The JASDF arrives in Australia for Exercise Pitch Black 2024 with F-2s
5 Likes
1 Like
as a japan main i would by i dont have discord idk maybe next year when im in high school
For what it’s worth I got confirmation from a dev that this is the case: Modern ARH (FOX 3) Missile - History, Performance & Discussion - #569 by k_stepanovich
In the game for fighters with multi-target attack capabilities (right now these are fighters with ARH missiles with datalink) missiles no more receive target position via datalink after target track lose, even if the target track is re-established. So there is no way to switch from “IOG+DL” to “IOG” and than back to “IOG+DL”.
So something to note when “AESA making radar missiles too strong” gets brought up.
5 Likes
If you keep datalink active until the missile hits, never breaking lock, this mentioned limitation shouldn’t apply. So once AAM-4s get their combined datalink/missile track guidance AESA would give them a pretty notable advantage.
That being said this feature is not in game yet regardless and even for AAM-4 datalink automatically turns off once the missile starts tracking, so currently aircraft AESA only matters until the missile seeker activates, which wouldn’t have too much of an impact yet.
6 Likes
Not the case if the missile tracks something like chaff. As soon as the missile switches to TRK on a target it thinks it sees, DL is permanently turned off. The aircraft might keep sending DL signal but the missile overrides and ignores it.
I’m not sure if the AAM-4 specifically has something different but I wouldn’t expect it to be modeled unless all ARH missiles utilize it.
Which is pretty much less than 16 km, generally speaking. Even if target doesn’t chaff, once it gets close enough it’ll find the target and lock and lose DL.
Only the AAM-4B would change this dynamic but I think it’s safe to say we won’t see that for a looooong time.
2 Likes
It doesn’t in game, but since it’s a defining characteristic of the way AAM-4 works I’d hope it would be added at some point. I hope this is not bound to “if all missiles get it” unless those that do really have such a feature, otherwise that would be like giving all tanks stabilizers or all jets afterburners, it simply wouldn’t make sense.
For now, yes. But I hope once we get more advanced ARH missiles they look back at AAM-4 and rework some aspects that need fixing, namely the guidance and acceleration/speed.
Then again I hope we get F-2 first, as I don’t think Gaijin would allow it in game if the radar can give complete DL guidance to AAM-4. (Though early F-2 with J/APG-1 radar wouldn’t have J/ARG-1 either, which would mean no datalink for AAM-4 at all)
2 Likes
It’s more likely something that will come way after the fact as a QoL feature.
Yea I’d rather have the F-2 first and upgrade it later when other nations get something similar. We’re already overdue for it since it’s just a better F-16 and we already have that flight model in thanks to Gripen and soon also J-10A.
The radar is the biggest thing Gaijin has cited for not adding it yet and yet with ARH it won’t currently be any better so really F-2 could be added any update.
5 Likes
Although the Fictional-16AJ suffices in terms of cas, Japan is the worst nation cas-wise, it has a whopping ZERO guided bombs of ANY kind
It really should have GBU-8s. I don’t know how they forgot them, they were advertised in the brochure and are found on other F-16As in game anyways.
The F-16AJ is a mix of proposals I’m pretty sure, and Japan wasn’t allowed by constitution to use guided bombs anyway, thus it wasn’t proposed at all. Not exactly sure, but that’s the reason for it I think.
The F-16AJ was taken from the final F-16J proposal to Japan, this specified a BVR capable F-16 based on the YF-16A Sparrow testbed.
In Game it’s a mix of early F-16J and the F-16 ADF, an aircraft that came a decade after the AJ proposal. It’s a downgrade of an aircraft that already wasn’t capable enough to win the competition.
This doesn’t exist. It’s a myth that comes from people misinterpreting the constitution and taking political interpretations for a fact. Since there is no such thing as offensive or defensive weapons, it is up to individual interpretation.
Nuclear missiles can be seen as defensive if you consider them as necessary deterrent to prevent war, it’s all up to interpretation.
It’s also worth noting Japan does actually operate both domestic and imported guided bombs, just in case there was any doubt left.
They were in the proposal. Since the AJ was offered with GBU-8, those are part of its capability and should be in game.
8 Likes
I assume these would be GCS-1s and JDAMs respectively, right? Haven’t seen anything else
gaijin when
idk if anyone has already said these differnces but ima just copy word for word out of a book. f2 has wider wingspan increased by around 25 per cent and has a “stretched fusalage” by around 43cm the f2 can carry four indiginous anti ship missile either the subsonic ASM 1 or ASM 2 with an active rader and infered seeker or the super sonic ASM 3 with a ramjet engine. deffensive arnament is a US supplied AIM 7 sparrow beyond visual AAM and the short range AAM 3 and the beyond visual AAM 4 witch offers a radar seeker. I apologize for being a yapper and low tier but i would like mth to look foward to
1 Like
Now that the su34 has a phased array radar installed, the F-2 should be fully suitable for inclusion in the game？
1 Like
You a little bit wrong. Su-34 has PESA which is different from F-2 AESA
But in this major the first in game air vehicle with AESA is added - the new Mi-8AMTSh. So yeah, waiting the F-2
2 Likes
The su34 in the dev server has added the TAS function in TWS mode, which is one of the key features of modern airborne phased array radars and is very important for various aircraft that may be added. The radar of the mi8 in the test server is nothing special, although it is an aesa radar in reality.
1 Like
What do you mean by TAS? As in hard lock and search as opposed to soft lock and search?