Mitsubishi F-15J

[WreckingAres283]

@MOAItheGOAT

At least it should get better range and larger warhead as it’s an equivalent to AIM-120C7 or whatsoever

C-5, AAM-4B is roughly equal to C-7 (though its AESA seeker is vast superior)

@コタリ

There is the IRST pod built out of a fuel tank which was made to fix the problem of the nose mounted one. I think there was limited adoption which could go on any model.

That could work, def worth a try :D

[WreckingAres283]

Yup, we got the Modernized MSIP, means it should be called “F-15MJ” or “F-15J(M)”

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/6htEt6yUsEsr

[AlvisWisla]

@WreckingAres283 This correct?

[WreckingAres283]

No, just noticed it by myself. These should be F100-IHI-220E, which were installed with J-MSIP, so even before the MTDP stuff was installed (e.g. JHMCS → HMD).

[AlvisWisla]

Internally bug report it?

[oom1992]

You hope gaijin recall on tech tree and stat card F-15J KAI → F-15J(M) in dev server ?

[ID_Heaven]

No MAWS?

[Drag0oon]

Just tested it with a friend, appears to still be WIP and its missing one side by the looks.

[Gale_Cleven]

Japan should get the F-16C/J

[WreckingAres283]

Wrong engines report

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/aLbimL4Ol0hw

Wrong name report

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/6htEt6yUsEsr

---

@Maverick5I50

Japan should get the F-16C/J
-snip.

Thats Mitsubishi F-2 (and off-topic)

[Gale_Cleven]

I like to post them then put them in the suggestion box

[Nagisei]

So it does partially work or is it just for looks right now?

Also it looks like they’re basing it off this plane?

Spoiler

I hope they add it for both sides anyway tho…

[Drag0oon]

@Nagisei

So it does partially work or is it just for looks right now?

Friend shot a aim 9m at me from ~3km and nothing came up so I assume its for show.

@Nagisei

Also it looks like they’re basing it off this plane?

Good catch, seems like you are right but are the other F-15MJ like this too? If not maybe its better to model it after the average F-15MJ.

[Drag0oon]

Plenty have been made

Spoiler

Mitsubishi F-2B Viper Zero - A Lethal Combat Trainer
Mitsubishi F-2B ADTW «63-8102» - Better than Reagan´s and JASDFs R2-D2!
Mitsubishi F-2A Viper Zero (Early) - JASDFs Modern Zero enters Service
Mitsubishi F-2A Viper Zero (Late) - The Modern Zero Ameliorated

[Nagisei]

@Drag0oon

Friend shot a aim 9m at me from ~3km and nothing came up so I assume its for show.

I guess they think it would be too strong if it had a MAWS so haven’t modeled it for top tier planes. I know F-111 has one but it’s more of a bomber.

@Drag0oon

Good catch, seems like you are right but are the other F-15MJ like this too? If not maybe its better to model it after the average F-15MJ.

Honestly I don’t know, otherwise I’d bug report it myself to suggest, but I think they did this because it’s easier to copy paste from the F-15C for US? Worth a shot I suppose.

[Drag0oon]

@Nagisei

I guess they think it would be too strong if it had a MAWS so haven’t modeled it for top tier planes. I know F-111 has one but it’s more of a bomber.

haha i think its more of a WIP than anything, J11A and F15C are also missing MAWS. I doubt its ill intent, at least for now

[JoshX9706]

@Nagisei

I guess they think it would be too strong if it had a MAWS so haven’t modeled it for top tier planes.

recent france f16s have maws

[Nagisei]

Ah, then it’s probably a placeholder we hope.

[JoshX9706]

while browsing through warthunder issues, I came upon this bug report Community Bug Reporting System
What concerns me is that the AAM-4 will go the way of the type 93, being left behind with the old model and stats, while the newer models of other missiles surpass it
What sort of sources are available that can be used to support the AAM-4 to be at least equal to the other missiles

[Nagisei]

I was wondering that myself. I’d imagine whatever the AIM-120s get, by default, the AAM-4 should get, but I have no sources or information.