https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/nn220OYHm4Z1
In response to the report that the ASM-3 does not have a PRH, the manager said that since it is a prototype missile, it does not serve as evidence.
If that is the case, what documents did they refer to regarding the guidance system, weight, dimensions, and propulsion method of the ASM-3 currently in use? Although mass production of the ASM-3 was approved, it was ultimately never mass-produced. The only documents available for review now are those for the XASM-3.
I’d like to ask the manager: What documents did Gaijin consult to determine the ASM-3’s performance specifications?
-So the manager edited the comment.
Isn’t this kind of a double standard once again in conflict with everybody’s favorite Russian missile?
Which one? The Buk is also equipped with the prototype from the exhibition.)
The original Buk is equipped with a semi-active radar-homing (SARH) missile.
The intake cover shape is probably correct. It’s just the intake opening itself that’s wrong. I don’t know how the fitting at the base of the intake cover is supposed to work.
Source: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)


Despite the changes, why does the AAM-4 still look terrible?
because the changes only made it worse?
I talk to him about the F-2, and he talks to me about the F-16.

Does ASM-3 include mid-course correction?
Nope, it’s in the charge for the nxt gen of ASM-3, the ASM-3 Kai. Only GPS, Active and passive radar homing, HOJ, and it is said that it could use it’s mothership RWR to work as an ARM, but I can’t find any first source correlating that, only one that refer the ASM-3 as a anti-radiation missile.
GMTI+IOG+GNSS=

how many hit nothing though? it would be cool if it could be slaved to the rwr and used as an actual good blue arm
I fired 8 missiles, I got two It0 kills, one critical hit on an abrams.
67kg of fuel and a weak, long booster
Should the F-2 have large CMs? One of these seems much bigger than the other…


