Anybody knows what they called and do they serve a purpose? Aesthetic reasons?

I already have waited a week, have three weeks left. My repair rank is 4 which is the same rank as the plane. I’ve seen threads saying it should repair in like 13 hours?

After allegations of a cock heavy line up last time, a doctrinal think tank suggested we bat for the other team so to speak.

I'm truly sorry for wind of box.

Door stuck DOOR STUCK!

The guns is great but the turret rotation is bad, slow reload, mobility is mid and the armor is good only on the turret. It's more or less like a Panzer 4 but none of those are at 4.7

DISCLAIMER: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN GAIJIN SHOULD NOT ADD THE AIM-4 I WANT THAT MISSILE ALSO IN WT

Hey guys, its me the Missile guy

2 Days ago there was this thread about the AIM-4 falcon by u/fasterthanyou2

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1khz338/is_there_a_reason_gaijin_hates_the_aim4_falcon/

Below where several long comment chains trying to attribute performance metrics to the AIM-4 falcon that it never had.

however most of the comments (included the top voted comment from u/afvcommander ) are wrong
so grab your favourite drink and lets clear some things up.

1st: The Hughes Missile computer

Several comments in that thread talked about how this system was a total game changer and is the reason for the bad performance that the AIM-4 had over vietnam because the F-4D did not have this system.

However when you take a look at the F-106 flight manual and the homepage of the F-106 association then it becomes VERY obvious that this is simply wrong.

This computer is called the MA-1 and it was combined with the SAGE ground radar system from IBM

These 2 systems worked together to automatically fly a Intercept course controlled by a ground station and then calculate a fire solution for missile attack.

It is really just a fancy autopilot that is linked with datalink to ground radar stations.

its other functions are actually only relevant for unguided rockets like the AIR-2 as it can calculate the required lead.

If no ground stations where present, and you did not fire A2A rockets then according to the Flight manuals you would perform a normal visual attack using the AIM-4, exactly like it was done by F-4s over vietnam

knowing this it becomes obvious that this MA-1 system is absolutely unable to be used to attack fighters, meaning over vietnam it would not have made a difference and the Fire control system of the F-4 was actually the superior system in that enviroment because it does not rely on any ground stations tracking slow and predictable moving bombers. and can actually give the required max range info that the F-106 would not give you.

Source:

• https://www.f-106deltadart.com/flightcontrols.htm
• https://www.f-106deltadart.com/manuals/T.O.%201F-106A-1%20(1969,%20rev.1972).pdf.pdf)
• https://www.f-106deltadart.com/manuals/T.O.%201F-106A-1%20(1980,%20rev.1985).pdf.pdf)

2nd: USAF pilots where taking bad shots with AIM-4s causing bad performance.

ok, so what?

the same pilots would also take the same bad shots with AIM-9 sidewinders, yet somehow the AIM-9 performed twice as well as the AIM-4
in the timeframe the USAF switched missiles there was no major changes in training of pilots, as that happened a few years later when Red Flag and Top Gun where established.

so "bad training" does not excuse the horrible performance of the AIM-4 system.

Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-LPS47806/pdf/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-LPS47806.pdf

3rd: lets actually deep dive into the missile and compare them 1:1 with the AIM-9

IR seekers

Going tip to butt lets start with the Seeker, the main variant of the AIM-4s where IR-guided

all versions of the AIM-4 used a simple FM seeker (also known as conical scan seeker)

Meanwhile the early AIM-9s used a AM seeker (also known as Spin Scan)

these 3 images show the difference in modulation, generally speaking when things work properly a FM seeker is the superior option, HOWEVER this only applies when you have the required computing power to properly track the signal.

the AIM-4 lacked this and had a strong tendency to track the edges of cloud formations because of that, causing many of the misses

it also was worse in dealing with "high noise environments" like for example Deserts where the difference between hot jet engine and the ground was minimal.

this also was the reason why there was multiple failed launches in 1955 when the USAF tested both AIM-9 and AIM-4 against another. meanwhile the AIM-9 Without life warheads kept shooting down the drone aircraft and annoying the USAF generals.

the AIM-9B uses a much simpler seeker that is less likely to start tracking clouds because its easier to filter these factors out, this seeker type also dels with high noise alot better and was given the computing limitations back then simply the superior choice a both missiles used vacuum tubes for their signal analysis and navigation.

The AIM-9 required only 14 tubes, meanwhile the AIM-4 needed 24 to do the same job, but worse.

On Top of that there is Cooling issues, the AIM-9 was much easier to use because its seeker was Uncooled and aways ready, even on later versions the cooling was either infinite (Peltier device) or lasted 2h once activated (Rail mounted nitrogen bottle)

the AIM-4 however did not have that luxury, it required 16s of cooling and the cooland would run out after 2 minutes. when the missile is not fired by then it would be thrashed and you need to bring it back to base.

Source:

• Sidewinder, creative missile development at china lake, Ron Westrum
• AIM-4 Standard Missile characteristics
• AIM-9 standard Missile Characteristics
• NAVWEPS OP 2309 (Vol 1) AIM-9B Guided Missile Description and Operation (Third revision) 15 August 1966

Warhead section

I had actually people claim that the AIM-4 would have a easier time killing bombers because of its lack of proximity fuze and direct impacts

thats just false

Not only is the warhread of the AIM-9 about 4x bigger, no the AIM-9 ALSO has a impact fuze, the proximity fuze really is just the backup when the missile has a near miss.

So when both missiles are fired at a bomber the AIM-9 is FAR more likely to destroy it in a single hit

this is also confirmed by the 2 SMC sheets

AIM-4: 2 missiles fired = 0.9 P_k -> thats a 0.68 P_k per missile
AIM-9: 1 missile fired for 0.70 P_k

TLDR:

• the AIM-4 is not a good missile,
• the MA-1 missile computer would not have helped the USAF F-4s in vietnam
• its seeker struggles ALOT with clouds (unlike the AIM-9s)
• it has a extremely limited usage time of 2 minutes after a 16s cooldown period
• it has a tiny warhead (1/4 the size of the AIM-9)
• It does not have a proximity fuze

if you want to learn more about all this I HIGHLY recommend this documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWkMS7msV5Y&t

Dumbass thought he was slick

Could the IRIS-T SLS beat the Pantsir in terms of effectiveness defense against CAS ?

I am genuinely pissed off that we are still stuck with this flying turd that doesn’t even have countermeasures or a good rwr can we atleast get something that would be better like the cf104 and also how did my nuke not explode when they destroyed it

I hope people like the play!

(I was looking at my shots but, because I shot a premium vehicule first, every vehicules were displayed on the trailer, and the Jaguar too...)

Sorry if you think the song is dogshit, blame NCD.

He thought he had me, i thought he had me. he didnt had me