Ah, i see thanks for the clarification :D
1 Like
No problem!
Typical double standards from gaijin.
Community: Can we get 6xAAM-4 and HMD?
Gaijin: Not enough info!
Meanwhile, gaijin: Here, have a fully equipped yak141
15 Likes
For HMD there is not enough info, we know none was ever used operationally and only have very limited information on a one-off prototype.
I wanted to make a report, but there really isn’t enough info.
For the MRMs I will try a more detailed report with more sources, but since it’s unproven the final decision lies with Gaijin even if it is accepted.
4 Likes
Recheck the MRM/TER/GBU connectors and markings. It looks like this.
Panel lines and markings are visible.
Markings visible from the front.
Let’s take a look at STA-5/7. Is there anything there?
Well, we know from the ASM example that STA-5/7 is a different pylon but has the same connector.
In fact, the shape of the base is different and the panel lines are different as well.
And there are panels with connectors for MRM/TER/GBU, which Gaijin is also aware of.
A little more details.
These are not 4K photos, if you are in Japan you should actually take photos of this part of the F-2 on display.
But strangely, the markings for MRM/TER/GBU are there. As you can see in the first picture, it is written in two lines. The one on the STA-5/7 does not appear to be one line.
The yellow markings are not present on STA-5/7, but the purple markings are not present on the other stations either.
I can only assume it was moved due to different panel lines. On the Gaijin model there are only two marks on the bottom. I assume that is for fuel, but what are the two missing marks for?
15 Likes
quick someone find some brochure from a russian/chinese airshow! they will not be able to refuse that evidence!
1 Like
Good luck, I’ve seen modeling/bug reports in the past and Gaijin rejects them because “photographs are not concrete proof.”
Well, what is the rationale for having six ASMs?
Our options are 4 ASM/4 MRM or 6 ASM/6 MRM.
Operational use isn’t required for a feature in WT, hell even if the feature or weapon was never used at all, as long as it’s theoretically compatible, it can be added, this was stated by Gaijin themselves.
It’s Gaijin, after all they’re the ones to implement twin racks for R-77 for Su-27SM (even though it is complete fiction) and only showed up in the Su-35S (completely different airframe btw) and judging from Gaijin’s logic, they could’ve done the same for J-11B by giving it J-16 pylon count but they didn’t (I wonder why)
Don’t expect much logic from Gaijin, the “Historically Accurate” ship has long sailed and at this stage it’s clear that they’re biased against nations that aren’t Russia, its only a matter of how much for each nation.
14 Likes
They pick what they like or not, for example they decided to implement the Kh-38MT while there is no proof of it actually existing, they decided to implement dual missile racks for flankers while these don’t exist at all, etc
Is it good? No, but we don’t decide sadly
4 Likes
Well, at least you guys should remember this.
1 Like
Just to give an example of how little logic Gaijin uses, for the longest time they believed Q-5L, the latest and most modern Q-5, didn’t carry countermeasures even though all of the preceding variants that came before it did, and when confronted with clear evidence of the existence of countermeasure dispensers on the Q-5L they still denied it and said “photos are not clear enough.”
Yet after years they finally gave it countermeasures, literally hilarious.
Another example is when they implemented Shimakaze with a MISSING TURRET. Like jesus christ, literally takes only a minute of googling to prove that Gaijin was smoking crack.
Yet when it seems to concern Russian vehicles suddenly Gaijin is much, much less sceptical of them.
So unfortunately, I don’t have high hopes for the F-2A, both in terms of receiving HMD and 6x AAM-4 loadout. Shame because I was looking forward to it.
16 Likes
That includes some m… let’s stop here.
1 Like
I personally don’t think there is need for 6xMRM, same load out as F-15J is enough for most cases. HMD is more of an QoL thing, but with AESA ACM and without AAM-5 it doesn’t really matter. What there should be is IEWS. MAW is kinda new distinctive thing of top tier aircrafts and I think F-2 would benefit from it much more than from HMD and 2 more MRMs
1 Like
No further ASM required xD
How exactly is MAW more useful then HMD? especially when trying to defend and fight at the same time.
Also the F-15J does get 6x MRMs, that’s the standard for top tier.
3 Likes
At 13.7 I agree F-2 can be fine without them once some of the other bugs are fixed like the countermeasures and high speed performance, so it’s not needed for gameplay. I only want it because I believe it is a technical capability the real F-2 would have.
If Gaijin see all the possible sources and reject it, I am still happy they at least got all current evidence and might add it once we get more. Either that, or they might have sources that deny it specifically, which would also be nice to have if those exist.
1 Like
As a complement, F-2 has been showing LAMS-7 missile pylons with BRU-47 pylons, and the markings on the LAMS-7 missile pylons confirm that they can mount FOX-1/FOX-3, meaning that it is capable of launching AIM-7M and AAM4, and LAMS-7 missile pylons has been found on pylon 2 and 9, which clarifies that F-2 should have maximum 6 FOX-3s to mount.
2 Likes
Wow… This is truly the most compelling evidence I’ve seen about the 6x MRM
1 Like