@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.
I don’t intend to scatter AAM-4 like Phoenixes, so I don’t think the reduction in the number of data link channels to two is a big problem. I think.
However, I thought there was a big problem with the series of bug report exchanges.
So, is there no remedy when unsubstantiated reports on performance parameters that are not available are accepted ?
Guess not, this is just a one-party show. It’s difficult to reverse an adopted report unless the whole community stands together.
If we keep ignoring these nerfs, F2A will become garbage in the official release. Anyway this is just a game🥲
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
no
No what
The MRIU is the unit that provides the missile with control signals, power control, status management, launch, and other controls until the missile is launched. It then sends back the status of the missile to the CIU. This is installed at every station where air-to-air missiles are mounted.
Yes. “It will be installed in every station that will carry air-to-air missiles.” Whether in the wings or in the weapon bay.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA255714.pdf page 58 6.2.4.1.3
F-16 Stores Management System - Elbit Systems of America
MRIU to perform DL? Is it on the J/ARG-1?
It is just a unit that manages the status of the missile and performs the process up to launch.
Yes, that’s for sure. …If Gaijin doesn’t admit it.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Yeah, all known sources testify to four ASMs
What’s the point of discussing the correctness of ASMs if in the game they are useless garbage that doesn’t even work on ships? If the snail doesn’t care, then why should we?
Right so this whole MRIU business, from what I can see the document covers 2x MRIU’s loaned for testing on the F-2A.
Now I’m not sure on the 1:1 relationship with AMRIU and MRIU’s in general but it appears they are interfaced at a 1x per pylon level and if there was for example a photo with F-2A carrying 4x live MRAAM. Then per this doc the pylon must have a MRIU in the pylon as that is how it interfaces with the weapons computer;
Cover;
The point is to strictly strengthen the system, and to do things that don’t matter to weaken it.
In the end, everything was done on speculation. Six iconic ASMs and two data links. There’s no reason to stay with the four outdated MRMs. Or, they will all be united into four.
That is, MRM is allowed for six SIUs, according to the MRIU documentation
Like this one? It is F-2B but since twin seater has less capabilities overall I think it is safe to assume F-2A would have at the very least the same
Also I don’t remember loadout option from first dev but there are photos of inert GBU-38 on station 2 which I believe was only reserved for AAM-3 on dev. But it is an ADTW vehicle and they might have all sorts of crazy loadouts
This is the photo I have used on the report.
I thought same first seconds but it is illusion. SRM pylon is empty and GBU attached to standart pylon
