No. I said that if the argument “The F-35 was a copy of the Yak-141 therefore it should get R-73 and R-77” then the FA2 should get ASRAAM becasue the F-35 was a direct results of its replacement’s design requirements.
As it stands, it needs a BR decrease not a major increase with ASRAAM.
Because BAE and Rolls Royce were directly involved in the engines and VTOL design of the F-35?
In fact it very nearly used a Roll Royce engine and likely would have performed even better if it had
based on harrier is a bit of a stretch, the way VTOL was made doable on harrier almost certainly have a start point for F35 just out of convenience.
the rear nozzle on the F35 still vectors down in the way that the exhausts on the pegasus does, once again, start point not copy.
the Shar never had ASRAAM, the harrier 2 GR5,7&9 were ASRAAM capable, would love to see a GR9a with ASRAAM one day
the whole lift fan deal is pretty distinct though
proof?
FA2 was. Or at the very least cleared to use them, may not have done in peace time but was an 8 year overlap between ASRAAM entering service and FA2 retirement and Aim-9 and ASRAAM were intercompatible.
100% yes, the F35s layout would make a harrier style VTOL impossible with only one propulsion engine. Im not claiming its the same system but F35 has its roots in knowledge from rolls royce and BAE in their development of harrier
@Mytho-GR1 iirc has the source for that, but yeah, Roll Royce had a proposed engine for it that was more powerful or something if i remember right.
I really hope we dont get an ASRAAM capable FA2 that airframe already sucks at 13.0
probably was due to reliability/maturity of the tech since a higher performing GE engine was in the running too, but they picked the PW since its tech was proven on the F-22
Yeah, it would be too much.
F3 Late maybe, Gr9A could be fun, Gr4 maybe. Typhoon definetly. But yeah, FA2, if anything, it needs to be 12.7 at the moment
I suspect it was probably more of a “US built” engine rather than anything overly meaningful like performance, maintenance or reliability.
Its not uncommon for that to happen.
idk, BAE Systems main contribution was the EW suite iirc, which has its roots in the LM Sanders AN/ALR-94
no, it was picked for reliability/proven tech, same thing happened before with the YF120 engine for F-22
USMC AV-8B already had a rolls-royce engine in it so i dont think they would care if rolls royce made the engine again
doesnt mean they werent giving pointers in how to make something work better. BAE is everywhere in the British and American military industries and have the knowhow under their belt to aide everyone else when needed
BAE provided all the research from the Harrier development iirc since they purchased all that data when they acquired Hawker-Siddley.
That research was used for a lot of the foundation for the VTOL control systems
idk, reading up on it more it looks like the VTOL stuff came from an earlier program where LM, MD, and Boeing all worked on it, (originally LM concept)
like i said earlier, BAE does avionics and i think some airframe stuff for the F-35
I’m all for it. As along as the F-14D can get Aim-120s and Aim-9X then.
Here is the funny part. Mig-29G from Germany has R-73. The Main producer Country in game URSS/Russia have oldest previous generation R-60M only as dogfighting missile in Yak-141 and also in Mig-29
Doesn’t make sense!!
This is because when it was added, It was deemed the R-73 was too strong, but R-60M + R-27R wasnt considered strong enough to compete with the F-16 with 9Ls coming in the same update. So it got R-27ERs that it never used for balancing reasons. (personally I would have prefered the R-73s, fighting the Mig-29s firing R-27ERs sucked) It probably could and should loose the R-27ERs and gain R-73s instead now that IRCCM has been established in game.
But loadouts are always a balancing decision and are rarely historically accurate
If we’re going to have this aircraft ingame at all, I don’t see why it can’t have the R-77 and R-73 missiles.