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
That includes some m… let’s stop here.
1 Like
I personally don’t think there is need for 6xMRM, same load out as F-15J is enough for most cases. HMD is more of an QoL thing, but with AESA ACM and without AAM-5 it doesn’t really matter. What there should be is IEWS. MAW is kinda new distinctive thing of top tier aircrafts and I think F-2 would benefit from it much more than from HMD and 2 more MRMs
1 Like
No further ASM required xD
How exactly is MAW more useful then HMD? especially when trying to defend and fight at the same time.
Also the F-15J does get 6x MRMs, that’s the standard for top tier.
3 Likes
At 13.7 I agree F-2 can be fine without them once some of the other bugs are fixed like the countermeasures and high speed performance, so it’s not needed for gameplay. I only want it because I believe it is a technical capability the real F-2 would have.
If Gaijin see all the possible sources and reject it, I am still happy they at least got all current evidence and might add it once we get more. Either that, or they might have sources that deny it specifically, which would also be nice to have if those exist.
1 Like
As a complement, F-2 has been showing LAMS-7 missile pylons with BRU-47 pylons, and the markings on the LAMS-7 missile pylons confirm that they can mount FOX-1/FOX-3, meaning that it is capable of launching AIM-7M and AAM4, and LAMS-7 missile pylons has been found on pylon 2 and 9, which clarifies that F-2 should have maximum 6 FOX-3s to mount.
2 Likes
Wow… This is truly the most compelling evidence I’ve seen about the 6x MRM
1 Like
That’s quite convincing, indeed.
Wait, 2 and 9? Maybe 2 and 10 - outer wings pylons. Or 5 and 7 - inner pylons. I think we can say, that F-2 can carry AAM-4 on inner pylons, so 6 MRM. If it can also mount AAM-4 on outer pylons, than it’s 8 missiles in total.
6 Likes
True, I got the number wrong.
We can also remember this photo and see, that “purple area” is pretty much connected with fuel, if this red mark bihind everything else is fuel connector
Spoiler
9 Likes
In fact, I would rather support such a statement. konngou0224-psnhas already provided a lot of mounting bracket evidence on the 1625th floor, and there are indeed ASM and MRM markings on the inner wing brackets.
Since there has never been a real-world image of STA-5/7 mounted with ASM-2 (as far as I know and have seen), but gaijin still provided the ASM-2 mount for the F-2A.
Why not provide the mounting for the AAM-4?
Also no actual photos mounted in reality (√)
Also marked on the rack (√)
Gaijin: But you can only have ASM, not MRM!It’s really ridiculous.
Seeing is believing.
I don’t understand why gaijin need various professional manuals to prove it—aren’t real photos authoritative enough?
7 Likes
The sparrows on the external pylon were not wired, they were for demonstration. They were only seen at the initial unveiling of the F-2, with them not being used due to issues over the wing cracking from them. (An issue that was later fixed, however the pylons used by that point were not compatable with MRM racks).
5 Likes
If that’s the case, I accept it wholeheartedly.
1 Like
