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.
3 Likes
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.
Also the aim-9X was never planned
10 Likes
AAM-5 is not IRIS-T, it might look similar but they are not related. AAM-5 also came first.
11 Likes
Why are you guys so mad about 6 AAM-4 if it’s crap? This plane needs AAM-4B and that’s the only thing that will save it in the current meta
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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
3 Likes
Sorry, English is not my native language, so I may have some mistakes in abbreviations. AAM-4B has an active phased array seeker (ESA?). This means that in the current conditions only 5 aircraft can detect them on /radiation warning system?/
It wouldnt do much for the derby since it already has piss poor range (50 km)
Despite that i agree the aam4 should get buffed and there is 2 or 3 bug reports already concerning the issue
If they ended up getting accepted it would increase the thrust alongside making it less maneuverable but would still have good off boresight capabilities like the c-5 is supposed to have and similar effective range
In my opinion. If you want the F-2A not to be a piece of trash, it should either be given 4xAAM-4B and BR 14.0, or decompressed for other top fighters, so that it does not end up with top fighters with a lot of 120C-5 and top radar. Also, I think that the F-2A ADTW should not play against EFs and Rafales
2 Likes
Radar type and used band are not related. Even AAM-4 should not be detectable for most planes, but in the game all missiles use same band. AAM-4B should has slightly better resistance to chaff, better tracking. It also can fly slightly more, because of better trajectory choosing. Main problem is it’s balanced with AIM-120A/B. While it should be balanced with AIM-120C-5 (or maybe even C-7?). Gaijin can try to rebalance them, but F-15J(M) at 13.7 would be OP (even now it’s best 13.7 for BVR fight. Imagine it with much more powerful missiles). They just trapped themselves
Overall, what changes to both F-2s do you think are enough to stop them from being trash in the current meta? Would upgrading AAM-4 to C-5/7 be enough?
It’s pretty decent in 13.7 meta. Like, sidegrade to F-15J(M). For 14.0 meta it must have HMD, at least 6 missiles, maybe rebalanced, if they want to implement 120C-5 for hornets. Also, normal RWR (now it has RWR from F-15J(M) and no bugreports about it).
ADTW is ok. It’s just BR compression. Compared to F-4F ICE it’s little worse, but compared to Sea Harrier FRS.2 it’s a god plane
I disagree mostly on the HMD. I’ve seen people pull some fun stuff off with the tall ACM scanning and with the high update rate of the TWS and the fact it can identify the plane in TWS as well, it helps massively with radar slaving instead.
I’ve actually had the HMD in the F-15J(M) kill me before due to it refusing to lock a plane well within it’s range and angle just because it, decided to be finicky.
Unless the game says it’s an F-2A Late vs Early, the f-2a should get HMD, end of discussion
1 Like
No F-2 got hmd irl though.
7 Likes
It’s funny and can be used, but HMD is much more comfortable and universal. I don’t say you can’t get kills with ACM, I just say that HMD is better in general.
Issues with HMD locking are usually due to bad target position. It can’t lock perpendicularly moving targets. It also has issues with “normal” targets, but it’s game problem. If one day it’s gonna be fixed, all HMD users will get their proper stuff. Now they can’t get it because of game bug, not because HMD itself is bad.
And no serial Su-34 got R-77 irl. And what we see in the game? Double standards are everywhere. I actually think it’s due to bad communication between different parts of Gaijin studio. Some tanks have stock smokes, some don’t. Different missile icons even on same planes but in different trees. Different modules modeling… I’m pretty sure they just have CHAOS inside with no one standard of how to make things
Usually the issues I have when it comes to locking a target with the HMD is usually when they aren’t perpendicular actually. I think the extra 2 Fox-3’s would be better more so than the HMD however at the end of the day. With how the radar feels on the dev server right now, between TWS swapping and tall-scan ACM, I can dogfight fine enough because the AAM-3 needs some distance to get speed for tracking anyway.
As others have said, it would be a ‘nice to have’ but ultimately, I don’t think it’s required or necessary even at 14.0. I doubt it would see all too many use cases where it would’ve made a significant difference at least in my experience with the F-15J(M) and the Dev Server testing.
I did however beat out a German EF2K in a dogfight on the deck with both planes nearly out of energy and my fuel being very low so, that was a fun experience.
F-15JM remains superior to it in hyper-aggressive BVR.
F-2A is slightly more utility to F-15JM in longer match playstyles.
Like F-2A is a better F-16C despite being slower to accelerate and top speed.
4 AMRARHAAMs, 4 IR missiles. 120 countermeasures [see bug reports]. Meta flight performance useful in the extended matches.
It is a good to amazing 13.7.
It’s just not as good as J-11B or F-15JM cause those are arguably under-BR’d.
Others being a doomer about F-2A because it doesn’t powercreep 13.7 has been the most annoying thing to read.
No one [as a rule; there might be exceptions] called Gripen in Thailand a waste of research despite being a 4 AMRAAM 2 IR missiles loadout aircraft at 13.7.
I don’t understand why people are quick to dismiss the positives of an aircraft at its BR.
I remember when fox 3 were being tested the aam4 had the best seeker but lacked the kinematic now its not as bad but it still lacks