It’s so over…
1 Like
Wow dodged a bullet here. Finished spading it just last week
3 Likes
Being fairly new at this, i’ve been unable to test the performance of the AIM-4F missile, or even do some rigourous testing on the kinematics of the AIM-4G. But it seems to me that the seeker head of the missile is underperforming quite a bit compared to what it should be. The SMC says that at it’s absolute limit it should get a kill vs a B-47 when fired at a 15º angle from a headon, so I would expect the missile to at least be able to lock onto the MIG-15 from a similar angle (from much closer and without getting a kill because a mig-15 is much smaller), but I seem to only be able to get a missile lock from around 80 to 90º from a headon, as if it had a regular PbS seeker like a AIM-9E instead of a criogenically cooled Iridium seeker like an AIM-9L or newer - so maybe the AIM-4G should be internally be modelled as an all aspect seeker with less than 1,4 KM of all aspect range? (vs 3KM or more of proper all aspect seekers).The earlier AIM-4D SMC (with an inferior seeker) also indicates that under the perfect conditions the missile has all aspect capability at a range of 4000 feet, and bruce gordon’s BOMARC kill was also done with a single AIM-4G missile in a headon, so at least there would be some basis to this.
Even if you consider just the rear aspect the seeker is still underperforming, as the AIM-4G SMC indicates a possible kill from over 40 000 feet/12KM away from the target, meaning the baseline lock range from rear aspect should be greater than 5,5 KM…But maybe i don’t understand how the game models seekers.
Now there appears to have been at least a bug report thinking on similar lines that also used the SMC as reference (Community Bug Reporting System) but it was rejected because the mig-15 is much smaller than an b-47, as if we could use b-47´s for direct comparison. Should I try making another bug report on the subject or shouldn’t I bother and wait for sensor view?
4 Likes
The thing to do would be to replicate it as best we can, the closest we could get is the F-86K as it also uses an J47 engine, or a B-57B as it’s a similar class of aircraft (with similar thrust output). so there is at least a closer link than the MiG-15s, though this might need to occur in a custom game not test drive, so would need to wait until the F-106’s release in a few days.
The issue is we don’t really have Jet powered Strategic bombers in game (the A-5 and B-1B can’t come soon enough).
1 Like
So… I tried the AIM-4G today and I’m not really impressed. The way it flies sort of reminds me of the Matra R.511 of the Vautour IIN, except it’s faster. It doesn’t pull as much as the stat card says it should, and yet it feels kind of slow despite apparently being Mach 3 capable. The lack of proxy fuse makes it easy to dodge as well.
It’s a unique missile on a unique platform though, I’ll give it that.
AIM-26 falcon too not just aim-4 falcon could go there + bombs
Spoiler
1 Like
so is non salvo firing and, hmd
This was a joke they did one time and not a functional installation.
7 Likes
how to use AIM-4F/G
tip 1)launch at slow targets/high altitude/low indicated airspeeds. For example, if you are flying at 1200km/h and are chasing an enemy at the same speed, you’ll need to get within less than 0,8 km to get a possible kill - don’t bother with the missile and use the gun instead. But if you are both at 500 km/h, you can get a possible kill within 2,8 km.
tip 2) AIM-4s are slower and have less straight line range than AIM-7C/AIM-9B, but can turn better. This means they’ll be worse for straight line chases/headons, but can hit from pretty impressive angles (On the chart its 60º at slow speed, 40º high speed) if they are launched close enough (500m on the high speed example). Keep in mind statshark assumes the seeker is always tracking and has infinite gimbal limits, though,
3)Currently, the only way to missile high speed enemies is to attack them from the front with the AIM-4F. But that also means they’ll see it coming, and it’s easy enough for them to defeat the missile by chaffing/fire their own missile/maneuver out of the way (well the F106 radar should have a chaff filter ECCM, but it’s not implemented). You can try to surprise enemies from the side, but i suggest that launching them from below (a less obvious angle, and away from ground clutter) can be really effective, especially if you are going fast…
1 Like
I could get some decent use out of my Aim-4Gs from time to time. I suck at aiming the Vulcan on this thing so I’ve been practicing rather to make the missiles work lol
Video is too large for the forum to upload so unfortunately you’ll have to deal with the youtube link.
Overall I am actually enjoying my F-106 experience.
This was a joke they did one time and not a functional installation.
Hmmmmmmmmm
1 Like
the toilet was droped in combat
the bombs on the f-106 werent
6 Likes
Nothing to stop the MER from dropping either, to that same end, use in combat is not a requirement for ord options to be added, otherwise the YAK-141 would not have any of it’s ord or any of the other experimental vehicles in game.
Did anyone ever get a kill with the toilet?
Don’t think I’ve ever seen it used in game, with it’s payload you’d need to direct impact a open top with it to actually kill.
IRL, beyond the photos of it being loaded, I don’t know of it’s effects ever being recorded.
Toilet CCIP when? haha
The toilet was fitted with explosives, a fuse, and a stabilizing tail, on a plane that was built to drop bombs.
F-106 never dropped a single bomb, never had any equipment to drop bombs, and unlike Yak-141 was never intended to do any of that.
6 Likes
No proof of such
Ah yes the fuse, plugged into the wooden frame, wood is a very well known explosive
To a wooden, non-aerodynamic frame
And? If you know of any US aerial equipment, you should be well aware that the purpose of the aircraft seldom removes the ability for it to employ air to ground ordinance at some point in it’s service life.
And?
Incorrect, it’s wing tank mounts are the standard two point carriage adapters used by all US ord at the time, this is why they were able to mount a MER in the first place, such a mount is standardized, there is nothing physically stopping a F-106 from carrying bombs nor releasing them beyond doctrine, and doctrine, per gaijin, does not dictate what ord a aircraft can receive, otherwise all the Swiss aircraft recently added would have functionally none of the ord they carry in game today.
Except the Yak-141 never was capable of such, reminder, the requirement for ord to be added to aircraft, per smin, is for the ability to be present in a production version of the aircraft, such an ability is present in the F-106, the Yak-141 never had such abilities present in real form, even if the designers intended for such, thus, the former adheres to gaijin’s ord policy, while the latter does not.
3 Likes
Now that its out officially now, I’m pretty sure its drag is too high or something like that. Its supposed to fly faster and go farther and pull harder than USAF model sidewinders, yet as far as I can tell it doesn’t at any altitude.
Can anyone provide any further information on how the AIM-9B/E and AIM-4G compare to each other in-game?
1 Like
Well i guess it’s official that the AIM-4G seeker won’t revised until they add the b-47 to the game for direct comparison.Community Bug Reporting System
[長門], I posted a direct comparison between aim-4, aim-7 and aim-9 earlier, but the summary is that for the same launch parameters the aim 4 won’t reach the same top speed or cover the same range as AIM-7/9, but it is capable of making much tighter turns.
I do think the statcard is far too misleading, yes 30+ G’s and over mach 3 shows up on the SMC, but that’s only if launched from mach 2 over 40 000 feet high; if it said mach 2/18 G’s, it might not have given players the wrong impression. (And it’s just mach 1,4/12G’s if launched at subsonic speeds on the ground!)
2 Likes