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.
How did you get that information? According to the table of contents of the September 2019 issue of Kōkū Fan, the only F-2 article seems to be about its first participation in exercises in Alaska. Are you sure you mean the September 2019 issue?
The J/ASQ-2 Integrated Electronic Warfare System (IEWS) is also being developed by Mitsubishi Electric, and the electronic support device (ESM), electronic jamming device (ECM), and chaff flare dispenser will be integrated with a dedicated electronic warfare controller (EWC), and will systematically implement everything from receiving threat radio waves to identifying and assessing threat levels, and implementing countermeasures.
unfortunately Gaijin has stated that currently the requirements for “maneuver mode” is if the devs want to add it or not. whether or not an aircraft actually has an AOA limiter or the ability to turn it off currently has no effect on if it’s added in game.
It seems I might have been mistaken, but I believe there was indeed an interview with a Mitsubishi designer in that magazine back in 2019. Could you help me find it? Thank you! The title appears to be: “F-2 Support Fighter: Technical Analysis of the Final Production Model” （日本語原題：「F-2支援戦闘機 最終生産号の技術検証」）
looking at the files, F2 is currently using wingspan with launcher rails for calculating wingspan which f16s are not, it should not be outperforming f16s in STR as it currently does because it has faked more drag efficient high aspect
I have all the January-December 2019 issues in my possession, but unfortunately I can’t find any article that looks like it. Are they really from 2019?
The ADTW premium is currently 13.0. It could (SHOULD) have been added alongside F-16C and it would have fit in perfectly as a slower, more maneuverable sidegrade. There is zero reason for it to have only been added now.
In a perfect world where all information is available in one location in one language, that would be the case.
We live in an imperfect world and research is dictated by information availability and language barriers.
That and the F-2 ADTW in hindsight is a great premium candidate, cause the alternative would’ve been a sub-tree premium or something entirely copy-paste rather than just copying [most/all of] the airframe of another jet.
I was personally hoping F-16 OCU would’ve replaced 16AJ, but that fell through when they still haven’t added Thailand’s F-16A MLU.
i can not find it sorry maybe it is really wrong.
Since I don’t live in Japan, I can’t verify much of the information. However, if you do find a feature article titled “ F-2支援戦闘機 最終生産号の技術検証”, I’d be very happy if you could share it with me. I have a guess—could this be a special feature or a magazine extra?
Honestly I’m just so over this. Pretty clear indication they’re gonna screw over the ASM-2, won’t even matter if we bug report the RWR to J/ASQ-2 since we don’t have any solid concrete info on it so they’ll just change the name and that’s it. Can go ahead and try if you want, but I’m not gonna bother wasting my time.
Yeah, considering thats all they did for the JP eagles…
(Fun fact: The J/APR-4 is not, in fact, a japanese produced APR-4, instead its an entirely seperate RWR which just shares a designation type.)
Also the F-15J(M) should have have the J/APR-4B, which is two versions (and 3 decades) newer then the version it has in game, but its still going to be the exact same version in game. Because apparently something being 3 decades newer isn’t enough evidence it should be better for gaijin.
Basically the only countries who are going to get better RWRs in the future are the US, because they’d cry if they didn’t, France, because they actually talk about theirs occasionally, and Russia, because gaijin. And NGL I find it kind of sad.
