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
As I mentioned, it’s a decent 13.7 plane.
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
4 Likes
You have to remember the full context “It is too advanced for 12.7.”
It also implied it was too powerful for 13.0.
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
3 Likes
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
9 Likes
The thing is it honestly couldve been added then.
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.
9 Likes
because it will face 14.0 24/7?
that is wild
dead content does seem to be the patch theme
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)
7 Likes
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
1 Like
bruh
3 Likes
Oh that explains the diferences i saw with the ASM-1 suggestion
Acording to it, it should have more explosive mass and he warhead
Are there any real info abt asm-1 and -2 online, what we got now is a copypaste of some random asm🫠
The suggestions for both on this forum
4 Likes
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.)
Is anyone else getting a fuel bug on the dev server?
and why did the developers add asm missiles at all, if they can’t work on ground equipment … in simulator battles, probably.
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
The numbers are just wrong. It’s whatever fuel you take in minutes x2 from what I’ve seen.
This is probably either refering to the 3d direction finding RWR test, or some sensor fusion thing.
An ADTW F-2 was tested with some slight modifications to allow its existing RWR to have direction finding capabilitiers, which can detect and slave weapons to a 3d RWR lock.
The other thing it could be is we do beleive the F-2 may have a MAWS, maybe, with a heavy pinch of salt. IIRC, there is a J/APQ-4, which is believed to be on the F-2. However the documents stating what it does are classified, but we do know the J/APQ-1 on the F-15JM to be a radar based MAWS.
Theres also stuff about the primary radar identifying and reacting to incoming missiles IIRC, but im not aware of if its to an extent of fully functioning with MAWS, or if its specifically for AAM-4 missile interdictions.
3 Likes
For those interested, single turn comparison between the F-2 and the Eurocanards (As of 2.46.0.16 on the dev server). All planes are spaded with expert crew, on min fuel and have 2 x IR missiles
Spoiler
In a vertical loop
Spoiler
Personal Observations
Spoiler
From flying around in test flight, F-2 feels very responsive, more so than the 2-3 ton lighter gripen because of the great roll rate. It has very good energy retention, only beaten here by the Typhoon (expected because of its massive TWR). The instructor on the F-2 is also very generous, at low altitudes in stalls you maintain control even as low as 80kph before the instructor forces the nose down. In vertical loops the F-2 still compares favourably even with its comparitively low TWR, although this is an area where the eurocanards dominate when sustained.
In a sustained horizontal turn while maintaining about 100m altitude, full elevator on mouse aim brings the F-2 down to ~400kph, the Typhoon and Rafale to ~360, the Gripen to ~340. If you look at the graphs on Statshark the F-2 holds nearly a 1*/s turn rate advantage against the Rafale and Gripen at these speeds, the Typhoon is the only top tier jet that keeps up. Looking at the other SEP lines the F-2 is very competetive under 500kph and is going to be one of the best dogfighters at top tier if the fm stays as it is.
It flies almost how I expected it to be and is most definitely worth the wait.
*All planes have instructor mode enabled, Gripen has simulator pull in mouse aim however so it is probably more accurate to keep instructor mode disabled for the Gripen in Statshark when looking up its EM diagram.
7 Likes