You would be surprised but monoplanes has only one wing. Thing you ment called wing console
The only thing the current F-2 is inferior in is top speed and acceleration but it beats the F-16 in maneuverability in every way
At least in maneuverability it’s easily one of the best in the game, far better than the F-16s. My guess is they meant the speed being slightly worse and just worded it weirdly.
I definitely feel this.
I would’ve at least expected something comparable to a Su-34 meta-wise (Electronically scanned array radar, no HMD, decent at A2A, and good F&F ground strike capability in return for not having all the bells and whistles) but it doesn’t even have the ASM-3, with it being less likely that the ASM-2 being able to target ground at all by the time the live server rolls around, meaning you have a very ok sidegrade in the Japanese tree at 13.7
I still remember when Gaijin staff stated that the F-2A would be too powerful and now look, they would introduce this plane past the point that it would be able to shine in the spotlight 😂
We always knew that advanced comment was BS since they coulda added the ADTW with Air Superiority and nobody woulda batted an eye lol
As a ground rb player, the only reason i would preorder an aircraft wpuld be for its CAS capabilities
And for a $80 F-2 the only reason would be if the ASM-2 were effective against tanks, since they are new and unique missiles for Japan
But right now theres no way of knowing, and things kinda point towards they are for ships only
So if thats the case then i dont see worth in buying/grinding a less CAS effective F-16ish jet just for a skin and its name
Even the OCU would be a better CAS with 6 AGMs, 2 GBUs and even 2 ARH AAMs at the same br.
If the ASM-2 turns out to be effective against tanks, then i will be willing to buy it.
Why doesn’t ASM-2 use IR Guidance?
Currently, both ASMs are just a copy of Kormoran.
All 4 closed with no additional reasoning
So it came out a year later, not just six months.
Okay, that’s unfair…
@Xeno_quaza
You should’ve prepped more, especially with the one providing video. A YouTube channel and unlisted video upload would’ve been best for that situation.
I don’t know if it’s entirely locked to you as well, and if so that was reckless of the tech mod to do IMO.
I appreciate your attempts, I especially appreciate them if you’ve spent days looking for information.
There was a historical report I didn’t make on a vehicle, because after months of research I just lacked the information I needed. I learned more about said vehicle, but no sources that told me what I needed for the report.
At the end of the day these rules protect us, they protect War Thunder, and they protect the company making War Thunder from litigation. It’s not inherently Gaijin’s fault, it’s also not inherently the fault of laws… it’s a mix of both and we’re stuck in the middle.
Some things we must accept with clenched teeth.
The thing is, all 4 reports are bricked because of this:
Everybody who I could asked think that C-1 just means firts production lot (which makes sense considering it is ADTW owned equipment and they tend to have first production models of just about everything in JASDF service) but since only way to prove it is to somehow get answer from either ATLA or JMoD directly it becomes nearly impossible as the only way I found to contact them is via actuall mail and I’m still not sure if it’s even correct one
Also, I have a semi-complete draft of the letter and theoretically I can send it, worst case scenario they tell me that they can’t comment on things I’m asking or just ignore me, but in all others we can get some pretty cool info. So if anybody has some questions for MoD/ ATLA i’d suggest you post them
Not sure if this would be the right place to ask, but I’d really like some high definition images for stations 5/7 and 2/10 of the F-2.
The markings on the launch rails and other stations are all visible in clear images, but for 5/7 and 2/10 they’re just always obscured or too blurry to read.
I’d also like images of the ASM connectors up front for all CRL pylons (3/9, 4/8, 5/7), but I feel like that might be pushing it.
I think we must ask them about HMD testing and MRMs on pylons 5/7 and 2/10. Also would like to know about IR missiles on pylons 3/9 (loadouts of XF-2A shows IR missiles on these pylons. But in the game we have only 4 IR missiles). Solid answer about 6 ASMs? Marks on the pylons? J/AAQ-2 C-1?
Oh yeah. Can GCS-1 actually lock tanks?!
I’m pretty sure we won’t get all answers (if we get any), but worth trying
Edit: tripple zuni pods? Caps on them?
Well, for HMD it was tested and latest F-2’s are compatible with it throughput wise and such, but it is not a standart issue thing so I doubt it will lead to anything
Is there any 100% valid sources it was tested? In the documents we have it was just a suggestion for which they want to save some processing power and memory. We don’t even know is it actully just plug and use, or some modification still required. In my opinion, clear answer about HMD testing is needed
If it was tested on service F-2s, then you can cite F-4J and Rafale’s historical reports if they were changed via historical report as proof for the standard.
It wasn’t tested
That modification of OFP is not special for HMD but just increasing OFP power for possible future armament and systems