@Smin1080p If you are able is there any intention of adding the Mig-21-93 to the Soviet tech tree? As you know we waited for the Mig-21 Bison or equivalent for quite some time & I plan to purchase as well.
However, having a Mig-21 Bison without the R-77 seems rather pointless. If GJ could add this one & the tech tree Russian version w/R-77s I believe it would be a hit. The aircraft is nimble enough & definitely a 12.7 easy with R-77s in the Soviet tech tree.
BTW the Soviet tree has no fighters at 12.3 … It would fill in some this missing BRs nicely imo. Harriers & other Aim-120 carriers are found at this BR range with ability to carry more Aim-9Ms & Aim-120s. I do not see how a Russian Mig-21-93 would affect balance.
On one hand I’m excited about the VLT2 and French Coastal in general, but I also don’t know if I’m fully convinced on the tech tree without seeing what will be in it.
Hopefully it comes with a planned tech tree announcement?
Maybe, but R-77s would 100% increase its BR. No way it would be 12.0 with ARH. If it is. Then I want BR drops for a lot of other ARH carriers. First and foremost, the Shar and Harrier II
Thank you for avoiding the use of the terms ‘KAI’ and ‘MJ’.
However, the notation J(M) is still not quite right.
Indeed, it is highly likely that J(M) is merely an abbreviation. The title you mentioned starting with J.T.O. is a ‘技術指令書番号’ (Technical Order Number), where abbreviated names are used instead of official names. For example, even short names like AAM-4 are abbreviated to AAM4, as shown in Image 1.
In formal documentation where abbreviations are not used, it is written as ‘F-15J(近代化改修機)’ as shown in Image 2. As stated in the previous MSIP aircraft JSI conversion plan document, the (近代化改修機) is MSIP, so it would be appropriate to use ‘F-15J MSIP.’ What do you think?
Also, if you are not convinced, could you give us other examples of the use of the J(M) notation?
No JSI exists yet (can’t even be the case, since the manuals for (M) have existed longer already) and the name for it would certainly not be “(M)”. I have included enough in the report to prove this.
Going further into the idea of "MSIP" is pointless and (as proven) not officially used (at least in this context), but Modernized / Renovated. We also know from JASDF circles that the designation (M) Modernized is used.
I will not go into the topic any further from now on anyway, there is stuff with higher priority.
Mark I: twin mounting based on American design and using American-built guns, not widely fitted. Fitted for remote fire control.
Mark II: quadruple version similar to the Mark I
Mark III: a navalized version of the Army single mounting, hand worked elevation and training.
As stated in the previous MSIP aircraft JSI conversion plan document, the (近代化改修機) is MSIP, so it would be appropriate to use ‘F-15J MSIP.’ What do you think?
