As far as I could see, no. And it isn’t technically a carrier hook, but simply a landing hook for (presumably) shorter runways. The Swedish Drakens were meant to have them, but never installed any. The Danish ones on the other hand, did get them. They were notoriously annoying, with a tendency to swivel to the sides upon landing, which made it a little troublesome to stop the aircraft from plowing off the runway
So aim-n2 would essentially play like a aim9j with range comparable to a 9g?
Range would be averaging out at 3.2km, 9G has a 5s burn so that’s why it has such a long range
hows the impulse on the n2?
Not a clue, the manual only stated burn time as a whole
I’ll ask some guys that may know, since it isn’t info I have laying around at the moment. No other Sidewinder has this burn time so there really is no comparison there. Only similar ones I’ve found are SRAAM and R-27ET, but one self-destructs when it runs out of fuel, and the other has much more specific impulse, so it is hardly a fair comparison
1 Like
The REAL F-35, been here for 55 years and still rules. I hope they change it to F-35 in game so people will lose their mind if they don’t follow the updates
1 Like
I saw F 35 being added to dev server (according to today’s changelog), can anyone tell if it is wrong in most ways (as usual) or finally cooked?
Think the P-4/5 should have the SR 116 aswell
As the SR-116 motor is still in use, it is probably classified. Information for it can be found in, for example, T.O. 1F5E-34-1-1-1 or T.O. 1F5E-34-1-1-3. But i cant get eyes on those
It is very much WIP still. It was added on saturday, only included in the changelog today
It is the most W.I.P vehicle we’ve ever seen in public hands I think, it is quite amusing how rough it currently is. That’s also why I’m not too critical yet, but I got my eyes out for the live version
I figured I should add some images for the people that are not as familiar with the airframe, and what to look forwards to.
The MFCD package looks like this, it sits right under the tail on either side of the tailhook, and accounts for 44 countermeasures combined
And speaking of the tailhook, that looks like this (or rather, this image is technically an example of the tailhook failing because it was on a swivel and tended to bend sideways at times as a result, but still)
Here is the difference in the HUD between F-35 and F-35 WDNS
And here is one of the airframes fitted with CRV7 rockets during testing
And lastly, simply a neat graph of cosmetic differences (between the Danish models), though just the F-35 since that is what we are getting for now
5 Likes
And some countermeasures located in the wing-roots? Or so i think ive read
That comes with the EMFCD, yes. At this moment I do not have a good image of those outside of one graph from the manual, but this is mainly depending on what Gaijin does next. If they don’t add EMFCD (which primarily consists of the wing pylon pods), I won’t be happy but I can compromise for the time being. I will however not compromise on them skipping MFCD, since that added the same tail flares as the Finnish model, but also the tailhook flares. I want a full package, or none of it. The 12 wing root flares came in the EMFCD upgrade, not MFCD
1 Like
*Graph in question
2 Likes
Interesting! Do you know if the F-35s also used the A-38DK CM pod?
I see there is some tape in the wing root on the first picture, would that make that aircraft a EMFCD upgrade?
The A38DK pods were only used on the TF-35 model (the twin-seat trainer), and as far as I know only those had the equipment installed on them to operate the pods. I did some rough calculations on how the game calculates chaff quantity on similar pods like that on the Viggen or Lansen, and the result is 1 chaff is equal to 150g of weight in the pod. Now, I know exactly how much mass of chaff the A38DK pods can contain at most, which is about 163kg. This would mean each A38DK pod features rougly 1090 pieces of chaff each.
So this aircraft here carries 2080 pieces of chaff on the wings alone
The TF-35s in doctrine were meant to be ECM aircraft, so they feature these chaff spam pods, as well as pylon-mounted jammers. They never had the EMFCD pods in exchange for this though, so much less flare capacity. If Gaijin ever gives these ECM aircraft a purpose in the game, it could be a good addition
2 Likes
I should also note if you see this kind of image of what looks like an A38DK pod or AN/ALE-2 pod, it isn’t. The RF-35s were given camera pods, but they also needed counterweights in this configuration. This was solved with 8 spare AN/ALE-2 pods that were hollowed out and turned into “TIC-tanks”. They look the same, but you’ll notice they are only ever mounted on the RF-35s (that can be recognized by the cameras on the side of the nose)
1 Like
As for this, that is a good question. The image description does not inherently state whether the airframe has EMFCD or not, nor any date. The image next to it demonstrates the EMFCD pods of potentially the same aircraft, but I can’t say for certain
1 Like