Yea the main point of contention to why we got the AJ instead of XF-2 was that the XF-2 would still not solve the issue of no standoff CAS for Japan and the AJ seemed to be a good fit to fill that gap.
As for as I’m aware, the XF-2 and F-2 would in terms of modelling is the same (besides the paint job of course)? The biggest elephant in the room is AESA and what that means for War Thunder top tier, both in implementation and meta shift. It’s a lot easier to sell an XF-2 with F-16C radar using existing armaments, than what an actual F-2 with AESA might be.
I’m of the opinion that Gaijin knows there’s a big demand for F-2, has formally addressed it, and now we’re at tech parity at least as far as the prototype is concerned. As such, the path of least resistance is pointing towards some form of an F-2 (along with contemporaries from other nations).
I had never seen a source that APG-68 was introduced, but seeing that Mitsubishi is importing it, it seems certain that it was used in some form.
However, as for Prototype 1, there exists a source where the chief of the production team announced that it was tested without a radar, so I think it is at least one of the XF-2A (Prototype 2) or XF-2B (Prototype 3-4).
The fourth of these aircraft was responsible for realistic combat and bombing tests, so it would probably have been equipped with an AESA. That would narrow it down to either the 2A No. 2 or the 2B No. 3.
Also, one additional tidbit of information, I found a photo of the XF-2A prototype #2 being equipped with weapons during testing at TRDI, with an ASM and an AAM-3.
All four aircraft, called XF-2s, were updated with equipment as F-2s after the end of testing. But this photo was taken during testing at TRDI…so it is proof that the XF-2A (prototype 2) is equipped with the weapon. (Sorry if this information has already been published!)
This is “theoretical” from here on. If the XF-2A Prototype II was equipped with the APG-68, then it might be possible to implement a non-AESA XF-2A.
The XF-2 is not equipped with machine guns, except for the fourth aircraft, so the risk on balance is the performance of the missiles it carries. The missiles are ASM and AAM-3 as seen in the picture, so this will not be a problem if the AAM-3 is replaced by AIM-9L or if the AAM-3 is unlocked around the time this aircraft is implemented.
It seems to me that inflation would not be advanced if the APG-68 + missiles only + F-2 body.
As I mentioned in the post while the radar is mentioned it was mainly as a placeholder radar if J/APG-1 wasn’t finished so it’s unknown if or not it did use APG-68. There is good evidence suggesting that in the end J/APG-1 was on the XF-2As from the very beginning tho.
From the old forums, Wiggles mentioned APG-68 was used and then switched to J/APG-1 when it was converted to production. A report was mentioned but I do not know if it was provided somewhere else. Outside of that, it’s in the realm of plausibility, which gives Gaijin wiggle room.
Personally, I speculate since it was technically a technology exchange program, they probably got it to see what it could do and from there I wouldn’t see why they wouldn’t mount it in one of the prototypes (what better way to get a baseline?) to test it versus their own developments to compare.
I think that it was possible on one means it was possible on all. I’d imagine in reality they tested things separately instead of all on the same airframe to save time, but that doesn’t say they couldn’t. For game purposes, I don’t think the distinction matters fortunately. If it theoretically could, it’s fair game for Gaijin.
Aside from that, @jony12a thank you for the information. I don’t think I’ve seen this information about the XF-2 and is new to me.
Though the question “does it matter?” come to mind. Japan, like a few other nations, is in a tough spot for what to add next. Its either huge game breaking jump or nothing at all. XF-2 with a reasonable, potential, but unprovable radar might be a reasonable compromise to give Japan something. I can see it being something that is only going to need to be done more going forward. As information becomes more sparse and options more limited. Maybe the best solution, is to bend reality for the sake of gameplay
I’m in agreement to the sentiment in general yea because other nations have also bended the rules to have things implemented. However, the less you have to bend due to information, the better.
Aside from the F-2 stuff, in general as we catchup to current tech, things are going to go more and more into speculative territory yea.
Absolutely, where available information allows. Lets stick to reality. But we’ve already seen things like the CR2 suffer greatly due to lack of information, so it needs to be done right and fair. But yeah. WIth so much heavily classified. We are probably looking at the last era of jets that can be added where information is semi-available. But after that… Its going to have to be all guess-timates.
Japan’s options are easy from 12.3 to maximum.
F-15J through F-35.
It’s the filler between 7.0 & 12.3 that’s the issue & what has people wanting a sub-tree for air, ground, and helis.
