I am quite happy with the F-16AJ. It’s a very nice plane, like all the other Block 10 F-16s.
It’s based on a real proposal and is on par with the other F-16As. I don’t see the problem here.
Even an XF-2A would be far too good to stay at the AJ’s battle rating.
I have everything but the F-15J; according to someone else here you don’t even have the T-2.
Gaijin has clearly said it was an EXCEPTION due to the lack of suitable vehicles to be added, not a precedent.
That’s quite unsurprising lol.
Seeing that they will get more Thais’s plane and the F-2A in the future, this will be a no and won’t this just be another F-16AJ situation?
Not the guy you replied to, but I’d say “based on” is the real issue. The F-16AJ in War Thunder is often called a paper plane, but it isn’t. This is actually one of the rare cases where I’d say calling it “fake” is accurate.
The in game F-16AJ is based on three different F-16 types:
F-16J; A proposed F-16A Block 10 to be exported to Japan. This competed with the F-14J and F-15J proposals and was ultimately rejected. To examine the aircraft a test flight was scheduled, however as the second F-16 was unavailable for the demonstration, the first was only observed from an F-4. This aircraft would’ve been nearly identical to an F-16A Block 10, which is why that is the airframe the AJ in War Thunder is based on.
F-16AJ; This stems from a later proposal of an improved F-16J, incorporating improvements based on technology recently tested on the second YF-16A prototype. The proposal itself came too late to make a difference and the F-16 still lost out to the F-15. The brochure separates two different variants, the single seat F-16AJ and the two seat F-16BJ. The aircraft itself would be visually similar to the YF-16A prototype, but incorporating a slightly larger nose to properly fit the radar. It was advertised to carry TV guided missiles and bombs, as well as Sparrows on two pylons mounted on the landing gear doors. Photographs of the prototype also showed it mounting sparrows on the two outer underwing hardpoints as well as the wingtips, so it is possible these were intended too.
The F-16A Block 15 ADF
Gaijin then took the F-16AJ proposal, decided to make a little “What-if” service aircraft based on it. Doing this they changed it up a little:
This, while in theory not being too wrong (only a different airframe and different weapons from the actual AJ), seems highly improbable the way Gaijin has worded it. Their statement being that Japan “would’ve been contempt with the aircraft like other countries buying it”, the implication here being that Japan wouldn’t need the upgrades proposed to them, and would decide to downgrade to a more standard aircraft.
Meanwhile in reality, both the standard aircraft and the proposed upgrades weren’t adequate enough to fill the Japanese requirements. Furthermore, Japan has never downgraded a proposal before. While the F-15J lacks the nuclear bombing systems and US produced RWR, it was already proposed that way, that was not a change Japan decided after selecting it.
Even the F-16 based aircraft did adopt years later, the F-2, was based on the SX-3, an extensively modified F-16C Block 40 design. Was that then downgraded? No, it was used as the base for rather extensive further upgrades instead.
So, in conclusion, F-16AJ is not a problem at all, but Gaijin’s implementation of it very much is.
That was the reason why the AJ proposal had landing gear door Sparrows, IIRC. Japan really wanted to not lose radar missile capacity from the F-4EJs and F-15Js.
It’s a little out there but I can understand why they went with the choices they did. The difference isn’t that big either way, seems like the biggest omission is the landing hear door hardpoints, but in WT that’s just extra weight.
Maybe they looked at the F-4EJs and the various features they’re missing and took conclusions from there?
Considering the brochure only ever showed two Sparrows on the aircraft (though on different pylons that would free it up for more Sidewinders) that isn’t my biggest concern.
What annoys me more are the other issues like it being a Block 10 instead of the very much visually different airframe it had in the brochure, or the TV bombs still being removed from it despite Japan lacking any guided bomb option currently.
Though my main issue is the concept of making up a “what-if” design instead of just implementing the paper design. One thing I took issue with in other games was how quickly game companies blur the line between paper and fiction. It seems that many games know how to draw a line between built and unbuilt vehicles, but then put paper and fiction on the same level.
I understand though that this is probably more of an issue for me than it might be for others.
Damn if only japan had some kinda guided bomb that could be fitted to various aircraft and required no extra equipment to be used
sounds crazy, I know
I love the GCS-1, though it would be nice to know a bit more about how it selects its target as well as seeker FOV. Ideally it’d point the seeker at the calculated impact point shown with CCIP, then lock the FOV around the target closest to that point. However we don’t exactly know if that is the case. It might just go for highest contrast within FOV, which depending on the FOV can be a nightmare to use.
I’d still love to see it regardless, but if they do add it, it is possible that it’ll simply be an automatic teamkilling device, with not enough information on it to prove Gaijin wrong.
Yeah, sadly we just don’t have that kinda info. It would be hilarious if it was an automatic teamkilling device.
To be fair with a 4 player squad of F-4s you could drop 60 750lb GCS-1. They might teamkill, but chances are they’ll kill everything else too.
…Unless they all collectively decide to go for a single friendly tank that is
Gets even funnier if you choose the 500lb version. Instead of 17 bombs per plane, you could have 24. On the F-1 it’s an even bigger difference, 5 vs 12.
There’s some serious meme potential here.
Sadly the size of the guidance kit doesn’t allow for them to be put one behind another on the 6 bomb MERs so it’s 3 at maximum for both types.
This means a phantom would carry 15 of them
The F-1 can actually make proper use of the 500lbs lower weight though, carrying up to 10 of them (but only 5 750lbs ant maximum)
Ah, I failed to account for that. Good spot.
No.
I want the F-2 ingame for Japan, not some copy/paste they never even actually bought…
Thread cleaned up…
Things will remain Civilized!
Warning issued for a certain Member… he has a few days to think about his actions on our Forum…
So, keep it Civilized and take it easy… and it is best not to interact with certain members, either take it to PM or flag / report their content, Thanks!
It’s a mixture of different designs, not a copy-paste. There is a time and when to call it a copy-paste however the exterior is sure but internally no since the only thing that’s copied and pasted is the exterior but the internals are completely different.
The F-2 cannot perform to the same standards as the F-16. It is slightly worse.
F-2 actually is slightly more agile due to the larger wings, but the acceleration will suffer due to the slight increase in weight considering it uses the same engine.
So I wouldn’t say it’s worse overall, it’ll just need a slightly different playstyle.
As for the Su-27, as I’ve said before in this thread, it’s completely unnecessary. Japan has enough potential for the air tree to not require it’s addition. The only reason the F-16AJ made it in the game was because Japan would’ve had nothing until the F-15, even moreso if they had decided to only add the 15A at first, which ended up not being the case luckily since Japan only used the F-15C. But with the F-15 and the future of the F-2’s addition, the Su-27 is completely unnecessary.
In fact, now that we have the Thai air tree coming in the future, it’s all the more reason not to give Japan the Su-27. In fact, I’d rather see Gaijin remove the F-16AJ from the tech tree and just add the Thai F-16 ADF to stop the complaints and having the AJ be the excuse for other stupid suggestions such as this one, keep the Swedes for being that scapegoat…
Didn’t gaijin say the F-16AJ was very much a special exception and shouldn’t ever be taken as an example?
If only they made this as a what if instead of the F-16 AJ lol People who are all about “realism” would still be upset but to me this makes a lot of sense.
