over performing seekerhead and maneuverability, underperforming motor and datalink
datalink bug
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Dydv8BRmUvHv
motor bug
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0UfgLp9J1n2n
1 Like
A lot (besides using the visual appearance of the AAM-4B).
But most importantly the motor performance - iirc while it would accelerate slower, its DeltaV could potentionally be higher than R-27ER (~1100m/s when I saw the last calc. graph about it).
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Dydv8BRmUvHv
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/77Bwjvfg7ULh
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0UfgLp9J1n2n
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BIwz0v6I1RZG
1 Like
I see- well I hope it gets fixed quickly then. Those bug reports make it seem like it’d be alot funner to use if it were actually fixed.
oh yeah, and its vastly overperforming in min range. it should have a proxy fuse delay of between around 4-6 seconds, and thus should be useless from around 6km inside
1 Like
The F2 is fun cause I get to dogfight while I BVR in the EF2000. Though the full potential of the AESA radar is unlocked with the typhoon, I can loft up AAM4 near the ground, notch, and guide them to multipathing planes. Quite effective. With HMD, AAM4B, and AAM5, I hope we can get another F2 at 14.3 or smth up there. A fun challenge.
1 Like
Don’t get your hopes up. These reports have been accepted for many months up to a year or so now.
It’s possible Gaijin will change them later, with either a new F-2 or to make the F-2 a bit more competitive. However, it’s also likely that it will never be adjusted.
2 Likes
That “fixing” which is not even known how correct is it
There is one thing I’m considering bug reporting and that’s the speed at which the F-2 cuts the drogue chute. It seems like it cuts it early compared to other aircraft like the F-4EJ/F-1/etc.
The margin of error on my figures for the motor performance was included in the bug reports. It is honestly quite a large margin, but the figure i proposed was the median, and well within all physically expected bounds. Along with putting the missile at its expected range as claimed irl.
My AAM-3 BTT modeling is also, deffinitly slightly rough, however the improvement it shows is actually lower then commonly claimed figures for the improvement BTT provides. (Only providing around a 1.32x increase in performance by itself, where as many irl figures claim 1.5x performance. However 1.5x is over whats mathematically possible without accounting for body lift, and i cant find enough to model that so.)
I get you’re still doubtful on the other reports reguarding the AAM-4’s guidence/datalink. And i do honestly think that you are probably right that we shouldnt accept the G value i used. But the rest of them do very much line up with the other things we’ve seen.
2 Likes
The contents described in that patent are:
“ARH utilizing the rate of change of the line-of-sight angle and the missile-target approach velocity”
“ARH utilizing the rate of change of the line-of-sight angle, the missile-target approach velocity, and the relative distance”
“ARH utilizing the rate of change of the antenna slew angle and the missile-target approach velocity”
“SARH utilizing the rate of change of the line-of-sight angle and the missile-target approach velocity”
“SARH utilizing the rate of change of antenna slew angle and the missile-target approach velocity”
“IRH utilizing the rate of change of line-of-sight angle”
The simulation describes preparing virtual missile models for these six guidance methods and applying fuzzy functions to achieve smoother guidance than conventional proportional navigation.
Therefore, I don’t believe it is describing the AAM-4.
Please provide proof/mark down where this is said, as it could count as misinformation by stating something without proof.
1 Like
at the same time the self-same patent shows the pn algorithm on the same weapon showing it targeting 40+ G so you can make the case that the aam-4 should be able to target a higher overload currently actually - but this is, again, if it actually is the aam-4 and the patent is not just describing a theoretical setup.
1 Like
So even more maneuverable than what it is in game, would be insane.
Though it doesn’t really matter unless they change fin aoa, it’s never hitting that g pull in most situations without the aoa
as far as i can tell there’s no reason to believe that it’s current experienced g and rather just commanded accel even if it is for the actual aam-4 which it very well could just not be so the kinematic performance of it is still up in the air
1 Like
You really want to have worse envelope for more range?
Because that’s what a “fix” would look like
1 Like
nothing better than a missile useless within 7 km
What part of the multiple methods it describe make you think it’s not for the AAM-4?
This patent describes an invention that enables smoother flight by using fuzzy functions instead of conventional proportional navigation. That is, it applies to all missiles.
“ARH utilizing the rate of change of the line-of-sight angle and the missile-target approach velocity”
“ARH utilizing the rate of change of the line-of-sight angle, the missile-target approach velocity, and the relative distance”
“ARH utilizing the rate of change of the antenna slew angle and the missile-target approach velocity”
[0052] was split across pages, so I edited it for easier viewing.
“SARH utilizing the rate of change of the line-of-sight angle and the missile-target approach velocity”
“SARH utilizing the rate of change of antenna slew angle and the missile-target approach velocity”
“IRH utilizing the rate of change of line-of-sight angle”
The passive guidance method in [0082] is referred to as infrared guidance.
This is a software simulation guiding missiles using results calculated with the invented fuzzy functions for each of the six guidance methods (three for ARH, two for SARH, and one for IRH). It does not describe a single missile.
Claims 1 through 6 mentioned in the bugreport are requests to grant patents for guidance systems applying the invented fuzzy functions to six different guided missile types, respectively. Therefore, they do not describe technical matters.
The second image of this spoiler states “assuming a hypothetical missile model,” so it does not specify a particular missile. Therefore, I believe it is not suitable for modifying the AAM-4’s data link, maneuvering G, or motor performance. Rather, considering the nature of the patent, it seems unrelated. However, the fuzzy function may have been optimized and applied for the AAM-4.
Since the languages used are different, it’s a hassle to translate the reply, translate the response, and then confirm that the intended meaning is accurate, so I’ll end it here.
1 Like
just bought the f-2, realized it doesnt have an aoa limit button. should it have one? I think the f-16 irl has one but idk about the f-2.
btw if youre wondering why the quality is so terrible, i play at 720p on xbox
1 Like
also, is this rwr like the eurofighter rwr? noticed that rwr contacts are slighly further than where i expect them to be