Mitsubishi F-2

[MAUSWAFFE]

@konngou0224-psn

Well, you can’t call it TER, because from the way it’s blurred we can only tell it’s three letters.

Yes, however since the first and last letter appear to be different symbols (unlike MRM, but like TER) and it seems to be the only three letter marking on the electrical panel for that station. So since TERs are a conformed capability for that station, and require an electrical connection from this panel, it is most likely that the text says TER instead of MRM.

@konngou0224-psn

Indeed, if you look at these, it is not surprising that they are the connector positions where the TER is actually connected. However, in other pylons, the TER is actually connected to the position marked MRM.
Electrically, these wires probably share a common platform.

Yes, however the markings would be there if it was integrated with the F-2, similar to those for the TER and ASM. The only reason not to include MRM markings would be if there is no MRM capability.
We know it can’t just be due to these MRMs not being a service loadout, since the ASMs aren’t either and their markings are still present.

Though this, combined with the blurred text above makes me wonder if there might be GBU-38 capability there. Though at least from the blurred images it seems far more likely to be Japanese text, possibly also related to the fuel tanks in some way.

[PercussionCap]

@Xeno_quaza

The bug report moderator who closed it claimed it didn’t even say what missile it was to.

Incredible.

Yeah I don’t blame you for not wanting to write more bug reports.

[konngou0224-psn]

The only evidence that it has ASM functionality is the markings, so how can we rule out the possibility that only those panels are being used?

Compare it to other pylons. Hmm, the one on STA-5/7 doesn’t even look like a TRE. Only the three letters are true. And so, even with MRM, the beginning and the end can look different.
And we forget that the F-2 was integrated with the AAM-4 later than the F-15.
Could it be that the pylon is not shown because it is not actually in operation, even though it actually has the capability?

@MAUSWAFFE

Though this, combined with the blurred text above makes me wonder if there might be GBU-38 capability there. Though at least from the blurred images it seems far more likely to be Japanese text, possibly also related to the fuel tanks in some way.

Yes, that is a possibility. There is a long Japanese word there that has no other candidates. Now let’s look at the other pylons.

One is 4/8 and the other is 3/9. As you know, the 4/8 is marked with GBU, MRM, and TER. On the other hand, the 3/9 is marked with only MRM and TER. Isn’t 3/9 not integrated into GBU?

The answer is no, it only has the MRM markings, but as you know, the GBU will connect and function.
Again, this suggests a shared electrical interface.
This suggests that the electrical interface is shared between GBU and MRM, and at the same time, if the STA-5/7 is marked as GBU or TER, it can also be used as MRM.
(It’s easy to say that there are no GBUs or MRMs! But aren’t there too many markings? Sure, a fuel tank has been added, but there are also four more markings on the outside of the panel :))

Appendix: It seems that Gaijin made all of their pylons using MRM and TER.

[東北ずん子]

autocannon on F-2A is wrong
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lD9sRaYFuhpF

[MAUSWAFFE]

@konngou0224-psn

The only evidence that it has ASM functionality is the markings, so how can we rule out the possibility that only those panels are being used?

Since the panels are (slightly) different, and there is some major differences in the markings. There is also the ASM connector on the underside visible, which isn’t used for anything else.

Station 5/7 ASM connector cover panel marked by number 10012, while 3/9 and 4/8 are marked by 10006

And at the same time, if there is no MRM markings on the electrical panel for not being integrated, then it would make sense.

---

@konngou0224-psn

One is 4/8 and the other is 3/9. As you know, the 4/8 is marked with GBU, MRM, and TER. On the other hand, the 3/9 is marked with only MRM and TER. Isn’t 3/9 not integrated into GBU?

The answer is no, it only has the MRM markings, but as you know, the GBU will connect and function.
Again, this suggests a shared electrical interface.

This seems to simply be pylons with older and newer markings, the GBU-38 marking being added after integration of the weapon, despite them using the same connector as the MRM. I don’t think the pylons themselves were changed for this.

In this image for example, neither have the GBU-38 marking.

---

@konngou0224-psn

This suggests that the electrical interface is shared between GBU and MRM, and at the same time, if the STA-5/7 is marked as GBU or TER, it can also be used as MRM.

I don’t believe TERs and MRMs use the same connector.

Different arrows pointing at what seems to be two separate connectors

The connection point for the TER seems to be placed slightly further back

And I would also doubt there would not be TER markings when that is the actually confirmed armament configuration.

---

@konngou0224-psn

(It’s easy to say that there are no GBUs or MRMs! But aren’t there too many markings? Sure, a fuel tank has been added, but there are also four more markings on the outside of the panel :))

Of course, I will still try to find out more about the markings on these inner stations. But from what we know right now I believe the current in-game configuration is correct.

[konngou0224-psn]

@MAUSWAFFE

Since the panels are (slightly) different, and there is some major differences in the markings. There is also the ASM connector on the underside visible, which isn’t used for anything else.

Station 5/7 ASM connector cover panel marked by number 10012, while 3/9 and 4/8 are marked by 10006

And at the same time, if there is no MRM markings on the electrical panel for not being integrated, then it would make sense.

The only evidence that it is actually wired is the markings. There is no operational verification.

@MAUSWAFFE

This seems to simply be pylons with older and newer markings, the GBU-38 marking being added after integration of the weapon, despite them using the same connector as the MRM. I don’t think the pylons themselves were changed for this.

After all, GBU and MRM are the same connector, and the lack of GBU markings is no reason not to use GBU. The same is true for MRM.

@MAUSWAFFE

I don’t believe TERs and MRMs use the same connector.

Different arrows pointing at what seems to be two separate connectors

The connection point for the TER seems to be placed slightly further back

And I would also doubt there would not be TER markings when that is the actually confirmed armament configuration.

Yes, what is that long sentence I see on STA-5/7? Do GBU and TER use the same connector?
Well, this is a photo of the STA-3/9 (maybe I’ll check) taken from the bottom. It certainly looks like the width of the connector holes are different at the GBU/MRM and TER positions. But which is the actual connector, is the black cable a power cable? At least it doesn’t look like the little protrusion or silver bar you see on the wall, I don’t think it meets MIL standards. It’s probably the black cable or some other mess in the back. It could be the black cable or one of those messy cables in the back.
(It may have been removed. In that case, the STA-5/7 ASM will no longer be effective.

@MAUSWAFFE

Of course, I will still try to find out more about the markings on these inner stations. But from what we know right now I believe the current in-game configuration is correct.

Except for the fancy 6 ASM. At the very least, the four shots maximum rule should be adhered to.

[Xnekron]

Damn. The only thing we need is 1 clear photo of inner pylon. We have a week to find it and finally understand how many missiles F-2A can actually carry. Is there anybody who wants to go to Japan?=)

[konngou0224-psn]

The lettering on the pylons is no longer very meaningful as it is no longer accurate.
And not recommended. In reality, it cannot carry 6 ASM.

[Xnekron]

But it looks like Gaijin decided to give 6 ASMs just on marks. If we can actually see MRM marks on inner pylon - we can try to get 6 MRMs in the game. If no - we don’t lose anything

[千早そよ]

I wonder why they didn’t offer NCTR to J/APG-2 and MAWS to J/APQ-1, anyone knows the reason?

[WreckingAres283]

@千早そよ

I wonder why they didn’t offer NCTR to J/APG-2

?

[Mеlonеk]

[Xnekron]

BVVD said that tech tree F-2 will get sniper

[Mеlonеk]

I know and remember there was also an accepted report that it will get it.

[Xeno_quaza]

F-2s were only given 4 MRM launcher adapters.

[Zenitchik_130LvL]

Also wet pylons have this extention for drop tank that is not interfiering with bombs, but you can clearly see it’s beeing clipped inside rear of ASM-1/2. Since AAM-4 also doesn’t has curve like bomb do I doubt it can be installed as well

Also, your old report got attention again, maybe my theory about AAM-4 buff will come to be truth
AAM-4 Motor Performance // Gaijin.net // Issues

[Xeno_quaza]

Anyways, F-2 should only have 2 DL channels, as it only has 2 MRIU interfaces for the J/ARG-1.

[Fireraid233]

Kind of ashame that such a nice pod will only be useful for ljdams F-2 CAS is pitiful even worse with the new sams being added.

[Zenitchik_130LvL]

Low-level pop-up attacks from point blank range would still be a thing, and agaist new AA it is literally most effective strategy, and having good optics is pretty cool for recon before attack

[Xnekron]

This thing suppose to be removable and actually a part of a fuel tank itself. On this photo we can see there is nothing attached to the rear of a wet pylon (photo with FT for reference).

Spoiler

Pretty sure this is just modeling issue from Gaijin side. Need to report