Can you just not with the cope? Suggestion moderators handle the Suggestions section of the server.
Not that A) this the F-2 thread so Type 10 is off topic and B) that report will probably never pass.
5 Likes
F-2A, F-2A ADTW — an additional drop-tank has been added under the fuselage.
took them long enough le mao
1 Like
If its a prototype you also just can add this bc there are many prototypes/paper vehicles ingame
That’s so sad, it looks cool and the little ears on it are so cute :3
it was my mistake still new to pc and didn’t see the thread
my bad about the wrong thread still getting used to navigating on pc, 2 it wasn’t going to pass anyway. I’ve posted these before and the tech mods don’t care lmao. It doesn’t matter if you have docs to prove they are wrong or right they will only correct something if you manage to rally an entire community
1 Like
Anyway im here to gather more data cause i’ll eventually be working on the F-2 with same amount of persistence as the type 10 and TKX. So i do apologize for posting in the wrong community
1 Like
because its a terrible “report” that is the literacy equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum.
Firstly you haven’t actually declared the issue factually, you have just wildly pontificated about what you’d like to see. You need to outline the issue, specifically list what is wrong, how it should be, and why it should be like that using your sources. What-How-Why, this is like elementary level argument structuring.
Secondly your sources are useless because you haven’t specified what page/part of the source is relevant, thus unless the volunteer moderator reads the entire document and finds the particular section you are referring to, the aforementioned source is about as useful as a chocolate teapot on the surface of the sun.
Finally, and I’ll admit this is a common problem in the WT community, but the burden of proof lies with you, not Gaijin. You have to prove them wrong, not them proving you wrong.
5 Likes
Unfortunately, no, proof of compatibility is required, which since there is no proof of it being tested, there is none and it can’t be added.
Yes I know the F-2 got provisional upgrades for HMD compatibility in 2013, but those were not for this system, and do not count. And as no HMD to work with that upgrade has ever been found, it also does not qualify.
3 Likes
The question was more like add the newer version/upgrade with the hmd and make it a bit higher and add the better missiles when other nations also get their fox2/fox3 upgrades. wasnt the f4ejkai treated the same way back in the day?
Or did I understand the upgrade term wrong?
So, uh, funny thing, going off the date of the HMD, this would actually be for an F-2 early, not an F-2 late. So even adding it as a one off prototype, wouldn’t really help out much.
The F-2 ADTW did get many, many one off upgrades just like the F-4EJ Kai ADTW did, and I would love to see them. Such as ones with a better RWR or radar, or different IRST installation tests.
2 Likes
Ok, thats intresting.
I think the HMD would help in close range quite a bit with aam3´s.
Same, would love to see a better ej kai than we currently have.
You know, its funny you say that, because im still not convinced the AAM-3 is actually HMD slavable. Nothing ever talks about it working with HMD, only stuff talking about self search or slaving it to the radar track.
it works right now with basically every fox2(iirc also on the f-15jm), so Its either a problem with all hmd´s with no ir hms or none, thats where I´m standing rn. I wouldn´t mind to push the radar lock button, but it is right now its this way implemented.
only change would probably be these 2 keybinds since it would be a radar lock and so you can use it
edit: the hms is also helpful since you dont have to shut down your radar to not get any unwanted pings while still being ready to lock enemies and switch to fox3 missiles
Over the past day, a series of bug reports on the F-2 have been passed on it’s thrust. And honestly I just, dunno what to think of them. One was on the inconsistency of thrust between the F-16C and the F-2, which would be a buff. And the other was claiming the F-2 uses the NSI intake, which is a nerf.
Yes, the F-2 has a different intake then the F-16C. However, it is not the NSI intake. We know from the developmental papers of the F-2 that it’s intake was based on MCID, however heavily modified.
Yes, it does, at a glance, share a visual similarity with the NSI intake. However it is important to remember it is not an NSI intake, as japan didn’t even buy the research for it (They specifically bought research and intellectual property regarding the block 40, which uses the MCID, as the F-2 was specified to be based on).
I fully agree that the F-2 should technically have a separate thrust curve then the block-40/50, as it does use a separate intake. But it is not NSI, and it should not outright be worse as the bug report claims, with literally zero proof.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Ay4WYOkHKgOo
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/vqUu9vKR2VAL
7 Likes
Hey @Gunjob if @Xeno_quaza provides the cover could you object(? Idk what word to use) to this report please?
Thanks either way.
3 Likes
It isn’t necessarily a nerf
The NSI intake is better for higher speeds, while MCID is better for lower speeds
That’s due to the bigger intake having a bigger surface area which increases drag at higher speeds significantly
The difference in surface area of the intake is like, 0.04m^2. Like that definitely has an impact, but it’s not massive, and I doubt gaijin would model it to actually offset the changed thrust. Also, the person who made the bug report frames it as a nerf at high speeds also, due to “increased channel loss”.
Which like, their reason for thinking it has more channel loss is cause the NSI has a lower mach number. But that like, doesn’t actually just straight up mean it has more channel loss like they claim. A inlet mach number of 0.7 is very desirable so that way compressor blades don’t become transonic. And the compression recovery from slowing the air down is in many ways also beneficial. It’s not a flaw, it’s how it’s designed.
2 Likes
Anyways… Aside from those bug reports. I think I found why integration for the AAM-5 on the F-2 is taking so long.
It appears that the installation of the AAM-5 causes wing vibrations, which, while not harmful enough to reduce the airframe’s life by any amount they find note worthy, does appear to be enough that it makes slaving of the AAM-5 through conventional methods, not viable.
Basically the vibrations mean that the missile may not always be aligned with the airframe in a consistent manner, so they’re having to develop a way to correct for this deviation while still on the rails. Presumably using the missile’s onboard inertial reference system? although I dunno.
So yes, this does prove that the AAM-5 is technically compatible on all F-2’s which got the AMC OFP (as was stated in the AMC OFP upgrade), and the reason they’re not mounted is due to practical limitations, not due to a technical limitation.
8 Likes
is aam5 that much heavier than aam3?