For some reason no one posted this yet so I will do it
3 Likes
Seems like it can carry 240 CMs total. So mixed would be 120 flares and 120 chaff and all flares is 240 flares. Really nice.
I wonder how AAM-3 will perform given it’s unique with guidance? Maybe it won’t be modeled? Either way it’s a better 9M which is what we were expecting.
1 Like
stats for anyone whos wondering
1 Like
Mike also mentioned that it should have a slightly better radar than the F-15A. I thought both the F-15A and pre-MSIP F-15J used the same APG-63? Is the F-15J coming with APG-63(V)1 instead? Which also means it’s MSIP version and also gets better engines?
AAM-3’s gimbal limit isn’t any better than the 9L’s, seems like we’ll need to bug report that.
Yeah thats what im confused about pre-msip should just be regular apg-63. If its APG-63 V1 then that means they gave us a fox 3 capable F-15J lmao
It’s just APG-63, not APG-63 V1. So this is a pre-MSIP.
Ok good mike being goofy then
It could also not be finished yet since dev server. Probably copy and paste.
Then again did MSIP even use APG-63(V)1 or is that MTDP and is MTDP different from MSIP?
AAM-3 missile also has the wrong warhead and speed too. Speed should be Mach 3.5, and the warhead from what we know should be 15kg… So as of this moment it just seems like they made the AAM-3 a 40G AIM-9M copy. Looks like we’ll need to do quite a bit of reporting.
EDIT: Seems to be conflicting information about the speed, whether it’s Mach 2.5-3.5 so I guess we should at least focus on the other aspects atm, like warhead gimbal limit, track rate, and warhead explosive mass.
1 Like
No TWS for the radar. Does APG-63 not have TWS?
I believe it did have TWS. APG-63 likely isn’t finished yet.
1 Like
The F-15J has a poor climb rate and turn time compared to the US and Israeli F-15. Why is this?
1 Like
dev server’s biggest use is check what we will have and the vehicles’ models, gaijin may change the data anytime
Tws was upgraded later, might be that we got an earlier version
IK. Still gonna submit a report about it though, just in case, because you never know if they just won’t change the data.
Is this true? Some quick searches point it to more that it has TWS and it got improved on later variants.
yes, Better safe than sorry
Im not on the dev but currently from video i seen the AAM-3 has a very short burn time or energy and wobbles pretty badly, also easily flared from behind. Just some observations
After looking at more clips and some ithers tests it seems AAM-3 does indeed have good range potentially matching AIM-9M disregard my previous statement.
Yeah it seems very weird… They’re giving it the same Seeker shutoff IRCCM as the 9M according to the missile spreadsheet, which tbh I’m not sure that’s accurate because iirc the AAM-3 has an IR/UV seekerhead specifically to be able to filter out flares.