I know it’s pretty much a new aircraft independent of the F-16.
i just find it relatively funny messing with F-2 enjoyers
So lighthearted ragebait I guess🫡
2 Likes
worse firerate, smaller mag, similar pen and a crewed turret
Dunkerque and Richelieu armor scheme are absolutely not comparable though
Besides, i don’t get too many issues in Dunkerque with the right amount of angling. It’s not a stellar ship, but played in the back it can hold its own decently imo
1 Like
The other 30mm wheely bois are 9.7 though. Why would Badger be lower BR?
Main concern will be reload it will be worse than Gneisenaus. Unless it’s post war then it’ll still be slow but manageable l
half the fire rate, smaller mag, the same size as the VBCI and has a crewed turret so cant even just pop the turret over a hill
Dunkerque currently faces 12"/14" guns.
Richelieu is expected to face 18" and late war 16"/15" guns…
She might have ~450mm of turret armor instead of ~300mm, but we’re expected to see 600-700mm pen already.
The problem is your turrets and magazines are very close together. Unless you expect the enemy to not shoot you at all.
its really simple for naval right now
- Does it have the bugged turtle back armor auto ricochet
- Does it have a fast fire rate that isn’t solid shot
if it isn’t one of these two options, it will be second rate, everything else requires additional work for naval ships behave more correctly.
its easier to be dismissive of what is the best battleship right now when there is issues in naval that just a little polishing could fix.
Yes and no, the proposal for the FS-X that won was the SX-3, which was an F-16 derivative that featured many changes like the Agile Falcon kit, F-16CCV canards and integration of Japanese composites and radar that were developed for FS-X before.
But in the end only the integration of the domestic composites and radar was actually implemented in the F-2. The Agile Falcon kit was discarded in favor of a completely new wing, alongside other major changes to the leading edge extensions, nose, tail and elevators. The CCV canards were discarded and not replaced by domestic design, since the elements of CCV control that were deemed practical (decoupled yaw and maneuver enhancement mode) could already be implemented without it.
In this image it’s pretty easy to see where the F-2s wing is very different from the Agile Falcon kit. The only thing they share is the wing area of 34.84m² (375sqft).
3 Likes
Isnt it the same as Japan’s RCV (P) then?
well
i suppose we’ll see soon enough
Well, you got me.
But it’s always fun to write about F-2, so it’s all in good fun
2 Likes
Sadly to russia. And Yes it was a trainer, but also a strike aircraft
1 Like
200rpm vs 100rpm isnt very fair and should be 9.3 realistically, the VBCI is already considered very meh and the badger is worse in pretty much every way
ADATS boutta have a field day
1 Like
One problem with that. The version of L-39 that soviets had was one of the first versions. So it pretty much was pure trainer with pretty much nothing. Maybe some small caliber gun pods
60 RPM is all Badger should have
That seems like preferential treatment, considering that Canada or Australia didn’t get the same opportunity
It has a much weaker gun. 60 RPM max.
Though what is concerning is that they’ve described it both as top tier and end of line. Which would place it either at 10.3 or 10.7.
jesus I thought it was 100rpm? then yeah no it could be 9.0 at that is slower then the goddamn rarden