I hope they do because it being worse then the AMRAAM is a travesty.
Also I feel like its supposed to pull more then 32? But its better then nothing I suppose
They dont have and concrete numbers unfortunately. They probably derived the 32 by using the acceleration force at its previous weight (when its motor was more than half the missile weight) and then bumping the weight up to its current one and having the formula finish the rest.
so (a+b = c) but now its (2a+(b/a)=c) where the lateral acceleration is the (b/a) portion
1 Like
So basically Japan is doomed to have our missles be copies of the US counterpart or made worse somehow like this
maybe, maybe not. depends on the stance the devs have on the bug reports and information we find. so far its not promising
1 Like
The bug report sustem needs a serious look at or rework because this whole debacle proves that since we’re so modern theyll just keep denying reports
If the current performance remains as it is, AAM-4 will probably just be used to advertise the update. Given the current performance, I think it’s best to delete it until something like aim-120c-5 comes out.
I agree with this. Having AIM-120B for now there is no need for a proper AAM-4, and having it in game now does more harm than good.
Currently they are trying to balance a superior missile that shouldn’t have any disadvantages save for weight and carrying capacity with the AIM-120B.
We end up with a missile that loses agility, speed, acceleration and even warhead power when compared to the real missile, just so it can be in game earlier.And add to all that the constantly denied reports compiling all available sources that take away all hope of having it fixed in the future.
AAM-4 has a dual stage motor that is similar to the AIM-7F/Ms, yet higher thrust to an unknown degree, but Gaijin decides to instead base it off a slightly altered to match the higher weight AIM-120C-5, while lowering agility despite most sources hinting at superior agility to AIM-120B.
And what I don’t think enough people realize is that the AAM-4B will be the top end of Japanese missiles, and is at risk of being just as held back as the AAM-4 is now. Chances are they just put the new seeker on their current AAM-4, which would severely hinder Japanese missiles going forward and force us to rely heavily on American exported missiles.
5 Likes
The current sources mention the aam4b, and are a reason for why the current aam4 is rejected, but should apply to when the proper missile gets added.
The issue I can see arising, is soft factors such as right now, with unknown details on motor, seeker, and maneuverability.
Gaijin has relented, by listing launch range as 100km, then hand waving the implementation, but it’s still a worse missile
Gaijin need to balance them with AIM-120B - ok. But make them useful! I mean, at the moment you need to grind another 26k to unlock them. And you can carry only 4 of them. So it would be nice to have better missiles. Maybe just a little, like it happens with AIM-9M, and AAM-3, but better.
Yeah, issues are we have only vague statements. We know motor is dual stage like AIM-7F/M but with more thrust, but not specifically how much thrust that is. We know it’s more agile than AIM-120B, but we don’t have anything saying how much.
Then there is the possibility of it being a bank to turn missile, which isn’t proven at all, but possible since the missile has roll control for the directional fuse, so this also just sits with other very vague information about the missile.
The issue is that when someone has 8 AIM-120B, you can have 4 AAM-4 and 4 AIM-120B, so Gaijin now has to balance it by giving it disadvantages.
Issue is while we can prove things are wrong, we can’t prove how things would be right (at least not enough for Gaijin), so bug reports are denied. Meaning even when better missiles are added, AAM-4 could be stuck like this. Which is why it shouldn’t have been added yet at all.
The moderators denied it, but JASDF actually compared AAM-4 and AIM-120B and adopted AAM-4.
Since they are comparing them, they should be doing so under the same conditions. According to the table, the AAM-4 has the same seeker, but the AAM-4 has a greater standoff range, i.e., the distance between its aircraft and the enemy’s aircraft when the aircraft can disengage after launching a missile.
What could this be other than the reason for the higher speed of the AAM-4 than the AIM-120B?
6 Likes
The Air Self-Defense Force compared the AAM-4 and the aim120B, decided that the AAM-4 was superior, and adopted the AAM-4. The Air Self-Defense Force then told the Ministry of Defense that it would not buy the aim120 because it did not need it.I’m using machine translation, so some English might be different, sorry.
5 Likes
It would seem we are doomed to have another AAM-3 on our hands but somehow worse.
At least AAM-3 “makes sense” in the way that the features missing aren’t in game. We at least have some form of security in knowing that DMM did research for the missile alongside what they did for F-4EJ Kai.
Bank to turn is not a feature in game, there isn’t even a representation of dual plane maneuverability. So all missiles (AAM-3 included) are locked in single plane maneuverability constantly. With BTT steering AAM-3 will easily be among the most maneuverable non thrust vectoring missiles and even beat some earlier TVC missiles similar to what the Python 4 does.
Gaijin has stated there are for balance reasons no dual channel IR/UV air to air missiles, leaving it to ground and helicopter launched MANPADS only. This is what the seeker of the AAM-3 will be once they officially “add the feature” for air to air missiles.
That is, unless they completely forget about AAM-3 once they do, or just don’t add these at all. Especially BTT is scarily easy for them to just skip completely.
2 Likes
Exactly what im worried about tbh, wouldnt be the first time Japan has gotten pushed to the side
2 Likes
I’m actually a big fan as I actually was one of the folks that wanted a camo like this.
My only complaint so far is the canopy frame isn’t painted over, but that’s accurate as the reference is from an older F-15J by the looks of it.
3 Likes
i mean i definetly feel its an improvement over the one for the F-15J but its also not as on fire as some of the other agressor squadron liverries
But yeah beauty is in the eye of the beholder
2 Likes
I really wanted this one:
3 Likes