During that time of testing, I could never get datalink to work when hard locking if the missile lost lock. Which is what prompted my initial query if it even works at all or if I’m having bad luck. So that was the context. Their reply implies because it could introduce ambiguity in TWS with multi target launches, so they removed it altogether
“implies” is the key issue with your continued usage of that dev comment as backing for your point, the dev comment doesnt say that DL doesnt work.
“missiles no more receive target position via datalink after target track lose, even if the target track is re-established”
this is the crux of the misunderstanding, i believe. “target track lose” refers to the jet radar lock failing, not the missile seeker.
The important part I think is:
So there is no way to switch from “IOG+DL” to “IOG” and than back to “IOG+DL”
Because they were quoting me regarding the AAM-4:
I’ve looked at a couple of my replays and even hard locking the target doesn’t give the missile DL and instead it’s just IOG after losing TRK. For reference, this is with the AAM-4.
The example in question was me using TWS on a drone and even though I never lost track with TWS, the missile went from IOG+DL to TRK to IOG. So that’s the context from which they replied to me with. My question at the time was trying to see if what Alvis was saying was a good technique, i.e. hard locking the target for maximum information to the missile.
Having said this, I have yet to reproduce this currently which is why I think it’s either a replay bug or something did in-fact change since then (about 4 months ago). I’m leaning on the latter but some confirmation would be nice.
I’ll probably test again later tonight in both ground and air rb with both TWS and hard lock to see if there’s a difference. While the entire start of the conversation is moot (as AESA is being added anyway for two aircraft this update), it would be good to know if it’s worth keeping the radar on for a better hit chance at the cost of constantly broadcasting your location.
Might be a little late to the party but I would be interested in joining said discord if possible
I hope we won’t have to wait too long for this.
Does it get MAW?
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe it does
For what it's worth, I found this video adjacent to the other person that @Allowed_Name_123 referenced (MiGan Fox-3):
It explains that DL is maintained until main aircraft loses lock, even if temporarily, then DL is never regained.
So in a sense, you can use DL to potentially keep the missile on course if it loses lock, but only if you maintain that TWS or hard lock from start to finish. Though, its effectiveness is questionable as the DL updates might not be fast enough to get it close enough to proxy fuse.
Some pictures to enjoy;
I really really hope we get it along with Sniper ATP, L-JDAMs, MWS and ASM-2Bs (can be given A2G capability like AGM-119 Mk.III now) right away.
13 Likes
Shoot, I’d be content enough if they at the very least gave it the GCS-1. ASM-2B would def be nice, but at the very least having any sort of F&F weaponry would be for the best if they end up considering the ASM-2B as too overpowered for the current game(for some reason).
I believe we should also get the AGM-65F as well, although I’ve never actually seen any pictures with the F-2 equipped with the AGM-65, I always see sources state it’s capable of carrying the Maverick and I believe the 65F is the only variant used by Japan due to it being the anti-ship specific variant.
2 Likes
What details do we have on this?
From a Dev perspective; almost nothing (- that could be used in a report). Its too early to talk about it, but our Research Server may soon get some Docs finally.
I highly doubt it would be too strong, also considering you can only carry four of those. SBU-64 is, besides being a PGM, quite similar and avaiable in higher numbers on a single airframe.
Mavericks are not mentioned in any first- or secondary Source we’ve, its seems to be exclusive to the P-1.
1 Like
I mean, you also have the KH-38, but the problem here is that it’s Gaijin we’re talkin about. They love their double standards, shoot the whole thing with the Penguin is the perfect example of this double standard they have.
This is probably the case considering we’ve never really seen them actually equipped before, at least from what I’ve seen.
Fingers crossed but I wasn’t expecting a MWS. At best I was hoping the RWR picks up all SPAA track + launch (like k band with pantsir currently) and if possible better coverage like on EFT and Rafale with full 360 degree RWR coverage (instead of right now where most planes have dead spots above and below it).
I would like to join
1 Like
If there is a discord discussing and researching vehicles like the f-2 for japan id certainly would like to join
1 Like
I know leaks are leaks and it may not be accurate but… imagine if Japan got Gaijin’d and became the last nation to get their AESA equipped fighter out of all the major 1990s-2000s AESA radar fighters 💀
I hope it comes next patch with its sniper pod and anti-ground capable ASMs though! I wonder if it’ll be the early or late version.
6 Likes
The early version doesn’t even get AAM-4s, right? I guess TT will get the late version, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they also gave us a premium early version.
Anyway I’m hyped about it. Although heavily influenced by the F-16, it is still the only top tier Japan’s very own top tier aircraft we will probably ever see in WT.
2 Likes
Honestly if Gaijin was smart they’d just replace the F-16AJ with the F-2A early, either that or replace it with the Thai F-16 ADF, as much as I do like the skins and stuff for it, it’s just a made up vehicle.
But I could def see the early being a premium as well considering Gaijin’s reluctance to remove the AJ for some reason when options exist.
Yeah I think similar. The F-2A on 13.0 with 4 AIM-7F and 4 AAM-3 would be very cool
3 Likes
I really wonder what its full loadout is going to be on release
This image in the OP showcases that it can carry x4/x4 Fox 1s and Fox 3s, totaling 8 missiles, but I wonder if they’ll allow us to carry ASMs on the inner pylons where the drop tanks typically goes (marked in triangle, where the guide states it’s “possible”
If ASMs can be used for ground targets, it would contend for one of the better multiroles ingame, since you can possibly bring x4 ASMs for CAS with x6 AAMs for CAP
3 Likes