Hardware-wise he’s right, the pylons should physically be capable of fitting MRMs, since they use the same weapons rack and electrical connector.
Personally I’d still follow the markings, which on the unique front panels still note ASMs despite not being a service loadout, while they don’t seem to be seen on the main electrical panel. This would hint at ASMs being integrated but not MRMs.
But at the same time, ASMs are not even known of being tested there, and the main electrical panel markings aren’t clearly visible, so I’m already going off of assumptions. So while I’d agree with Gaijins loadouts so far, we might see something else once we get more information.
Inert bomb can be installed directly because pylon itself is compatible with Mk.82 as far as I understand, so even unmodified machine can be shown with it for demonstration purposes. Live munition is much better demo in your case but I personally only found this photo with live GBU-38
You can see the connected connector. There are no GBU markings.
“The connectors are the same, so you can attach them. Recruit, don’t make the mistake of using them in real combat.” “They’re just markings, and can’t actually be used. Recruit, don’t make the mistake of using them.” The level of trust is the same lol
And sorry, but the aircraft used in this exhibit seems to be compatible with GBU. There are no markings, though.
Anyway, munition, especially inert and only on the ground doesn’t matter regardless of how it installed as then you should accept MRM for stations 2 and 9 as it was shown on XF-2A. Especially in case of Mk.82 family bombs cause you can just strap any modification of it on the pylon as long as pylon compatible with base version, it is kinda point of JDAM and US made guided bombs in general to make guided munition compatible with old holding system. I don’t know context of this exact photo, nor date it was taken but with shot this close it is likely stationary exchibition on an airbase open day. I can name you several reasons why marking on this specific pylon on this specific plane is missing, but it is doesn’t matter as we have photos with all correct markings already
It is blurry cause shot from pretty far away, but seems that all markings are there
F-2A, RN 63-8538 from 3rd TFS, photo taken 2024/12/08 at Naha air base
More oever, since we got version after Sniper XR inroduction all photos prior to like 2018 are kind of irrelevant because they would refer to older model anyway
There is evidence, it’s the ASM markings. What we don’t have is proof, like a direct confirmation of the loadout.
For the MRMs we don’t even have such evidence, since the only line on the main electrical panel that could say MRM could also say TER, which I’d say is more likely since it is a confirmed loadout.
A bug report with no documentation explaining the MRIU and insufficient translation is suddenly approved.Then, bug reports that claim the bug report is wrong are demanded to have further evidence, military secrets.
There are no moderators who understand Japanese. It is a language barrier.
This might be a translation error. In my replies I used “evidence” (something supporting a theory) and “proof” (something supporting a fact).
The theory is that ASMs can be used on the inner stations, so the fact that the have ASM markings on the unique, not shared panels used at the front of these pylons is evidence, but not proof.
Those appear to be longer Japanese text, unlike the MRM markings that are written as roman letters “MRM” on other stations. Since fuel tanks are a confirmed use exclusive to the pylons, same as this marking, that is my theory for them.
It could also be a marking for rockets, which is also Japanese text on other pylons, but there is another marking of Japanese text much closer to where the rocket markings are on the other pylons, so I’m leaning towards the first idea.
But also as I said before these are theories only until there is more clear images. I see it as the most likely, but not as a fact.
Also the wiring for the 2 inner pylons for the fuel tanks are also wired to accommodate asm 1,2 and 3 but is never used in service
Those 2 pylons to my understanding cannot mount aam4 or aim 7
@WreckingAres283 https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/SctMaSyU7xAq
A report correcting a bug report that misunderstood the number of units and channels regarding the number of F-2 datalink channels was closed without any response.
I posted a comment asking for a reason why it was closed, but the bug report manager deleted my comment asking for a reason and then responded with a reason why it was closed. Is it a legitimate operational practice to delete a comment asking for a reason why it was closed?
To begin with, the number of MIRU units in the relevant document does not refer to the number of MIRU units on the F-2, and it was pointed out in the immediately preceding comment that MIRUs are not datalink managers. What exactly is going on with this?
If you want to counter a Bug Report (correctly understood or not) prior the Devs on interpretation, you have to provide own evidence as far as I am aware to make a based counter argument, as it may also be possible that there is further evidence provide in the background; let it be Mods, external Researchers, Devs, DMM or whoever.
I’ve yet to see any actual prove for DL by anyone personally, two can be true or not - F-15J(M), may require some research on that matter as well, but I can’t be borthered to search for smth thats 85% likely to be classified or export restricted.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am sorry that I addressed it to the wrong person.
It’s a painstaking task to have to make a well-reasoned rebuttal to a bug report that has a wrong premise…
Information about the JSDF is hard to find, even for Japanese people, so it’s a problem for better or worse.
