Irrelevant, they are still a much older design.
Obviously if the USAF got some newly manufactured Curtiss P-36s (extreme example), it wouldn’t matter if they’re made in 2024 or not, they’re not gonna stack up to a fighter designed and originally produced in the 70s.
In comparison, the Rafale only came a mere 4 years before the F-22, and it stands absolutely no chance in BVR, with WVR being a tough ask as well.
depends on the weather and IRSTs
most aircrafts equipped with it can guide a fox 3 through datalink at 70+ km, so yeah
No. Let’s put it in perspective, the youngest F-15Cs still in service today were produced in 1986, just shy of 40 years ago. You can upgrade the systems significantly and the flight performance to a degree, but you can’t compare an airframe literally designed with a slide-rule to one done with CAD and computer simulation
Also if its known (or expect) that they will be fighting or not, IRST range is somewhat reduced at lower altitudes( diffraction & and absorption more significant due to higher fluid density), and significantly by not flying supersonic(Skin heating), take for example the performance of the AN/ALR-23 IRSTS from the F-14.
And that doesn’t take into account any potential Signature control features that may or may not be present(e.g. Active cooling using on board Fuel as a heat sink, or variable / high bypass ratio engines), though it is certainly likely to be more reliable than the radar at range.
not at all, it’s closer in relation to the aim7M than the aim120 if anything being designed at the 203mm standard and designed to fit into places aim7s already had (they even planned it for their F4s but that got canned for cost reasons post cold war). It also went into service around the same time so unless they had a time machine that’d be hard.
It will have range advantages over an early amrram but that’s also because its a singifignatly larger missile. This means it can both have more fuel and a more powerful seeker with the same technology, but of couse the downsides of extra weight and not being as small and flexible as the amraam (which can even fit on the wingtips of an F16). Just differnt design rules and tradeoffs.
Only in this case the AAM-4 is a domestically developed and manufactured missile from Japan for Japanese service Aircraft and U.S has no claim to it whatsoever
well rather funny the AAM-4 was based off an AIM-7M just that they did their own stuff in there specially in the electronics, making it stupidly good for a first attempt on an ARH, the missile overall performs pretty similarly to an AIM-7M but with really good turn rate for how heavy it is, aswell as having a decently good range too
the AAM-4 was developed by Mitsubishi which is a Japanese company, Not American
if he wants to argue that U.S should have claim over it (no aircraft america made operated the AAM-4)
then Japan should recieve ALL vehicles that were stationed/in japan… - E.g. F-14A Block 135, A-10s, Abrams etc
Japan should be included in the US technology tree
US should be in Japan research tree. The main cooperative development between them (F-2) was led by Japan
Both of them should be in South Korea Tree :)
Only one US missile is strongest outside of the US;
The F-104
That’s not a missile, it’s a lawn dart. A supersonic lawn dart, but still a lawn dart.
True, the technology of ‘pilot’ as a seeker head was a novelty though
How dare you forget about pigeon guided weapons :(
The pommies had pilots as seekers well before the yanks :(
The entire OP is just plain mis information. The guy thinks AAM-4 was an American missle or development when neither is true that just makes his entire argument invalid.
Its even more funny when you think about the fact that AAM-4 is artificially nerfed to meet current AIM-120A/B levels.
Hey, at least they only nerfed it to meet aim 120 levels.
Sad France Noises 😿
The USA should be part of the japanese sub tree too :)
Do Japan have any self-developed aircraft?
