Maintenance regulations were invented for a reason and pointless application of markings clearly doesn’t fit into them
2 Likes
i am confused what are you guys arguing about?
is it the 6 ASMs’ or 6 AAM-4?
because both of them are possible.
Gaijin allowed the 6xASM loadout but shot down the bug report for a 6xARH arrangement likely because it didn’t have enough supporting evidence.
1 Like
It’s both. Currently collecting photos of it.
If this is evidence, I think it would be very historic. I am looking for a photo of it.
Here’s a bigger question;
if I recall, waaaaaay up there in the discussions of the F-2, didn’t it get a MAWS system at some point either early on or did it never receive such?
now this is what i don’t like though, gaijin have pretty weird on standard.
one time they said “if it’s capable we can add it”(paraphrasing) on the other hand it is known to be capable but not adding to it. well this is a literal case of it definitely can and the proof literally on side pylon.
so yeah it’s just gaijin BS
1 Like
Technically, with most of the pictures I’ve seen about here, is that there’s the connection points for the ASM electronics, but because of where the inner-most pylon is, it’s not clear if it’s marked for the missile electronic bus as well as the ASM
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
They are not unfounded. There is a prover technical compatibility with the stations 5/7. They are also mentioned in many secondary sources, unlike the MRMs on the same stations.
I’ll try to properly report the MRMs too, since in theory they seem to be compatible too, but the ASM has more proof, which is likely why Gaijin added it on their own already.
Using this logic has never brought anything but bad things. Gaijin would rather remove ASM if we argue like this. Instead I’m collecting all sources I can find for the MRMs and seeing if that individually is enough to be added.
I think it’s better that they aren’t identical, since that proves the MRM markings and connectors aren’t simply a result of shared parts. Since it’s a different variant but still has them that is the strongest argument we have here.
Also considering even F-15E getting 120C-5 (not like it was already one of the strongest aircrafts in BVR) I don’t see the reason why F-2 and F-15J shouldn’t get AAM-4B as well, we even got semi-correct radar for F-2
Semi-correct ?
Minor nations are not allowed to be good, that would obviously completely break the balance
1 Like
How？
Im obviously not trying to call you out publicly but instead stating facts. Keep your oppinion for Moderators for yourself, thanks :-)
1 Like
[DEV] F-2A missing HMD // Gaijin.net // Issues
Well, for now I will believe it is just not finished.
1 Like
Well, we know the pylon is compatible for a fact, since it does have all necessary connectors, despite being a different variant than the usual ASM/MRM stations which means it isn’t simply shared parts. And since the aircraft in addition to that has markings for them, that wouldn’t be necessary if it was just the pylon but not integrated with the plane, it’s likely a possible loadout.
CRL wet pylons on other aircraft like the Harrier II are also known to integrate guided armament, so the F-2 wouldn’t be unusual in that regard either.
Specifically the ASMs are also called out in secondary sources as technically possible loadout.
2 Likes
Also, regarding the F-2 radar, in game it seems to be working in the I band. Shouldn’t it be X band like most if not all AESA radars? Sorry if wrong
5 Likes
1 Like