The flaperons on the main wing are rolling in the opposite direction of input.
1 Like
To be fair, all things about F-2 was expected, for God only knows what reason Gaijin sometimes just does that. Japan never got GCS-1 bombs because there are no 100% concrete proof with 500 pages of technical manuals behind it that system, can track tanks. ASM-2 even if it gets IR guidance wouldn’t be able to track tanks as well most likely while Penguin with older seeker head can do the same without an issue even tho there no evidence it ever could (I’m not saying Penguin shouldn’t be able to track tanks, even if it never could, we play a game after all and small things like that should be allowed). Same gos for HMD, we got more or less latest version of F-2 post both AAM-4B and AAM-5 refurbishments with AAM-5 developed specifically to be operated with HMD. F-15Js actively use JHMCS, F-2 Super Kai was planned to use it and I don’t think it is this much of a jump to give it to F-2, we have a full-blown F-16AJ in tech tree and nobody has issues with that. J/ASQ-2 IEWS missing all together (not surprised after J/APQ-1 wasn’t moddeled on F-15J) probably becasue we don’t have full manual for it (and it probably classified). While Rafae and EF2000 got theirs IEWS based on some brouchure probably. Now Russia got R-77-1 all info on which is pulled from wikipedia, everybody would get AIM-120C-5 while Japan would stuck with unfinished AAM-4 because already staded reasons
14 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
4 Likes
What do you think about F-2 Early? Basically copy-paste premium plane, but in tech tree. Folded with F-16AJ, so you don’t need it to get the Late version
Id love to see it but also what about the F-2B?
Later as event plane? At the moment we have only semi-train F-16D, so it’s up to Gaijin. But F-2A Early would be awesome
Probably because X-band is old nomenclature and the new nomenclature for that frequency band is the I band. Every other AESA in game is I band as well as of the current moment.
Ah, i see thanks for the clarification :D
1 Like
No problem!
Typical double standards from gaijin.
Community: Can we get 6xAAM-4 and HMD?
Gaijin: Not enough info!
Meanwhile, gaijin: Here, have a fully equipped yak141
15 Likes
For HMD there is not enough info, we know none was ever used operationally and only have very limited information on a one-off prototype.
I wanted to make a report, but there really isn’t enough info.
For the MRMs I will try a more detailed report with more sources, but since it’s unproven the final decision lies with Gaijin even if it is accepted.
4 Likes
Recheck the MRM/TER/GBU connectors and markings. It looks like this.
Panel lines and markings are visible.
Markings visible from the front.
Let’s take a look at STA-5/7. Is there anything there?
Well, we know from the ASM example that STA-5/7 is a different pylon but has the same connector.
In fact, the shape of the base is different and the panel lines are different as well.
And there are panels with connectors for MRM/TER/GBU, which Gaijin is also aware of.
A little more details.
These are not 4K photos, if you are in Japan you should actually take photos of this part of the F-2 on display.
But strangely, the markings for MRM/TER/GBU are there. As you can see in the first picture, it is written in two lines. The one on the STA-5/7 does not appear to be one line.
The yellow markings are not present on STA-5/7, but the purple markings are not present on the other stations either.
I can only assume it was moved due to different panel lines. On the Gaijin model there are only two marks on the bottom. I assume that is for fuel, but what are the two missing marks for?
15 Likes
quick someone find some brochure from a russian/chinese airshow! they will not be able to refuse that evidence!
1 Like
Good luck, I’ve seen modeling/bug reports in the past and Gaijin rejects them because “photographs are not concrete proof.”
Well, what is the rationale for having six ASMs?
Our options are 4 ASM/4 MRM or 6 ASM/6 MRM.
Operational use isn’t required for a feature in WT, hell even if the feature or weapon was never used at all, as long as it’s theoretically compatible, it can be added, this was stated by Gaijin themselves.
It’s Gaijin, after all they’re the ones to implement twin racks for R-77 for Su-27SM (even though it is complete fiction) and only showed up in the Su-35S (completely different airframe btw) and judging from Gaijin’s logic, they could’ve done the same for J-11B by giving it J-16 pylon count but they didn’t (I wonder why)
Don’t expect much logic from Gaijin, the “Historically Accurate” ship has long sailed and at this stage it’s clear that they’re biased against nations that aren’t Russia, its only a matter of how much for each nation.
14 Likes
They pick what they like or not, for example they decided to implement the Kh-38MT while there is no proof of it actually existing, they decided to implement dual missile racks for flankers while these don’t exist at all, etc
Is it good? No, but we don’t decide sadly
4 Likes
Well, at least you guys should remember this.
1 Like
Just to give an example of how little logic Gaijin uses, for the longest time they believed Q-5L, the latest and most modern Q-5, didn’t carry countermeasures even though all of the preceding variants that came before it did, and when confronted with clear evidence of the existence of countermeasure dispensers on the Q-5L they still denied it and said “photos are not clear enough.”
Yet after years they finally gave it countermeasures, literally hilarious.
Another example is when they implemented Shimakaze with a MISSING TURRET. Like jesus christ, literally takes only a minute of googling to prove that Gaijin was smoking crack.
Yet when it seems to concern Russian vehicles suddenly Gaijin is much, much less sceptical of them.
So unfortunately, I don’t have high hopes for the F-2A, both in terms of receiving HMD and 6x AAM-4 loadout. Shame because I was looking forward to it.
16 Likes