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.
There is an issue. Gaijin delayed F-2 because it was “too good”. Japan is also 1 of 2 nations without 14.0 plane. And what we get after all? Good 13.7. You see? Well, I expected it to be decent 14.0. Not meta, since EFT and rafale were added, but only good 13.7? Quite disappointing.
Gripen has enormous controllability and CM amount, good energy retention, even better ground ordnance and laser cannon with APHE shells. It can outturn almost every plane of it’s BR with new button. It was meta in SQBs for more than a year, until rafale and euro came. For a reason
It definitely could be added last summer instead of F-15J(M). Without AAM-4 it could be added right after F-16C. Or with AIM-9Ms adding. In this state it can’t break random since FOX-3 adding. They decided to add EFT and rafale before F-2! Aren’t they “too good”?
I really don’t want to argue now. They fucked up with EFT and rafale (too early), they fucked up with F-2 (too late). They still can add some semi-realistic features to make only one fuck up
For what it’s worth, it looks like statshark has the F-2 now and it is what I expected. It more or less loses in vertical fights due to lack of engine power, but in flat turns and in dives, it seems to out turn everything, including EFT and Rafales at very low speeds.
Also for some info regarding Block 10 versus F-2:
FM is probably not final, but I can only imagine it gets buffed in high speed as per some bug reports, as it seems to perform as expected
Earliest we could’ve seen the F-2 imo was with the F-16C (& F-16AJ!). 6x 9ms + hmd vs 4x 7ms + 4x aam-3s were comparable. It wouldve been meta but not insanely game breaking like say an F-14 was on launch.
Ideally we would’ve gotten it around when we got the F-15A, either the update before or after, with its loadout being most comparable to them.
The latest it should’ve came was the update before the eurofighter/rafale, as they do just outclass it.
Well, thats the answer. I think they should just bring AAM-4 closer in perfomance to AIM-120C-5 to which it is mostly compared and call it a day, and I think on this one they should just believe official statements becasue finding manuals on missile still in active service that is not being exported and not classified is borderline impossible and we can make assumption for balance sake. AESA radars have nothing to do below 14.0 unless plane itslef is really not up to day (like Kfir C.10)
Janes and their multiple studies are being brought up a lot in reports for all sorts of things, and as far as I can tell information in their books are often matches actual primary sources so I think for most modern vehicles that are still in active service developers should just use their information unless other primary sources present, it would make develpment of new vehicles and work with community easier as we would have an acceptable middle ground. Also might help with reducing amount of classified files leaks. Developers, being a big company, might also work with Janes directly and learn about their sources Janes | Open Source Defence and Security Intelligence
Hey, can anyone confirm an example of an F-2 fighter carrying the original AAM-4 (not the AAM-4B)? Front-line F-2 units are supposed to use only the AAM-4B as their ARH missile. (I know the ADTW test aircraft have carried the earlier AAM-4, though.)
The information I found indicates that the September 2019 issue of Koku-Fan (航空ファン) magazine contains an article about the F-2’s RWR, which suggests that the F-2’s RWR has capabilities similar to a Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS). Could anyone help locate a scanned image or photo of that specific magazine article? This would provide clearer evidence for official evaluation
