dvids, and its from the NAWDC
Nice
also states the mach 2.25 top speed
1 Like
well, its pretty widely agreed that its RAM temperature limited, and without coating it would become intake limited
They both have 120cm’s. And for the missiles, AAM-3 just turn a bit harder as it leaves the jet, but AAM-4 is far behind AIM-120C-5 or -D.
Plus F-16CMC can get a 90 cm pods under every A-to-G armament.
Aam3 main advanatge isnt turning harder its that its faster and longe ranged, aam4 is very good probably better than any aim120
Except mavericks, so the 16CM can’t carry the countermeasure pods with it’s almost only useful air to ground weaponry.
EDIT: also the F-16CM has 90 CMs, not 120.
AAM-4 turns better, just as th AAM-3 when exiting the wing, but in range it will definetly be worst than
Only a better range than the aim-120 A and B.
And for chaff resistance, AAM-4 have a worst secker, no discussion.
This is AAM-4. This is the 120D:
i’m pretty sure the AAM-4 just have a copy-pasted seeker of a 120B, I just need to look around
AAM-4 likely does have the same Seeker as the AMRAAM, all of them, including the D. The difference with the D is that it also has GNSS. This does 2 things:
- Without it having to compensate for IOG drift, the missile retains energy better, as its not having to correct as much
- During terminal phase, the IOG drift on the other missiles can result in a miss even after re-acquistion, GNSS missile have 0 drift and so may hit
I want to say they do a third, but I cant think of it at the moment. Their resistance to chaff however is more than likely the exact same. There is just a difference in how they’ll react post-notch.
Though it should also be noted that launch conditions heavily impact how the AMRAAM behaves. A high speed, high alt launch of a AMRAAM from F-15C GE will perform considerably better than lower, slower one fired from something like a F-2A. Regardless of any differences in missile performance. If the AAM-4 launch platform is the F-15J, then you also have to consider the difference between M-Scan and E-Scan when it comes to supporting the shot, the difference is considerable
1 Like
all modern ARH par the MICA have the same seeker
1 Like
They do have some subtle differences, like R-77-1 handles low flying targets slightly better, I can’t remember the exact difference, but for the most part yes. You have the Aim-54 and variants, the MICA and then everyone else
1 Like
there is literally no differences between them par the mica and the Pheonix variants
3 Likes
the AIM 260 if added will blow the socks off 90% of missiles in BVR, let alone the AIM174B in a straight head on BVR fight.
Dont get you hopes high.
That thing will not even able to reach mach 1 with the 174. Compare to a su35 or a eft with 37m or meteor.
The fa18 is not going to be meta.
and thats not even mentioning Meteor MLU or Comet that we dont really know much about yet, and one or both will probably be added at the same time as the Aim-260
Aim260 will not keep up.
There is a huge difference in range and speed performance with one is a dual pulse rocket and the other is a sustainable boost.
The more i talk about long range missile, the more i understand us main coping about meteor is the f35.
2 Likes
knowing gaijin there going to keep the US very MID in game just so that way the smaller nations have a chance. They do this every update by giving the US worse variants or just waiting years for the US to get the same equipment. It gives the other nations a reason to play so people buy premiums and gaijin makes money. THIS is why the US will never be truly good for more than one update.
idk about that
iirc a common estimate of meteor maxium range is a known minimum for the aim 260
1 Like
Us this us that, the only reason is because the us tech have so many difference information from different source that its hard to get the right without falling into propaganda.
But still aim120 need fixes
Right, because the Pl-12 and Pl-12As were never nerfed at all the keep the American mains happy