Blk2 share the same seeker. The blk2 just got a new motor and some electronics upgrades (including datalink).
2 Likes
Anyways, little update post on my AAM-4 bug reports, and some clarifications on them.
I know several of you have been watching the statuses of several of my bug reports, and you may notice that several of my AAM-4 related ones have recently been closed “As per my request.” These being the initial set I released a bit over a year ago.
This is honestly probably a bit late, as I (and some members of the tech mod team), have been aware and discussing the accuracy issues of them for a while.
Basically, the documents used were presented to me as 100% specific to the AAM-4. And as most of the information inside was supported by additional sources, I was taking this as face value. However, the document is just an outline for methods, not a direct confirmation of their usage. As such I (and others), do not believe it to be a suitable only primary document.
So, where does this leave the state of the AAM-4? Even though I do not believe the reports as written to be reliable enough for the purpose of making bug reports, or even to be used a 100% fact. Many of the specific details I included in the bug reports are supported by additional sources. And I will over the coming period be releasing updated bug reports (like I did for the motor several months ago), using said alternative primary sources which more certainly pertain to specific functions.
10 Likes
iris-t and Asraam both lack a datalink capability. all of these missiles rely on IOG for getting within the seeker range or firing beyond the seeker gimbal
to be fair aim9m is a mediocre top tier fox 2, aam 3 is the best in the game, its not a small different aam 3 is better in quite literally every way