and that is why you shouldnt watch matawg
9 Likes
The AIM-120A has more range because it retains energy slightly better when going straight, and noticeably better when maneuvering when both missiles are out of the burner phase. But the AAM-4 is still more meta because it turns a lot better and is faster for shorter ranges.
But the rafale/EF2000 are just very fast jets and can out-energy most missiles by just turning away and going 1600kph+ while doing slight spirals while descending to thicker air, unless you are at very short ranges already with decent initial launch speed
1 Like
AAM-4 has since it came out been considered a sidegrade and even a slight upgrade over the AIM-120A.
Today, I’d still consider it fairly good at range, losing a bit to AIM-120C and newer, but being much better at closer ranges than any AIM-120.
It would be nice if we got the AAM-4B, in the near future too, since when stuff like meteor comes, even the B will be years behind.
2 Likes
10 mins on vid… he says it pulls more, but only for 3 seconds xd
His list is where id put them all TBH. Not sure about PL12s anymore as iv fired like 5 since nerf…
AAM-4B has aesa seeker, not all nations have missiles with aesa seekers, idk how gaijin will balance that
3 Likes
I’m sorry what?
Spoiler
If you wanna spread completely delusional misinformation
You gotta do better than MATAWG
“argumentum ad verecundiam” - look it up
7 Likes
We cannot be unironically using a matawg video as evidence for missile performance im crine sonion
8 Likes
what is the meaning of this
chaff increase ???
THEORETICALLY (!), the F-2 in the game should have 30+30+30 small and 15 large chaff/flare. If you adjust their number according to the visual model. or 30+30 and 15+15, or 30 and 15+15+15
It might seem like child’s play and yet this is part of how we keep UneXploded Ordnance (UXO) technicians employed. Not all bombs go boom or at least in the intended manner.
having multiple programmed fuse settings in a warhead isn’t what causes them to fail upon impact.
Mat seems to have a hate boner for the AAM-4, when it’s better than multiple fox 3s, idk what his problem with it is, ever since they fixed it after the first weeks it’s been a better AIM-120A/B
1 Like
Gotta love the ad hominem
Now extend that line a little.
Show what happens at a 10km shot if they go cold.
AAM4 is better at a 1 vs 1 missile duel at very close distance/ off bore angles- is fair.
In normal 16 vs 16 that little bit of extra pull still isnt worth over the 120s range and energy. Which puts the missile last place.
Having a bit more speed and energy 40 or 50 km away is nice, but most people who climb and launch at long range just launch and dip while dropping chaff. Doesn’t matter if your missile is doing 1.8 or 1.2 Mach 50 km away, you only get a kill on the ocasional dumbo.
What makes a huge difference tho is being able to launch at the enemy at closer ranges while being able to maintain somewhat of a notch angle. It’s the reason MICA is still so relevant despite comparably less range - it allows you to fire at the enemy without exposing yourself, while the enemy either overcomits and dies or has to maintain notch, unable to fire back.
I score kills all the time with 60 km lanches with 120s
Plenty of hits by chasing missiles on cold enemies too
All these kills lost by using the AAM4 just for a tiny bit more pull to use in an actual missile joust which in 16 vs 16 is about as rare as a gun fight.
The EF can just pull in to make the angle more favorable anyway
I do score too, but that’s just abusing the enemy’s stupidity, I don’t even remember when I got killed from 60kms away like that, because I’m not stupid.
People who have access to C-5 still often take B just because it pulls more and is faster of the rail, that’s what actually matters in WT when the last few players remain.
1 Like
