Would this be considered aged well, or aged poorly, with comparisons like this
What a joke
Thrust issues. Either the thrust isnt powerful enough and/or the burn time isnt long enough, so it affects specific impulse, acceleration and delta V negatively. As it stands right now, AAM-4 has same end mass, same booster force and booster time, same sustainer force and sustainer time as MICA-EM. Its just that the start mass of mica is like 112kg while AAM-4 is at 223kg. So double the weight with the same engine as mica, very clearly unfinished
If anyone has any sources on aam-4, now its the time to submit them up. Other than that, we just gotta wait for dev update.
5 Likes
From what I understand AAM-4 motor should essentially be a higher power AIM-7M motor. How much higher I am not sure, but considering AAM-4 is stated to have almost doubled the range over the AIM-7M I doubt it is an insignificant difference.
I’ve reported it to the best of my ability, but sources are lacking. I just hope Gaijin takes the available sources in mind regardless when making their final decision on AAM-4 performance.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/DrXP5HPtwz0f
5 Likes
I’m not sure if I’m misinterpreting the information, but it seems rather weird that most other ARHs get significantly more ΔV for the amount of fuel they burn. From a quick glance, it’s about 15 m/s per kg of fuel, but for the AAM-4, it’s about 6 m/s per kg of fuel. Surely that can’t be the case and is still WIP.
2 Likes
has to be WIP …but still like bruh
2 Likes
There isn’t even a cockpit put in yet, I would be very surprised if any of this is final.
wonder if they will actually put in MAW in these new F15s
I hope so. Apparently the F-15C they put in, the J-11A MLU and the new sub-tree F-16A (one or both) have them.
It might not be a big deal in air RB, but for ground RB and SIM, I’m sure it would be a nice tool.
I mean, a lot of the information seems copied from other missiles. It looks like they tried to get close by taking values from other missiles but now just need to refine them. This might, of course, just be me seeing things, but I still find it odd that so many values are close or identical to other missiles.
I will say, as a developer myself, it’s a lot easier for sure to copy paste stuff just to have something work, then refine later. Obviously though, we’re also concerned Gaijin will take it and run if nobody bats an eye as that is less work and they have a mountain of stuff to always work through.
4 Likes
it’s gonna be the same as with AAM-3 situation probably, just a copy-paste and maybe a bit better in turning. Hell I wonder if the AAM-3 will get its proper IRCCM ever
1 Like
because this right here shouldn’t happen in my opinion
Potentially, yes, but as I’ve said, some stats are so out of line with the rest that it wouldn’t make sense, regardless of whether we have any sources to work from. For now, we can only hope they are changed with a future update.
1 Like
Based on the comparison picture, if we do get a similar situation where AAM-3 beat out AIM-9M, we should get an AAM-4 beating out that AIM-120A, which would make it the best at range.
I also remember seeing the AIM-120C-5 in the spreadsheet too? Not sure if those are placeholder or any better as I haven’t looked at them in detail.
Not judging, just giving more info on their differences.
Currently makes me wonder why the AIM-120A/B is even being added if the AAM4 is similar to the AIM-120C-5 which is now in the game files.
120c5 placeholder
1 Like
The JASDF used to use AIM120B, they have also prepared aim120 for the F15JST, it is probably normal to purchase lau128.
Picture from 飛行開発実験団 ↑
Website ↓
https://www.mod.go.jp/asdf/adtw/adm/shiken/kakoshiken_missile2.html
1 Like
where can I add a suggestion that fox-3 missiles launched from friendlies should trigger RWR too?
The AIM-9M also doesn’t have its proper IRCCM, its accurate track rate or the correct manoeuvrability.
1 Like