So I guess at this point, the only real leeway tweaks that Gaijin can really do is HMD if they feel like it… and possibly stretching the use of ASM-2s to ground maybe?
For air to air, I feel the F-2 in its current state would be a bit of a weird sidegrade (4+4 AAM) to the F-15JM since the merit is you get AESA… at the cost of HMD, and you’ll get a airframe with more maneuverability and comparable thrust?
For multirole/CAS, it gets guided bombs and more pylons for A2A options but I think looking at it overall, I’d stick to the Thai Gripen since that gets F&F missiles and glide bombs.
I’d really hope they throw Japan a bit of a bone and at least give it a bit more standout features to give players an incentive to grind it. Personally I’d like to see it as a potent multirole rivaling the Su-30 or Rafale in capability.
TER is a confirmed loadout, we know for a fact that the capability is there, which in turn means the marking has to be there for it. That’s why the only three letter text on the pylons electrical panel must be for the TER connector.
The ASMs don’t use adapters or rails, they are mounted directly to the pylon, similar to single bombs. In addition to that the pylon has a unique front piece that still features the makings for ASMs as well as the connector below.
In the same logic you could deny the use of unguided weaponry and the TER, which would be meaningless considering these loadouts have been confirmed.
Instead what this means, is differentiating the store stations by the fuel station (which is the only one that can mount fuel tanks) and the pure weapons stations, that can only mount weaponry.
Both the AAM-4 and AIM-7M use the LAMS-7 launch rail.
Every other marking means much. The ASM on stations 5/7 is quite literally the only marking we haven’t seen a physically confirmed loadout for. Considering they went out of their way to make unique markings for these parts, it is illogical to assume this would be done without reason.
The markings are already different, if there was no ASM capability, they could simply exclude them.
The GBU-38 was not integrated from the start, which is why not all pylons feature GBU-38 markings. However they share the connector with the MRM in the main electrical panel, meaning MRM pylons without GBU-38 markings them can still use them, as they aren’t actually physically different.
This seems to be false, as there does seem to be physical changes inside the electrical panel of those pylons.
This is completely unrelated from the ASM for multiple reasons. First of all, the ASMs don’t share a connector with the MRMs, meaning no matter if there is or isn’t an MRM connector they can be used as long as the ASM umbilical is present.
And of course, GBU-38 can still be used on all pylons that say GBU-38, so it doesn’t set any precedent for assuming pylons that say ASM can’t use ASMs.
It is possible pylons without can’t provide guidance input to the bombs, further information would be needed.
No evidence. This is a document from a refurbishment and is considered to no longer have TER capability. It states that it is for fuel.
AAM-4 is not used.
It’s nothing special, just something that can be done if needed. The fuel tank is not TER or ASM. Please indicate that there is a connector there. They share the parts and just change some numbers in the marking procedure.
If it is not integrated, MRM cannot be used, but it is not a precedent to not know that from the marking. I said that the marking has meaning, but you are saying that it has no meaning. Lol
Only the markings were there. Indicating it was a fuel pylon. The TER image seems very old. Ah sure? There is a connector hole there. Yes, GBU/MRM as well.
The pylon has ASM written on it, but there is no reason to use ASM lol
Yes, seems you were right about the GBUs. I corrected it based on your additional information.
Yes, it’s unlikely we will see anything besides fuel tanks on service F-2s. Even if other capabilities are there, the additional fuel capacity is seen as a priority.
In practice, that means the AAM-4B. Improvements include compatibility with rail launchers.
Unless they show an actual connector, it is unlikely that there is any capability to utilize ASMs. Even the ground displays do not show it. Even the TER was never mounted on a fuel pylon after the integration of the AAM-4.
There images of F-2 carrying what appears to be AAM-4, rather than AAM-4B. But since the visual difference is limited and live armament on the F-2 rare already, I couldn’t say which is more common.
Yeah, like I said I doubt we’d get service displays, though it would be interesting to see the actual connectors inside the ASM panel.
You need to understad that CMs like flares and chaff are the very last ditch solution and Fox-2s are nearly impossibly hard to find on modern battlefield. There are other means of protections that are more effective that we do not have in game yet like ECM, towed decoys and such. You can check other 4.5 gens in game like Rafale or EFT and they also have very small conventional countermeasure count
EFT has 384 pops, rafale has 108 pops. Su-30 has 98, J-10A has 72. But they have mix of small and big calibres (or full big). 120 small pops looks ok. No more, but no less
I’ve gotten a lot more mileage out of 8x AIM-120A or 4x AAM-4 + 4x AIM-120A loadout in ARB compared to the 4x AAM-3 + 4x AAM-4 loadout, which is generally better for GRB given the AAM-3s ability to sneak up on planes.
That’s entirely subjective and it depends on what you call a suitable loadout, not everyone plays like you, I for one mainly use full fox 3s with good success, have loadouts with 6x fox 3s being 4x AAM-4s 2x 120s and 2x AAM-3s or the one with 7 fox 3s and a single AAM-3, everyone’s playstyle is different. I simply stated that the F-2 having only 4x fox 3s even if they were AAM-4Bs, no matter how good they’d be, it does not compare to machine taking double (F-15s) and nearly triple (F-18s) their fox 3 loads, specially with the 120C on the way and the F-15Es which are able to get significantly more range out of them thanks to their speed, depending on the map I usually am flying at mach 1.55 to mach 1.7 by the time I’m firing 120s in my 15E/I
Yes, I do understand that the 6x ARH loadout is generally better, but I like to keep a certain authenticity when playing games.
Could JASDF put AMRAAMs on the wing pylons? Totally. Do they do it? No.
And trust me, I tried to find a picture of a Japanese F-15 with AMRAAMs on the wing pylons just so that I could put them there too, but I couldn’t find any.
I don’t think a single one of us expected the F-2 to be a BVR machine like these. Even the F-15JM is already falling behind in that department due to the weaker engines compared to F-15E, Typhoons and Rafale.
The F-2 isn’t designed to climb high and attack enemy fighters head-on. I made my peace with this (and only 4x ARH missiles) even before the F-2 was revealed. But I was hoping that Gaijin would give it something to be worthy of 14.0 BR.
