From memory it’s a UK-Japan effort, and Meteor has other European partners who objected. That’s what I read a while ago, and it’s not some reliable source, so take it with a grain of salt.
1 Like
Japan didn’t pull out of it, france was throwing a hissy fit, claiming worries over a non-eu country touching EU tech so they forced britain to close the project. Although it was more likely they were upset because it would lessen their workshare in the missile (MBDA produces the current seeker). Because it wouldnt be a joint military project without france crying about workshares lmao.
The AAM-6 is still under development, and slated for use with GCAP as japan’s next gen MRM. It uses the seeker developed for JNAAM (upgraded version of the -4B’s, has 2-way datalink, and is likely going to be a good bit more manueverable then the AAM-4.
1 Like
Does france make Meteor seekers? It would then make sense if they were to replace the seekers with Japanese ones.
That is pure speculation and there is nothing about it tho…
Probably they’re just waiting to ship it along with the rest of the massive rework to the missile my bug reports would entail. Also cause the bug report essentially says they’d need to make or approximate a new guidence model just for the missile.
Which part? Them being upset about the workshare? It is speculation in that its not the officially stated reason. But it is a pretty well grounded statement in their general view to joint projects and their sentiments towards them, especially recently.
About the problems with the missile for Japan and UK.
No, that is known to be the reason why (international concerns from france), there are a few news articles on it.
Few news articles from not particularly trustworthy sources which rely on nothing.
It’s more of a guess than anything else from those sources.
People I know who worked at some of the involved defense contractors confirmed that it is along the lines of what they heard. Also from the progress reports i’ve read from both the JP and UK side, that does about line up with what you could expect. They suddenly paused development right before the technological exchange was set to take place, after budgets had been more or less agreed on. Then the project collected dust for a few years before silently being finally binned.
Yeah so vague stuff, that is why i said there isn’t much…
Ngl I thought meteor was a Britain led project which is why I didn’t think France having a hissy fit would matter
It is, but it also engages france, Germany, and Sweden from memory. It’s bit like involving American-made components and they can object things with ITAR, actually any partner in almost every joint projects can do the same, it’s just not talked about as much if it’s not USA that does it.
“fine” is a bit of a weird way to say busted, the only reason f2a isnt dominating hard is because how honestly bad most players are. its INCREDIBLY strong arguable the strongest 13.0
Dose the AAM-4 in game have it’s directional warhead?
This ignores that the F-2 is also has a far better flight model and radar., while it would also have IRCCM missiles.
Warthunder’s warhead modeling is somewhat limited for missiles, so the kind of directional warhead it uses isn’t supported yet (fixed directional warheads are possible, but not ones that aim towards the enemy).
It could always just be approximated by increasing certain paramters so that way the whole area is of the ideal efficacy, which would work well enough for simple use cases and is what i wpuld personally do. But more complex modeling is probably fine with not bring in yet. Getting stuff like continuous exapnding rods into game first would be a higher priority.
1 Like
Ok, thanks for the explanation, that makes sense, there are very few situations (if any) where simply increasing it’s overall blast would make a practical difference compared to directional. and it would be less prone to bugs. It’s not like the game has the kind of real world limitations where you can only fit so much warhead on the missile so you need to optimize it.
I just feel like the F-2A needs a little extra zing too it, it would have been amazing around the time the ARH F-15s came out, but with the EFs/ Rafs already out when it released it feels a little tepid IMO.
Splashing multi-pathing targets would be the main scenerio i could think of, particularly cause the AAM-4 should have a relatively small amount of fragmentation pellets (600 versus the current 2000). In such scenerios with it fuzing near the ground, targets flying above would be receiveing like 3-4 the fragmentation they should be.
Imo just the rest of the AAM-4 rework that’s needed would be enough, especially if they threw an F-2 FM buff on top, although i suppose theres no chance of that till i decide to touch some bug reports again…
1 Like
Nope. The current top-tier meta is “be fast and have as many missiles as possible” The F-2 doesn’t meet either of these ability. This is the reason why its not a good plane in toptier. You are not fast, you dont have more missiles than 4 and you dont have HMD. So it should be balanced with better missle compensating the less missles.
1 Like
Zanna is talking about the 13.0 not the top tier one. I wouldn’t say its the strongest 13.0, but it is still a decently good one. Top speed at 13.0 doesnt matter as much, and as shown by the F-15J being the best 13.0 for most the time 13.0 has existed, its clearly not that lacking a loadout.