That’s how I see it too. Inner pylon is definitely compatible, has the markings for ASM/MRM, and at least ASMs on them were part of initial FS-X plans, so I think it’s very likely the F-2 could, even if it isn’t guaranteed.
Yeah, though there is more on Japanese IR seekers vs ground targets than the Penguin missile at least.
It’s a multi-role aircraft so doing more than just air combat is something I’d expect. The caveat is the F-2 also is incredible in air combat as well. It’s a more generalist that has a surprising niche of dogfighting.
I foresee them adding it with ASM at this point, especially against ground targets. Who knows, ultimately, but this would logically also give Japan a good domestic top tier CAS option.
They said they have been working on it, but my point is more, they could copy paste it and maybe even folder the F-15J(M), just to justify a new aircraft at a different BR.
Is that already known? I’ve never seen a mention of what missiles are planned for the JSI
It has been mentioned by official sources that they’re discussing the potential of integratting them, but it’s not currently planned. It makes sense, replacing the weapons computer means they’d need to reprogram it for the weapons, which the US didn’t actually even approve of for the 15J initially. But, more importantly, they’d need to make the rails compatible for the AAM-4, and find a new place for the J/ARG-1.
How did you find that? F-16C with 6 AMRAAMS, 2000 lbs bomb and 90% of fuel can reach 1416 km/h at see level. And I’m pretty sure all changes on F-2 make less drag than this huge bomb on my right wing.
Ah, so they’re discontinuing AAM-4 on the JSI… But they will likely keep AAM-5 for it
The claimed top speed of the F-2 on the deck by every source is mach 1.1, or roughly 1350kph.
Considering the bigger radome, LERX, larger and less swept wings, larger tail and higher sitting cockpit I’d say it’s a bit more than one bomb on an F-16C
Maybe ME can save it, since that would be a less AoA heavy FCS mode, but I’m not sure if Gaijin would even bother with it.
Note that ME doesn’t have to be “modeled” visually. The drag/lift/etc values in code can be changed to make it look like it has ME.
TBF, if japan has looked into obtaining D amraams, they are right around 4B levels, better kinematicaly, likely a bit worse seeker, their datalink functionality is a bit classified though but it can be assumed it’s gotta be comparable to the AAM-4s by this point. and japan is working on the AAM-6, so the continued use of the 4B isn’t really their largest priority right now.
Rafale also has speed limit of mach 1.1, but in the game it can reach ~1.2 (with lots of warnings).
I really-really don’t want to even try making calculations of all this stuff. But I still think that one bomb should make more drag in total.
Aren’t mk84 meant to be aerodynamic?
Issue is ME drastically changes the control of the plane by basically turning the wing into massive canards. It’s not as simple as the F-2 turning harder (honestly current War Thunder auto flaps might get you tighter turns), but it still lets it turn pretty well while pulling less AoA for a comparable turn. This basically means that (assuming random values) a 180° turn at 20°/s with ME loses less energy than a 180° turn at 20°/s with MLC.
I can still see Gaijin just making “more agile mode” and calling it a day, but I don’t think that would be right.
But if they do add proper ME that could be really interesting, with the options that ME / MLC and the AoA limit / override would give it.
I won’t calculate it either, but the radome on the F-2 is massive compared to the F-16 and the larger wing + lower wing sweep would at least justify a second bomb. But on the bright side, two 2000lb bombs get you above the weight of a min fuel F-2 (which is already 2103lb over the weight of an F-16C-50 empty, with 810lb more min fuel).
Then the only thing missing is all of the aerodynamic improvements, meaning you essentially get a straight line F-2 drag racing sim
So is the F-2, it’s a plane after all
Also, something else worth noting in terms of speed, is high end acceleration. The F-2 will trudge up to it’s top speed, with it’s acceleration slowing significantly as it approaches it, stuff like the rafale which have structural limits accelerate much faster near their top speed.
The existing AoA mode limiter removal is also called maneuver mode. So technically they could add it as part of that.
This is also true. In addition the F-2 will really be inefficient and burning a lot of fuel to get to that top speed in comparison (not to mention EFT can supercruise, forgot if the Rafale can).
With 2 bombs F-16C has 1387. Acceleration at last 100 km/h was much slower, and overall it’s slower than on rafale, but it’s not that bad.
Sure, but it’d also be weird if they made “Maneuver mode” more efficient but less agile.
And on top of that F-2 actually has an limit override separate from the MLC / ME modes. So one would give an override to G / AoA limits, while the other switches the control scheme of the aircraft between more efficient and more aggressive modes.
They might get away with having non-maneuver mode F-2 get the ME, so it can turn more efficiently before reaching the AoA limit, then have maneuver mode go all out on AoA heavy MLC maneuvers.
But I’d still prefer a separate control personally.
But to be honest, top speed is not a big problem. One of my favourite planes in the game is gripen. Even 1400 km/h is hard for it, but because of countermeasures amount and controlability it’s a really comfortable plane. Even with 4+2 loadout. I really-really hate weightening of F-16s at high speed, and this is what I really want to be fixed on F-2
Honestly it could be refined to be different for every aircraft. Leaving the F-2 be ME mode in default with limiters removed or enabled, whichever improves maneuvering, as a toggle for that increased performance.
That’s my expectation if they go that route.
From my perspective, as a ground RB player that likes to CAP. Top speed is nice to escape from better aircraft or unfavorable encounters and reset the encounter using your airfield/SPAAs if necessary. Otherwise, yea, it’s not really something that matters. If the F-2 can pull AoA and do well in prolonged low speed dogfights, then it would be easy to reverse and stick behind someone till they fall out of the sky or get gunned down.
This is my current experience with the F-16AJ, even against Rafales and EFTs as I make sure to engage them with less than 20 minutes of fuel, ideally under 10 minutes, and then just stick behind them as they usually are loaded in with 20 mins of fuel and full AA loadouts at minimum.
