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?
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).
Curious, they don’t mention AAM-4 on inner pylons, but on outer pylons. But ASMs can be mounted on inner pylons. So, it’s either we use these (if we can), or we use marks on wings. Not both
These are from the pre-production stage, and show the initial planned armaments. They could be argued maybe for a pre production XF-2A maybe, but they’re not indicitave of its actual productipn loadout.
The reason for the MRMs on outer pylons and ASMs on inner ones is that the initial requirement was 4x ASMs and 4x ARHs, so they were to be used on different pylons. However later the requirement was lowered to 4x ASMs or ARHs, not both at once. Due to the want for more range from drop tanks on inners, and the feaaibility of loading issues on the outer ones.
If Gaijin allow it to mount all missiles, there is no big issues, tbh. If we see this plane as 12.7 with 6 AIM-7 and 2 9L, 60 (?) CM is enough. Radar range is also not a problem for distances at it’s BR.1 It can be more comfortable plane than F-2A ADTW
and lets see how they address the countermeasure count on the tech tree one, cuz even 120 standard countermeasures isn’t sometimes enough, with how much you need when you are getting hunted by 3 or more guys
and the top speed and acceleration of the thing is also questionable, it feels sluggish compared to EFT or RFL
120 with 1 per drop is medium. Rafale has slightly less, I think. Su have less. Same as on F-15. Not gripen - you can’t just spam - but enough for battle.
It feels sluggish even compared with F-16 with 6 AIM-120 and 2 2000 lbs bombs. I don’t think it should be so bad. Don’t compare it with EFT and rafale. These planes came too early and simply broken fo current balance
Its top speed and acceleration are accurate. Only way its FM is innacurate is it should have a marginally faster pitch response, and it should not compress basically at all. Ive already sent a bug report which wqs accepted for this.
The F-2A was not origionally planned to have the AAM-5, with plans for it only starting in 2016 and not even having reached the full series yet. Also the AAM-5 is not an IRIS-T, they’re conpletely seperate missiles, and the AAM-5 came first.
The HMD can be implemented, however, it isn’t currently and no major retrofit has undergone the F-2 program for it. It makes sense from the perspective of it being a ‘anti-ship carrying navy defense plane’ because, you don’t need an HMD for such defense and it legitimizes the claim that it isn’t inherently for air superiority/aggressive assaults.
That and, with a proper AESA component, you can still slave the missile to a TWS with high-off-boresight for a poor-man’s HMD.
The AAM-4B is really just an AAM-4 with a newer seeker and newer programming for lofting and energy efficient turning. It would be better they start unnerfing the ranges on things like the PL-12, Derby, and AAM-4 instead
