1 Like
IRL accurate loadout.
We’ll see on the dev stream / server if that’s actually Gaijins decision or if they simply wanted to show a service loadout for the teaser.
Though since it’s only a theoretical loadout that’s unconfirmed I don’t think our chances are very good for getting it added if they decided to scrap the inner MRMs.
Thats from a Model Kit. No source at all.
3 Likes
This image is from a scale model, the pylons marked in dark grey are not used together, but alternative placements for wing stations 3/9. When using “STA-3/9 in”, neither the regular STA-3/9, nor STA-4/8 can be mounted iirc
The MRMs on STA-2/10 are also based on an old configuration that was scrapped past flight tests with mockups due to wing cracking and fluttering when mounted together with the ASMs on STA-3/9 and STA-4/8. Structural issues were fixed, but the loadout was still never realized.
We might have better chances seeing them on STA-5/7, since those specifically have the necessary connections and markings for MRMs, despite being a different CRL variant from those that usually carry these weapons. This was also seen on the leaked CDK model. Still it’s an unconfirmed loadout, so very much up to Gaijin here and we can’t do too much if they decide against them now.
5 Likes
Yes, there is sufficient evidence that it can be achieved. And finally, 14.0 will be released in Japan. Same armament as MJ, no 120 commercials, AESA or HMD…too late now?
I sincerely doubt it’s going to be a 14.0, atleast it shouldn’t be. 120 CMs + no HMD + only 4x ARHs is mid even for 13.7.
1 Like
If implemented correctly, it will still have the best radar by a long shot, even outperforming a fixed RBE2-AA. Gaijin could screw it over though by giving it the bad stats from when Japan provided the US with Dragonfly to test.
Japan never got Hydras?
Doubt it, they clearly like the F-2 a lot from how good the trailer was for it.
And it would be too easy to report early on so wouldn’t be a big problem anywyas
Nah, it wouldn’t outperform an IRL accurate RBE2-AA, it would be worse in about every way. The RBE2-AA has a longer range (estimated at 200km versus 160~), a wider scan area (140 degrees versus 120), and supposedly scans much faster (the J/APG series has a fairly low scan speed for an aesa).
And, sadly, the T/R modules sold to the US for were the same production spec used in the J/APG-1. Sure we’ll be getting a J/APG-2, but i still wouldn’t expect much.
Even J/APG-2 worse? I would think it’s bigger than rbe2 and as such have more range due to also being pretty new
Unless they managed to like quadruple the power between the 1 and the 2, hitting over 200 kilometers is very unlikely. Now, 200km is a bit of a generous estimate for the RBE2-AA, but even with lower estimates at best the J/APG-2 is gonna be matching it, with it’s other stuff still being worse.
Honestly don’t think that’s totally out of question. you said yourself J/APG-1 TRM was very very old standard, J/APG-2 is from what, 2010s? Look at how far electronics have come from when J/APG-1 standard TRM was made to 2010s
Nah, a bug report puts the the RBE2-AA as having an LPRF R50 of 5m^2 @ 180km
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/4xETLTWyByNc
The J/APG-1 has an LPRF R50 of 2.5m^2 @ 180km
With a 5m^2 RCS, the J/APG-1 should have an even longer range.
I don’t have anything to compare scan times
There were multiple times where the US got hands on with MELCO T/R modules in 1990, 1991 and 1993.
In the 1990 and 1991 case, Japan was very tight lipped about the module capabilities and it was all based on an engineering model of the radar and modules.
Indeed, the team’s principal conclusion, as
recounted in a later GAO report, was that “Japan’s technology [is]
far more competitive with similar U.S. radar technology than was
previously believed.”
Although the American team members had been quite impressed with what they saw on the first radar visit, they nonetheless had only learned about the general characteristics ofthe prototype engineering model of the APA radar.
Eventually, officials
scheduled a new trip for May 1991. Although this time the
Japanese permitted the U.S. engineers to view the facility that actually fabricated the GaAs MMIC chips for the FS-X radar T/R
modules, the GAO later noted that “Japanese officials declined to
answer many technical questions about radar test data.”
First, assessment ofthe potential value ofJapanese technology for bringing
down U.S. module costs required far more detailed data on the
performance of MELCO’s T/R modules and on the company’s dualuse automated manufacturing techniques, as well as on production
costs. However, the Japanese did not seem inclined to provide this
type of information.
So we know prior to receiving the T/R modules for testing, the US’s knowledge on MELCO T/R modules wasn’t very deep and Japan was outright trying to conceal information to protect their tech.
Now lets look at the hit piece where most of the slander of MELCO T/R modules comes from such as being worse than the APG-68. It almost all comes from DTIC ADA283773
In plain text they basically admit that they haven’t received any data on the MELCO T/R modules. ADA283773 was published in January of 1994 and the USAF released it’s data on the tests in June 1994, so there is no way for DTIC to have any of the data.
Yet they just freely spout this trash which people take as fact with 0 hard data.
Their sources on how the T/R modules are worse than those used on the APG-68 and APG-77.
- Jane’s
- Not very detailed information from the JDA on the much smaller and weaker by around 1kW per T/R module engineering model
- An interview with a Texas Instruments head
Using the actual 1994 report for Wright Labs shows that it kicks the shit out of the APG-68 and has a higher resolution than even the RBE2-AA. The only evidence of the J/APG-1 being “bad” is a report published before the US had even tested the J/APG-1 modules.
9 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
3 Likes
6 ARH is probably a necessary measure. It should be realistic before it is historical. Rafale is originally 6 ARH.
1 Like
It wouldn’t be necessary if it came earlier. It can fit into 13.7 meta quite easy without any addtions, with just it’s real performance. Rafale had 6 missiles initially, but was upgraded later to carry 8 missiles. In the game we have indian version of rafale C F3, that is able to carry 8 missiles
8 missiles was necessary right after it’s coming, but now with 6 missiles it would be balanced
This isn’t a reliable source, however looking at the 6 heavy-duty underwing pylons they all have identical markings so we can very well assume they have identical capabilities (except the very inner ones being wet pylons of course)