You said that the AESA radar where starting to enter WT and I think we got to say that the F-2 iS THE FIRST plane ever made in production with an AESA radar.
@@Anthony1102www The missile that has the best top tier IRCCM? wtf are you on about. The IRCCM of the 9M is very good, I have no clue what you are actually talking about. FYI the AIM-9M is missing a huge part of its IRCCM as well, get over it, the AAM3 doesn't need better iRCCM.
F-2 is nothing like the F-16. Being considerably heavier, even though it has the F110-GE-129 engine and chopped back LERX (no AOA limit) it will not perform like a similar engined F-16C.50. Where the F-2 gets ahead is in the sophistication of it's avionics, the numbers of it's weapons and it'ss entirely internal ECM suite. AESA is far more than fast-scan, it is jamming and multirole. Meaning you can in-band jam enemy radars with kilowatts of X-Band power and some really sophisticated DECM techniques while also doing things like all weather TFR, at night, by mode-sharing the aperture, even as you look for air threats or do high resolution ground mapping. The F-2 has MAWS and an internal jammer while the F-16C has to carry some variant of the ALQ-131 or 184 and, to this day (pre-POBIT) doesn't have missile approach warning. The AAM-4 is an 8" missile with an AESA seeker which means it has 50% greater range than the 7" AIM-120C5 and much better ECCM jamming defeat. It is also virtually unnotchable due to the speed with which it changes waveforms (PRF/PRI, beam size and positioning) to refresh target position within the scan pattern. AAM-5 is basically a Japanese IRIS-T but it also has an excellent, IRCCM capable seeker. The original J/APG-1 AESA has since been replaced with the J/APG-2 with 1216 GaN modules and a 6KW average power. This is more power than the equivalent APG-79V4 on the F/A-18E/F Lot.3 in a radar which is 20% smaller. The F-2 is capable of carrying an indigenous J/ALQ-2 nav-attack pod which incorporates both targeting (tracking gimble) and navigation (fixed, forward looking, window) FLIR plus a boresight correltor and IMU target memory for handing off to GCS-1. It's a great system but is being replaced by the AAQ-33 Sniper which is even better. The type can carry up to twelve of the GCS-1 IIR homing bomb which is roughly in the same class as the GBU-12 (4nm low, 8nm high) but does not require target designation. It can carry ASM-1 (radar, rocket, 50kkm/27mi) ASM-2 (IIR + turbojet, 75km/45nm) or ASM-3 (supersonic, Mach 3, 100-110km, 65mi) with standoffs of 20km, 60km and 100km respectively. Probably most interesting about the jet is it's hardpoint station system which allows it to mount up to four pylons, at seven (variable) locations under each wing. This gives it incredible weapons system loading potential, including the ability to load very heavy, large, munitions, well outboard. This includes 600 gallon fuel tanks and two, 1,800lb, ASM-3. Or up to four ASM-2. In the cockpit, you get a giant HUD and three very large, color MFD, displays but no HMD. With EEW/MTOGW weights in the 21,000lb and 49,000 class, the F-2 carries 8,000lbs internal fuel and a typical 2,500lbs worth of (4X484lbs + 2X 210lbs + 300X1lb) is going to be .9:1 until Joker fuel and with a 375ft wing area is going to be running around 84psf wing loading, even then. These do not compare favorably with a similarly equipped F-16C but are a result of the type's FSX as Fighter Strike Experimental roots, where it was intended to replace the lighweight F-1 and some F-4EJ roles in the 'anti-invasion' scenario of lifting heavy loads of anti-ship missiles and guided bombs as a self-escorting, long range, maritime strike aircraft. CONCLUSION: Despite the nickname, 'Viper Zero', the F-2 is not an air superiority platform. It will turn circles inside an F-4EJ (what won't) but without dedicated dogfight systems like an HMD and IRST, it's not a platform for merge fighting. And that's likely the biggest reason for Gaijin's failure to introduce the type. You absolutely need a modern naval threat with a large CSG or ARG force and/or a commerce raider convoy defense scenario so that the F-2A can excel in a role similar to a Hornet/Super Hornet while also introducing the F-15JSI (IRST, APG-82, Glass Cockpit, AAM-4B) to allow for adequate top cover against J-10B/J-11B. Defending against a beachhead assault with landing craft and tanks coming through the surf zone in the Kurils or Senkakus would be neat. As would attacking a three deck CVBG, working up near Tianjin or Qinhuangdao before heading out to bully blockade Taiwan. Without those elements, the unique abilities and weapons the F-2 brings to the table are kind've...lost in translation.
This is probably one of the best assessments of the F-2 I've seen so far. I'd just like to add on flight performance, where I feel like the "Viper Zero" nickname actually is sort of spot on. The F-2, compared to the F-16C, has a lot more wing area, larger LERX and larger control surfaces. All of this the F-2 generally having favorable high AoA performance and control authority. The flight control system adds to this as well, incorporating Maneuver Enhancement and Decoupled Yaw based on collective input from US and Japanese CCV studies (T-2CCV, F-16CCV). Maneuver Enhancement is also found with the FCS of the F-22 and F-35, as well as more recently with the F-15EX, where the difference to older F-15s can be seen directly. The F-2 also has a G limit of 10G (compared to the F-16Cs 9G), as well as an override to 12G. While this isn't present in War Thunder, wing rip speed still depends on the G limit, so this can be helpful. As for the speed, it does have higher weight and drag compared to the F-16C, especially when armed. Though this is still a higher T/W than the earlier F-16A with their F100-PW-200 and F100-PW-220 engines. Depending on the loadout, this means that acceleration would be somewhere around that of the F-16A, with the additional thrust balancing the drag, however it would still bleed speed faster. When it comes to trying to describe it's flight performance, I do feel like it might be closer to an F-18 than it is to an F-16. And I'd say a Japanese plane, loosely based on the "Viper" platform, performing like a modern day carrier fighter except with a significantly higher G limit, does deserve the "Viper Zero" title.
@@mauswaffe Fair enough. Everyone I've talked to says the F-2 is a stable weapons delivery system but not in any way nose-agile like an F/A-18 nor energy additive like the Viper. Comparing it to the F-15C vs. E. You have to do a lot more manual blending in the hydro-mechanical CAS Albino but it is definitively the master of the Beagle, despite the latter having a triplex FBW (for the LANTIRN). People tend to worship the F-16A for a lot of bad rationale reasons so perhaps a little math is worth doing here as well. Empty weight: 16,300lbs. Fuel: 7,200lbs, four heat missiles and 512 rounds in the gun: 1,000lbs. Engine AB thrust: 23,850lbs in the PW-200/220 versions. The latter gets you a lot more stable engine throttleup and thrust retention at height but still results in numbers of 84psf and .94:1 T/Wr. Take this to the F-16C.30 and now you're at about 1.05:1. And to the F-16C.50, 1.15:1. Provided it's run in, the F110 is much better behaved overall and has 2-4,000lbf more thrust but is also _significantly_ thirstier and heavier. What makes the F-16 a zoomie is the tails. You take that 300sqft wing area and add another 50ft as the LEF go positive and the tails trim neutral and now your 25,200/350 wing loading goes from 84psf to 72psf, which is Rodan with two empty tanks. But only half the drag. Cutting back the LERX means it doesn't do the deep stall thing at AOA 27+ but it also doesn't have the onspeed vortex lift it should which means it's corner is much worse. It's 5,000lbs heavier than an F-16A and 2,000lbs heavier than a C and yet it has less than 1,000lbs more internal fuel. With similar wingloading and much more drag, it's not going to have the same energy. Annd it's not going to gain energy from a low speed entry which means your nose-pointy Hornet crap doesn't work is a one way dead end road. As for the Zero (A6M2, type 11/21), you have a fighter which climbs like a whole 'nother generation, fights incredibly well, slow, and hardens up, fast, at anything over 250. Almost 70 knots below it's top speed. Does this match well to the FSX derived CCV/RSS technologies? I don't know but it is clear that the intake canards originally mooted did not reach production and so clearly the JASDF and/or Mitsubishi did not think they added as much as they took away. Or maybe GD simply didn't want to license the tech, I don't know (wrong company). At that point, the Viper and the Zero are both clear air mass visual dogfighters. They are not designed as a heavyweight, multirole, platform with large air to ground or antiship missile payloads and a mission raidus of ~550nm. That is HOW the F-2 would be flown, no matter which service operated it. And the Japanese would do everything they could to choke Chinese SLOC activity out of Shanghai to curb both naval power projection around the Home Islands and maritime interdict the PRC economy. Depending on what (breeder reactor) you think Fukushima was really about, they might even go for an NCA decap with the 10-20 weapon casings and fusing components they maintain. Even with CFT that's not something an F-16C would do (weight) nor an F/A-18C (10,000lb fuel load, twin engines, four pylons) nor an F/A-18E (clownshoe toed-out pylon drag). There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying the F-2 is an excellent self-escorting strike fighter. That doesn't mean it is capable at the Air Supremacy mission and if you try to take it there, it should be based on drag and weight and acceleration of the F-15J. The latter itself is now challenged by the J-10C/J-11BGH combination but the PLAAF would completely dominate the F-2. Using the PL-15 and supersonic performance (25,000lbs of internal gas on the Flanker clone) to come over the top of the F-2 and out pole it, even with AAM-4B. While it is anime foolish to call it 'Godzilla', there is a reason why the F-X is starting to look like a hybrid Raptor/YF-23 mix, with a larger airframe and much more fuel. That is the fighter which is going to enter the radar merge fight supersonic to ensure first shot/only shot dominance, have a maser to kill inbound threats weapons and probably the world's most advanced stealth with both active and passive systems to ensure an ELO RF and EO signature. With modern FPA thermal imager SAIRST 'going global', nobody should want to merge as an acceleration fighter. You want to stay beyond the WEZ detection threshold in a minimum 25-30mi range (which requires a supersonic launch to put pre-built shock on the weapon radome) and simply not use burners as your meta material transfers 70% of airframe heat to the fuel and reradiates what's left in a more atmosphere attenuated neutral band. i.e. none of the 1970s LWF/ACF metrics for 'what makes a superior fighter', as they came out of Vietnam, will apply in the traditional sense. And that's completely okay, this is just a simulator game and none of the real world factors need apply beyond what the ~1995 first flight F-2 tactical doctrine requires the aircraft to bring to the table on it's own merit. But where that (mission profile) capability is maritime oriented with a strong secondary of 'Out of the mountains or the sea, strike the invasion beachhead!' naval CAS, it would greatly help the enjoyment of the F-2 as a 'blue on blue' naval mission system if Gaijin would consider providing some maps and hull assets to reflect it's intended role and likely opponents. If nothing else, iit will make later F-2+F-3 joint missions much more interesting. You send it into the squirrel cage of the present missile circus and it's going to get hosed, roughly 60:40 comparable to the other jets, just on shot count. Thanks for reading.
@@xyz-hj6ul I think this might be a bit misleading. The F-2s flight charavteristics are in no way comparable to the F-15C vs E besides shallowly taking a look at the weight increase alone. Unlike the F-15, the F-2 has had significant aerodynamic changes. The F-2 only has about 5% commonality with the F-16 platform. While maneuverability in the traditional sense wasn't the main intention behind the F-2s airframe, controllability was, especially at high weapon loads. This can be seen in many aspects of the design, most notably the size and shaping of the new wing and control surfaces. It is not a coincidence the F-2 opted for a trapezoidal wing over the F-16s delta wing and and extended tail with larger elevators. All of these are intended to give greater controllability. Maneuver enhancement on the FBW system also mainly serves to provide optimal possible control authority under any circumstance. Other applications of this functionality, as I had mentioned before, can be seen with the F-22 and F-35, the former taking great input from technologies developed and shared through FS-X. The FBW Maneuver Enhancement is what allows the F-35 to do what at first glance appears almost like post-stall maneuvers. Chin canards have a different purpose, allowing for more unconventional control of the aircraft such as pointing the nose without changing flight course, or a "sideslip" maneuver as well as having the ability to function as a secondary speed brake. This was seen as unnecessary, and they were omitted from the design. Similarly no comparable system was present on the domestic FS-X plan either, despite CCV studies on the T-2CCV which prominently featured a chin camard. Decoupled Yaw was still implemented using only conventional control surfaces. So while the F-2 will not have the energy retention of the F-16C, and can't match the low speed nose pointing ability of the F-18, it still is an agile aircraft. The comparison also looks a lot different when comparing to something other than these aircrafts greatest strenghts. It would still beat out the F-18 in energy retention and higher speed performance, while easily having the F-16 beat in control authority at any given speed (assuming an equal fuel and weapons load). The notable disadvantages when it comes to air combat performance would be the lack of HMD, and the missile load limited to 4 MRAAM + 4 SRAAM only when compared to the F-16s ability to carry either on all 6 pylons or the F-18s ability to carry 12 missiles total, with the underwing pylons able to carry both SRAAM and MRAAM. Though I will have to say I am not trying to argue for it as an air superiority fighter, simply stating that in a War Thumder context (this is about War Thunder after all) the flight performance of the F-2 does give it considerable advantages in the common furball/dogfight scenarios that will without a doubt let it live up to its "Viper Zero" name.
@@PhantomーII Depends on which jet and what era you're talking about. All F-15s have a wing area of about 608 square feet. With an empty weight of 28,000lbs and a fuel weight (F-15C) of 13,400lbs. Carrying 4,000lbs of munitions and consumables, that's roughly a 46,000lb jet with a wingloading of 75psf. Importantly, it's a fuel fraction of about .29 which is really on the light side for a long range, offensive counter air platform and basically means the enormous thrust to weight ratios and 700-800fps SEPs comes a the cost of a complete dependence on dual or triple tanked (610 X 6.8ppg X3 = 12,400lbs of auxiliary fuel) gas which is not only hard to come back from in a seriously overwater theater like the Pacific Rim or even a Big Desert like the Saudi/Iraqi empty quarter, it's also hard to /get into/ because the ability to get light and get fast, while supported by a large stockpile of War Reserve Material tanks, also comes with a pretty savage release schedule thaat includes the centerline bag coming off before Mach 1 and the wings before Mach 1.35. The F-15E (and some earlier models, notably up in Iceland, at Langley and in Israel) offsets this with CFTs that basically make the jet into something of a whale on roller skates which is to say really poor directional control harmonies and rising drag curve, due to the ruined area rule of the fuselage boom sides with their inverse (vertical) taper. Now add to this a 36,400lb empty weight and standard B-model losses of aa 1,000lbs or so of internal fuel (12.5 I think) because now you're talking about a base takeoff weight of 60,000lbs. If you're honest, you're also going to add another 10,000lbs in wing tanks. So 70,000lb/608sqft and 47,000lbf/70,000lbs gives you a wing loading of around 115psf and a thrust loading of .67, in full burner, with no weapons. This is abysmal, not least because, while you can ditch the wing bags you are stuck with that CFT gas as you are pushing two of everything through space in a very draggy aircraft. On a PW-220 engine, this makes it hard to hold position with six Mk.82 on a tanker at 20,000ft and indeed, the ODS coverage in William Smallwood's book _Strike Eagle_ talks of multiple tanker orbits 'toboganning', downhile, within sight of the Iraqi border and with the RWR going off in both the fighter and tanker cockpits. The -229 engine was a lot better but only after some serious modifications as the USAFE chief once cussed out BOTH St. Louis and the head of ASD at Wright Patterson with words to the effect: 'Come get these blankety blank blank engines out of my angry-deity-expletitive jets before I have no 48th TFW left!'. Really bad engine fire in throttle transient conditions of heavy weight takeoffs, cost the Liberty Wing somthing like 3-4 jets in as many months. Of course the engine bays are configured so it's not exactly a simple switch out due to the cooling differences, so it was more a case of 'motivation' as _you will fix this because we're committed_. But the point remains that the F-15E is closer to a flatulent buzzard than an aggressive aquila, at height. And that's before you consider things like outsized missile carriage, 1760 weapon stations and the twin LANTIRN/Sniper podsets. The Japanese don't use AGM-88 but they do have a disciplined adherence to powered standoff weapons and, for most of the 90s and early 2000s we could only match that with the AGM-130 which meant no wing fuel and pushing the AMRAAMs to the HRL with no SRM backup. Even then, the weapon was only good to about 35nm and only from high altitude. If you are above ohhh, 5,000ft, in a naval SAM environment you'd better believe you need a SEAD missile and at the time, we couldn't activate the outboard stations for HARM because the acoustic environment behind that conical cambered LE was so bad it not only wrecked any missile, or pods cleared there, it took entire wingtips off. Today, with the Group 4 package and the EX, things are looking up somewhat but it should still be noted that we're getting half-used Saudi F-15SA wings as they do an MLU update to the EX standard, across their fleet. The F-15E wing design is hard on the jet and will always remain so, even with the digital FLCS improvements. So... We have tankers and a landbased expeditionary EA-18G capability which the JASDF do not. We also have JASSM-ER and presumably, the LRASM (provided someone P-8 else talks to the missile). This means we can go further, be sneakier, and hopefully hit a PLAN CSG somewhere away from their coastal SAM/DCA intercept environment. But if you're just determined to charge right into the dragon's den of the ECS/Yellow Sea environment, the reality is that the F-2 is the better naval striker. That 80nm, Mach 3, ASM-3 is going to penetrate where I have serious doubts about even the AGM-158's ability do get the last 20-30nm into the Type 346B 'If SPY-1 was an AESA' threat bubble without getting just shredded by lofted HHQ-9B. It is likely aligned with the Russian S-400/40N6 system with better components. And we have already seen how good the Drago Eye radar is in the Nanchang vs. USN 'exercise' a couple months back. Which means that none of the high altitude glide JDAM/SDB or other OBAS crap that the F-15E specializes in as a multi-carry bomber is going to be worth the powder to blow it up. Effectively taking away TWELVE stations as extraneous hardpoints on the CFT. Not A Good Plan. Anything J/APG-2 vs. APG-82 is likely going to be determined by threat EW va. power product off the much bigger Eagle II active array which is also plugged into the ALQ-250 as an ELS system. This likely gives an F-15E-4 or EX the edge in targeting, even without Poseidon/Triton/Sentry about. But ultimately, you have to put ordnance on target and the added standoff of the JASSM doesn't change the fact that it is just so slow. Throw in a healthy surface duct taking acquisition range (even without tropobounce or AEW&C) out to 15-18nm on the Type 346B and you're talking about 3-4 complete engagement opportunities. Whereas the F-2 is going to have a major edge here, just because it can slip and slide those pylon stations around to accommodate the outsized weapons from an all lo-lo ingress profile (where every parent airframe is slow). YMMV. F-2 with X4 ASM-2 and two 600 gallon tanks. preview.redd.it/qw9znjj80ib91.jpg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=280147ebe3793d306846031d818d0b666fd45b18 F-2 With X2 ASM-3, paired AAM-4 and two 600 gallon tanks. external-preview.redd.it/XUuEownW_P3hyw1EFU5j2gK5IpAGb7XVS-T-S96QM5Y.jpg?auto=webp&s=0b17c64629ce54aaf0102e4dabf5bc98bf984406
To me the key thing in the F2 is the anti-ship missiles. Currently we don't have a reason, appart from Sim, to use anti-ship weapons in air mode, but they just fixed the Tornado anti-ship missile, and with Su33, F18 and Rafale probably coming, a naval theme is kinda in the air, I mean, even the carrier that the Su33 uses is already in game, though we can't spawn in it, it's just in Sim mode as AI and it was updated this last update, so I don't think it's impossible for the F2 to Finally come, alongside some naval stuff for air mode, I mean, we have maps that could easily have carriers and a few ships added, and they would fit the maps just fine, so I hope to see that. Currently in top tier or near top tier I just don't see carriers at all, not sure if for bad RNG or if they really got removed from rotation, but as a naval and naval aviation enthusiast, I Really want to see ships in air rb again and not only in Sim as we see currently.
3:30 the Rafale F3 also has an AESA (no he didn't got it in the F3R, it's a common mistake made by people since he got the meteor in the F3R so people assume he got it with the F3R)
@@syfury3403 non, F3.2 et F3.3 sont des différences mineur et des corrections, il a bien eu son radar AESA sur le standard F3 (source : Rafale the omnirole fighter)
Japan needs CAS, and the F-2 would fill that role. The F-2 should also introduce AESA radars because they were to first to produce it in an aircraft, next to the F-22
Agreed but I can see gaijin adding the F15j/dj msip instead. They already have the model of the plane in game with the strike eagle so it'll be a faster implement to the tech tree then redoing the model for the F-2.
After f2 there is only f15JSI so an f15 with a aesa radar and after that Japan only has f35 so it’s no wonder gaijin chooses to give Japan Thai f5’s. they’re simply running out of vechicles to add to Japan
@@commandervocal3848u don’t like the fake f-16 😂 lol? uhhh the f-16aj with the 65Bs isn’t that bad but japan does definitely need more cas options… then again your team will have top tier CAS for america or russia so u don’t gotta worry about doing CAS on your part
@ 😅 the F-16 isn’t bad at its BR but if you play top tier it’s rough, especially compared to everyone else. And you still need to have decent multirole use since everyone else has access to either great multirole aircraft or dedicated strike aircraft.
@ also while everyone else can perform multirole with their aircraft, when I spawn my F-15JM I can take down the enemy CAS but then what exactly am I supposed to do fly around waiting or am I expected to get in close with dumb bombs? Meanwhile the normal F-15C can also carry GBUs, and America also has the F-15E which is a dedicated strike aircraft that’s better in every single way except for maneuvering, same with Israel. The only other nation that comes close to the lack of CAS and multirole/air superiority is Germany and at least they have a strike tornado with LJDAMs now.
MiG-31 should not be added right now ? Yeah right maybe 2 years after the F-22 .... 😂🤦♂. MiG-31 with R-33 belongs to the game right now , not only that but it should be added ASAP given Soviet tree has nothing to compete in BVR nor BFM for that matter !
I love those planes, but I hope those leaks are wrong, WT is now moving too fast for its own good, I dont even think its fully ready for AMRAAMs which we already have.
What we want F-2 Viper Zero What we get Thai F16 and Gripen I mean it does give us japan mains some better CAS ordnance compared to what the F15 and F16AJ have
f2 is 20% more manoeuvrable then f16c block40 its going to be the most manoeuvrable f16 in game it can carry loadout of A2G and its perfect time be added in next updates A2A is 6 aam-4 and 2 amm-3 or 4 aam-4 and 4 aam-3
german eurofighters are more afraid of f16a's of the netherlands than the f2 mitsubishi, because of the weight (the eurofighter has 35% more maneuvrebility than the f16a)
Matt can you contact gajin about raising the f14s up .3 br for the a and B and upgrading the 9h to 9L and for the f14B aim9L to aim9M and give f14B smokeless mk47 aim54C
@@Mr.gaming470 for US F-22 & F-35A/B/C, for other countries, f-35 (variant-specific; some countries have a lot more stuff in between now and f-35 like U.K. and Germany). For USSR/Russia Su-57, for China initially the J-20 etc
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Gaijin: The best we can offer are these jazzed up Thai F-5's
You said that the AESA radar where starting to enter WT and I think we got to say that the F-2 iS THE FIRST plane ever made in production with an AESA radar.
Yes, it is. Finally someone gets it
@767ParkourkidPekka 🤝
And that’s why it should be the first plane to have it in war thunder
I agree with this. Lots of AESA radars, and AIM-120's already in the game, just throw it in there!
I don’t think there is a single aesa radar yet?
Not a single aesa plane ingame.
@joshharris2793 Not yet, but they are coming is what I mean.
@@fennoman9241 They should be coming is what I mean, rather.
@@NissanR397 the typhoon and rafale coming don’t have aesa radars yet; so we are still a ways off
Before F-2 is added, the true IRCCM ablity of AAM3 and 4 should be implemented
Why would the AAM4 have IRCCM
@patriotic-panda i just accidentally type the 4 in it only but you get what i mean
@@Anthony1102www It doesn't need their true IRCCM, what is more then good enough.
@@aflyingcowboy31 it was just a 9m seeker
Its not good at all
@@Anthony1102www The missile that has the best top tier IRCCM? wtf are you on about. The IRCCM of the 9M is very good, I have no clue what you are actually talking about.
FYI the AIM-9M is missing a huge part of its IRCCM as well, get over it, the AAM3 doesn't need better iRCCM.
F-2 is nothing like the F-16. Being considerably heavier, even though it has the F110-GE-129 engine and chopped back LERX (no AOA limit) it will not perform like a similar engined F-16C.50.
Where the F-2 gets ahead is in the sophistication of it's avionics, the numbers of it's weapons and it'ss entirely internal ECM suite.
AESA is far more than fast-scan, it is jamming and multirole. Meaning you can in-band jam enemy radars with kilowatts of X-Band power and some really sophisticated DECM techniques while also doing things like all weather TFR, at night, by mode-sharing the aperture, even as you look for air threats or do high resolution ground mapping. The F-2 has MAWS and an internal jammer while the F-16C has to carry some variant of the ALQ-131 or 184 and, to this day (pre-POBIT) doesn't have missile approach warning.
The AAM-4 is an 8" missile with an AESA seeker which means it has 50% greater range than the 7" AIM-120C5 and much better ECCM jamming defeat. It is also virtually unnotchable due to the speed with which it changes waveforms (PRF/PRI, beam size and positioning) to refresh target position within the scan pattern.
AAM-5 is basically a Japanese IRIS-T but it also has an excellent, IRCCM capable seeker.
The original J/APG-1 AESA has since been replaced with the J/APG-2 with 1216 GaN modules and a 6KW average power. This is more power than the equivalent APG-79V4 on the F/A-18E/F Lot.3 in a radar which is 20% smaller.
The F-2 is capable of carrying an indigenous J/ALQ-2 nav-attack pod which incorporates both targeting (tracking gimble) and navigation (fixed, forward looking, window) FLIR plus a boresight correltor and IMU target memory for handing off to GCS-1. It's a great system but is being replaced by the AAQ-33 Sniper which is even better.
The type can carry up to twelve of the GCS-1 IIR homing bomb which is roughly in the same class as the GBU-12 (4nm low, 8nm high) but does not require target designation.
It can carry ASM-1 (radar, rocket, 50kkm/27mi) ASM-2 (IIR + turbojet, 75km/45nm) or ASM-3 (supersonic, Mach 3, 100-110km, 65mi) with standoffs of 20km, 60km and 100km respectively.
Probably most interesting about the jet is it's hardpoint station system which allows it to mount up to four pylons, at seven (variable) locations under each wing. This gives it incredible weapons system loading potential, including the ability to load very heavy, large, munitions, well outboard. This includes 600 gallon fuel tanks and two, 1,800lb, ASM-3. Or up to four ASM-2.
In the cockpit, you get a giant HUD and three very large, color MFD, displays but no HMD.
With EEW/MTOGW weights in the 21,000lb and 49,000 class, the F-2 carries 8,000lbs internal fuel and a typical 2,500lbs worth of (4X484lbs + 2X 210lbs + 300X1lb) is going to be .9:1 until Joker fuel and with a 375ft wing area is going to be running around 84psf wing loading, even then.
These do not compare favorably with a similarly equipped F-16C but are a result of the type's FSX as Fighter Strike Experimental roots, where it was intended to replace the lighweight F-1 and some F-4EJ roles in the 'anti-invasion' scenario of lifting heavy loads of anti-ship missiles and guided bombs as a self-escorting, long range, maritime strike aircraft.
CONCLUSION:
Despite the nickname, 'Viper Zero', the F-2 is not an air superiority platform. It will turn circles inside an F-4EJ (what won't) but without dedicated dogfight systems like an HMD and IRST, it's not a platform for merge fighting.
And that's likely the biggest reason for Gaijin's failure to introduce the type. You absolutely need a modern naval threat with a large CSG or ARG force and/or a commerce raider convoy defense scenario so that the F-2A can excel in a role similar to a Hornet/Super Hornet while also introducing the F-15JSI (IRST, APG-82, Glass Cockpit, AAM-4B) to allow for adequate top cover against J-10B/J-11B.
Defending against a beachhead assault with landing craft and tanks coming through the surf zone in the Kurils or Senkakus would be neat. As would attacking a three deck CVBG, working up near Tianjin or Qinhuangdao before heading out to bully blockade Taiwan.
Without those elements, the unique abilities and weapons the F-2 brings to the table are kind've...lost in translation.
This is probably one of the best assessments of the F-2 I've seen so far.
I'd just like to add on flight performance, where I feel like the "Viper Zero" nickname actually is sort of spot on.
The F-2, compared to the F-16C, has a lot more wing area, larger LERX and larger control surfaces.
All of this the F-2 generally having favorable high AoA performance and control authority.
The flight control system adds to this as well, incorporating Maneuver Enhancement and Decoupled Yaw based on collective input from US and Japanese CCV studies (T-2CCV, F-16CCV). Maneuver Enhancement is also found with the FCS of the F-22 and F-35, as well as more recently with the F-15EX, where the difference to older F-15s can be seen directly.
The F-2 also has a G limit of 10G (compared to the F-16Cs 9G), as well as an override to 12G. While this isn't present in War Thunder, wing rip speed still depends on the G limit, so this can be helpful.
As for the speed, it does have higher weight and drag compared to the F-16C, especially when armed. Though this is still a higher T/W than the earlier F-16A with their F100-PW-200 and F100-PW-220 engines. Depending on the loadout, this means that acceleration would be somewhere around that of the F-16A, with the additional thrust balancing the drag, however it would still bleed speed faster.
When it comes to trying to describe it's flight performance, I do feel like it might be closer to an F-18 than it is to an F-16.
And I'd say a Japanese plane, loosely based on the "Viper" platform, performing like a modern day carrier fighter except with a significantly higher G limit, does deserve the "Viper Zero" title.
@@mauswaffe
Fair enough. Everyone I've talked to says the F-2 is a stable weapons delivery system but not in any way nose-agile like an F/A-18 nor energy additive like the Viper.
Comparing it to the F-15C vs. E. You have to do a lot more manual blending in the hydro-mechanical CAS Albino but it is definitively the master of the Beagle, despite the latter having a triplex FBW (for the LANTIRN).
People tend to worship the F-16A for a lot of bad rationale reasons so perhaps a little math is worth doing here as well. Empty weight: 16,300lbs. Fuel: 7,200lbs, four heat missiles and 512 rounds in the gun: 1,000lbs. Engine AB thrust: 23,850lbs in the PW-200/220 versions. The latter gets you a lot more stable engine throttleup and thrust retention at height but still results in numbers of 84psf and .94:1 T/Wr. Take this to the F-16C.30 and now you're at about 1.05:1. And to the F-16C.50, 1.15:1. Provided it's run in, the F110 is much better behaved overall and has 2-4,000lbf more thrust but is also _significantly_ thirstier and heavier.
What makes the F-16 a zoomie is the tails. You take that 300sqft wing area and add another 50ft as the LEF go positive and the tails trim neutral and now your 25,200/350 wing loading goes from 84psf to 72psf, which is Rodan with two empty tanks.
But only half the drag.
Cutting back the LERX means it doesn't do the deep stall thing at AOA 27+ but it also doesn't have the onspeed vortex lift it should which means it's corner is much worse. It's 5,000lbs heavier than an F-16A and 2,000lbs heavier than a C and yet it has less than 1,000lbs more internal fuel. With similar wingloading and much more drag, it's not going to have the same energy. Annd it's not going to gain energy from a low speed entry which means your nose-pointy Hornet crap doesn't work is a one way dead end road.
As for the Zero (A6M2, type 11/21), you have a fighter which climbs like a whole 'nother generation, fights incredibly well, slow, and hardens up, fast, at anything over 250. Almost 70 knots below it's top speed.
Does this match well to the FSX derived CCV/RSS technologies? I don't know but it is clear that the intake canards originally mooted did not reach production and so clearly the JASDF and/or Mitsubishi did not think they added as much as they took away. Or maybe GD simply didn't want to license the tech, I don't know (wrong company). At that point, the Viper and the Zero are both clear air mass visual dogfighters. They are not designed as a heavyweight, multirole, platform with large air to ground or antiship missile payloads and a mission raidus of ~550nm.
That is HOW the F-2 would be flown, no matter which service operated it. And the Japanese would do everything they could to choke Chinese SLOC activity out of Shanghai to curb both naval power projection around the Home Islands and maritime interdict the PRC economy. Depending on what (breeder reactor) you think Fukushima was really about, they might even go for an NCA decap with the 10-20 weapon casings and fusing components they maintain.
Even with CFT that's not something an F-16C would do (weight) nor an F/A-18C (10,000lb fuel load, twin engines, four pylons) nor an F/A-18E (clownshoe toed-out pylon drag). There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying the F-2 is an excellent self-escorting strike fighter. That doesn't mean it is capable at the Air Supremacy mission and if you try to take it there, it should be based on drag and weight and acceleration of the F-15J. The latter itself is now challenged by the J-10C/J-11BGH combination but the PLAAF would completely dominate the F-2. Using the PL-15 and supersonic performance (25,000lbs of internal gas on the Flanker clone) to come over the top of the F-2 and out pole it, even with AAM-4B.
While it is anime foolish to call it 'Godzilla', there is a reason why the F-X is starting to look like a hybrid Raptor/YF-23 mix, with a larger airframe and much more fuel.
That is the fighter which is going to enter the radar merge fight supersonic to ensure first shot/only shot dominance, have a maser to kill inbound threats weapons and probably the world's most advanced stealth with both active and passive systems to ensure an ELO RF and EO signature.
With modern FPA thermal imager SAIRST 'going global', nobody should want to merge as an acceleration fighter. You want to stay beyond the WEZ detection threshold in a minimum 25-30mi range (which requires a supersonic launch to put pre-built shock on the weapon radome) and simply not use burners as your meta material transfers 70% of airframe heat to the fuel and reradiates what's left in a more atmosphere attenuated neutral band.
i.e. none of the 1970s LWF/ACF metrics for 'what makes a superior fighter', as they came out of Vietnam, will apply in the traditional sense.
And that's completely okay, this is just a simulator game and none of the real world factors need apply beyond what the ~1995 first flight F-2 tactical doctrine requires the aircraft to bring to the table on it's own merit. But where that (mission profile) capability is maritime oriented with a strong secondary of 'Out of the mountains or the sea, strike the invasion beachhead!' naval CAS, it would greatly help the enjoyment of the F-2 as a 'blue on blue' naval mission system if Gaijin would consider providing some maps and hull assets to reflect it's intended role and likely opponents.
If nothing else, iit will make later F-2+F-3 joint missions much more interesting.
You send it into the squirrel cage of the present missile circus and it's going to get hosed, roughly 60:40 comparable to the other jets, just on shot count.
Thanks for reading.
Gaijin should read these
So basically f-2 is f15e but without the engine power?
@@xyz-hj6ul I think this might be a bit misleading. The F-2s flight charavteristics are in no way comparable to the F-15C vs E besides shallowly taking a look at the weight increase alone. Unlike the F-15, the F-2 has had significant aerodynamic changes. The F-2 only has about 5% commonality with the F-16 platform.
While maneuverability in the traditional sense wasn't the main intention behind the F-2s airframe, controllability was, especially at high weapon loads. This can be seen in many aspects of the design, most notably the size and shaping of the new wing and control surfaces.
It is not a coincidence the F-2 opted for a trapezoidal wing over the F-16s delta wing and and extended tail with larger elevators. All of these are intended to give greater controllability.
Maneuver enhancement on the FBW system also mainly serves to provide optimal possible control authority under any circumstance. Other applications of this functionality, as I had mentioned before, can be seen with the F-22 and F-35, the former taking great input from technologies developed and shared through FS-X. The FBW Maneuver Enhancement is what allows the F-35 to do what at first glance appears almost like post-stall maneuvers.
Chin canards have a different purpose, allowing for more unconventional control of the aircraft such as pointing the nose without changing flight course, or a "sideslip" maneuver as well as having the ability to function as a secondary speed brake. This was seen as unnecessary, and they were omitted from the design. Similarly no comparable system was present on the domestic FS-X plan either, despite CCV studies on the T-2CCV which prominently featured a chin camard. Decoupled Yaw was still implemented using only conventional control surfaces.
So while the F-2 will not have the energy retention of the F-16C, and can't match the low speed nose pointing ability of the F-18, it still is an agile aircraft.
The comparison also looks a lot different when comparing to something other than these aircrafts greatest strenghts. It would still beat out the F-18 in energy retention and higher speed performance, while easily having the F-16 beat in control authority at any given speed (assuming an equal fuel and weapons load).
The notable disadvantages when it comes to air combat performance would be the lack of HMD, and the missile load limited to 4 MRAAM + 4 SRAAM only when compared to the F-16s ability to carry either on all 6 pylons or the F-18s ability to carry 12 missiles total, with the underwing pylons able to carry both SRAAM and MRAAM.
Though I will have to say I am not trying to argue for it as an air superiority fighter, simply stating that in a War Thumder context (this is about War Thunder after all) the flight performance of the F-2 does give it considerable advantages in the common furball/dogfight scenarios that will without a doubt let it live up to its "Viper Zero" name.
@@PhantomーII
Depends on which jet and what era you're talking about.
All F-15s have a wing area of about 608 square feet. With an empty weight of 28,000lbs and a fuel weight (F-15C) of 13,400lbs. Carrying 4,000lbs of munitions and consumables, that's roughly a 46,000lb jet with a wingloading of 75psf. Importantly, it's a fuel fraction of about .29 which is really on the light side for a long range, offensive counter air platform and basically means the enormous thrust to weight ratios and 700-800fps SEPs comes a the cost of a complete dependence on dual or triple tanked (610 X 6.8ppg X3 = 12,400lbs of auxiliary fuel) gas which is not only hard to come back from in a seriously overwater theater like the Pacific Rim or even a Big Desert like the Saudi/Iraqi empty quarter, it's also hard to /get into/ because the ability to get light and get fast, while supported by a large stockpile of War Reserve Material tanks, also comes with a pretty savage release schedule thaat includes the centerline bag coming off before Mach 1 and the wings before Mach 1.35.
The F-15E (and some earlier models, notably up in Iceland, at Langley and in Israel) offsets this with CFTs that basically make the jet into something of a whale on roller skates which is to say really poor directional control harmonies and rising drag curve, due to the ruined area rule of the fuselage boom sides with their inverse (vertical) taper. Now add to this a 36,400lb empty weight and standard B-model losses of aa 1,000lbs or so of internal fuel (12.5 I think) because now you're talking about a base takeoff weight of 60,000lbs. If you're honest, you're also going to add another 10,000lbs in wing tanks. So 70,000lb/608sqft and 47,000lbf/70,000lbs gives you a wing loading of around 115psf and a thrust loading of .67, in full burner, with no weapons.
This is abysmal, not least because, while you can ditch the wing bags you are stuck with that CFT gas as you are pushing two of everything through space in a very draggy aircraft.
On a PW-220 engine, this makes it hard to hold position with six Mk.82 on a tanker at 20,000ft and indeed, the ODS coverage in William Smallwood's book _Strike Eagle_ talks of multiple tanker orbits 'toboganning', downhile, within sight of the Iraqi border and with the RWR going off in both the fighter and tanker cockpits.
The -229 engine was a lot better but only after some serious modifications as the USAFE chief once cussed out BOTH St. Louis and the head of ASD at Wright Patterson with words to the effect: 'Come get these blankety blank blank engines out of my angry-deity-expletitive jets before I have no 48th TFW left!'. Really bad engine fire in throttle transient conditions of heavy weight takeoffs, cost the Liberty Wing somthing like 3-4 jets in as many months.
Of course the engine bays are configured so it's not exactly a simple switch out due to the cooling differences, so it was more a case of 'motivation' as _you will fix this because we're committed_. But the point remains that the F-15E is closer to a flatulent buzzard than an aggressive aquila, at height. And that's before you consider things like outsized missile carriage, 1760 weapon stations and the twin LANTIRN/Sniper podsets.
The Japanese don't use AGM-88 but they do have a disciplined adherence to powered standoff weapons and, for most of the 90s and early 2000s we could only match that with the AGM-130 which meant no wing fuel and pushing the AMRAAMs to the HRL with no SRM backup. Even then, the weapon was only good to about 35nm and only from high altitude. If you are above ohhh, 5,000ft, in a naval SAM environment you'd better believe you need a SEAD missile and at the time, we couldn't activate the outboard stations for HARM because the acoustic environment behind that conical cambered LE was so bad it not only wrecked any missile, or pods cleared there, it took entire wingtips off.
Today, with the Group 4 package and the EX, things are looking up somewhat but it should still be noted that we're getting half-used Saudi F-15SA wings as they do an MLU update to the EX standard, across their fleet. The F-15E wing design is hard on the jet and will always remain so, even with the digital FLCS improvements.
So... We have tankers and a landbased expeditionary EA-18G capability which the JASDF do not. We also have JASSM-ER and presumably, the LRASM (provided someone P-8 else talks to the missile). This means we can go further, be sneakier, and hopefully hit a PLAN CSG somewhere away from their coastal SAM/DCA intercept environment. But if you're just determined to charge right into the dragon's den of the ECS/Yellow Sea environment, the reality is that the F-2 is the better naval striker. That 80nm, Mach 3, ASM-3 is going to penetrate where I have serious doubts about even the AGM-158's ability do get the last 20-30nm into the Type 346B 'If SPY-1 was an AESA' threat bubble without getting just shredded by lofted HHQ-9B.
It is likely aligned with the Russian S-400/40N6 system with better components. And we have already seen how good the Drago Eye radar is in the Nanchang vs. USN 'exercise' a couple months back.
Which means that none of the high altitude glide JDAM/SDB or other OBAS crap that the F-15E specializes in as a multi-carry bomber is going to be worth the powder to blow it up. Effectively taking away TWELVE stations as extraneous hardpoints on the CFT.
Not A Good Plan.
Anything J/APG-2 vs. APG-82 is likely going to be determined by threat EW va. power product off the much bigger Eagle II active array which is also plugged into the ALQ-250 as an ELS system. This likely gives an F-15E-4 or EX the edge in targeting, even without Poseidon/Triton/Sentry about. But ultimately, you have to put ordnance on target and the added standoff of the JASSM doesn't change the fact that it is just so slow. Throw in a healthy surface duct taking acquisition range (even without tropobounce or AEW&C) out to 15-18nm on the Type 346B and you're talking about 3-4 complete engagement opportunities. Whereas the F-2 is going to have a major edge here, just because it can slip and slide those pylon stations around to accommodate the outsized weapons from an all lo-lo ingress profile (where every parent airframe is slow).
YMMV.
F-2 with X4 ASM-2 and two 600 gallon tanks.
preview.redd.it/qw9znjj80ib91.jpg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=280147ebe3793d306846031d818d0b666fd45b18
F-2 With X2 ASM-3, paired AAM-4 and two 600 gallon tanks.
external-preview.redd.it/XUuEownW_P3hyw1EFU5j2gK5IpAGb7XVS-T-S96QM5Y.jpg?auto=webp&s=0b17c64629ce54aaf0102e4dabf5bc98bf984406
Finnaly someone talks abt the F 2..
I hope one day gaijin adds the Japanese FS-X concept
Concept, lol.
Why tf you wanna add that to the game?
@@xahxyy1551 Why not? It was a badass design reminiscent of the Hornet 2000 project. Too bad the US didn’t let Japan go the indigenous route.
Would to see this magnificent concept plane in game but it is only reserved to Ground vehicule
how much sleep do you get? seriously?
To me the key thing in the F2 is the anti-ship missiles. Currently we don't have a reason, appart from Sim, to use anti-ship weapons in air mode, but they just fixed the Tornado anti-ship missile, and with Su33, F18 and Rafale probably coming, a naval theme is kinda in the air, I mean, even the carrier that the Su33 uses is already in game, though we can't spawn in it, it's just in Sim mode as AI and it was updated this last update, so I don't think it's impossible for the F2 to Finally come, alongside some naval stuff for air mode, I mean, we have maps that could easily have carriers and a few ships added, and they would fit the maps just fine, so I hope to see that. Currently in top tier or near top tier I just don't see carriers at all, not sure if for bad RNG or if they really got removed from rotation, but as a naval and naval aviation enthusiast, I Really want to see ships in air rb again and not only in Sim as we see currently.
Japan getting something thats potentionaly better than the other nations? HWAT?
The power of japanese shareholder in Gaijin
If I am not mistaken isn't the leaked (rafale f 3.2) the version that got the Aesa 🤔
3:30 the Rafale F3 also has an AESA (no he didn't got it in the F3R, it's a common mistake made by people since he got the meteor in the F3R so people assume he got it with the F3R)
Seulement à partir du F3.3, or dans le jeu on aura le F3.2 apperement
The rafale F.3 has pesa
@@syfury3403 non, F3.2 et F3.3 sont des différences mineur et des corrections, il a bien eu son radar AESA sur le standard F3 (source : Rafale the omnirole fighter)
@ no, the first AESA has been delivered in 2013, the F3R has been introduced in service in 2015. The F3 has an AESA
@@exonys3838 the leak list states rafale F.3.2 which added the Damoclès pod, gbu-12 and GBU-22s as well as an air to ground gun sight
I want my VBCI T40!!!!!!! Nowww
perfect time to add F-18 as well
Japan needs CAS, and the F-2 would fill that role. The F-2 should also introduce AESA radars because they were to first to produce it in an aircraft, next to the F-22
Agreed but I can see gaijin adding the F15j/dj msip instead. They already have the model of the plane in game with the strike eagle so it'll be a faster implement to the tech tree then redoing the model for the F-2.
@@VietLegacy-11 I just think they need their domestic design finally
My hope for this update that Britain may get the Indian rafale
I don't doubt they'll arrive in December... I'm sure the f18 has been in the archives for so long, possibly for some reason.
After f2 there is only f15JSI so an f15 with a aesa radar and after that Japan only has f35 so it’s no wonder gaijin chooses to give Japan Thai f5’s. they’re simply running out of vechicles to add to Japan
Japan need this F2 rn bcs there is no cas for japan so this f2 will save soo much japan
Unfortunately it will only get JDAMs. It can get ASMs but that would only matter if they properly make them where they can engage ground targets.
Still better than having a fake F-16 with AGMs but no targeting pod, that also can’t carry AIM-120s or AAM-4s
@@commandervocal3848u don’t like the fake f-16 😂 lol? uhhh the f-16aj with the 65Bs isn’t that bad but japan does definitely need more cas options… then again your team will have top tier CAS for america or russia so u don’t gotta worry about doing CAS on your part
@ 😅 the F-16 isn’t bad at its BR but if you play top tier it’s rough, especially compared to everyone else. And you still need to have decent multirole use since everyone else has access to either great multirole aircraft or dedicated strike aircraft.
@ also while everyone else can perform multirole with their aircraft, when I spawn my F-15JM I can take down the enemy CAS but then what exactly am I supposed to do fly around waiting or am I expected to get in close with dumb bombs? Meanwhile the normal F-15C can also carry GBUs, and America also has the F-15E which is a dedicated strike aircraft that’s better in every single way except for maneuvering, same with Israel. The only other nation that comes close to the lack of CAS and multirole/air superiority is Germany and at least they have a strike tornado with LJDAMs now.
If they add F2 i'll happy, if not i need to wait till next year
Speaking of a massively upgraded f-16 I really hope we get the f-16XL as either an event or tech tree vehicle.
it would more than likely be an event vehicle
@@BanishedVoid Hey as long as it comes to the game I'm happy
Mat, o que acha do AAM-5?
MiG-31 should not be added right now ? Yeah right maybe 2 years after the F-22 .... 😂🤦♂.
MiG-31 with R-33 belongs to the game right now , not only that but it should be added ASAP given Soviet tree has nothing to compete in BVR nor BFM for that matter !
I love those planes, but I hope those leaks are wrong, WT is now moving too fast for its own good, I dont even think its fully ready for AMRAAMs which we already have.
What does “passed to dev” means ?
“we like this idea so we will send this on top of the other stacks of ideas we like until further notice”
What we want F-2 Viper Zero
What we get Thai F16 and Gripen
I mean it does give us japan mains some better CAS ordnance compared to what the F15 and F16AJ have
I just want to fly my japanese f16 without being one-sidedly bullied by spamraam
Japan needs more cas aircraft for top tier, agm65b is not competitive compared to other nations
f2 is 20% more manoeuvrable then f16c block40 its going to be the most manoeuvrable f16 in game it can carry loadout of A2G and its perfect time be added in next updates
A2A is 6 aam-4 and 2 amm-3 or 4 aam-4 and 4 aam-3
german eurofighters are more afraid of f16a's of the netherlands than the f2 mitsubishi, because of the weight (the eurofighter has 35% more maneuvrebility than the f16a)
no lmao? tf you getting that loadout from, it's 4x aam-4s & 4x AAM-3s for an air to air loadout
@@user-Xx0xxxxx yeah sry i was miss typing hard now i correct it
Mommy?
Yeah, they could have added it before instead of the fictional F16AJ, just saying....
F-2 before mig-31? Sad
FA-50 when?
Ahh u have f16i at the same level if not more advancd
Add Thai sub tree
Delete the fake F-16AJ. Add Thai F-16 and F-2.
Indonesian Rafale
Matawg i edge and goon to u :3
Ok give me F2A super kai as premium pack and I will buy it.
i want the F-2 haha
Lol this plane should've been added already.
please bring it gaijin please please please i want to main japan
Matt can you contact gajin about raising the f14s up .3 br for the a and B and upgrading the 9h to 9L and for the f14B aim9L to aim9M and give f14B smokeless mk47 aim54C
calm
Don’t forget the AIM-54C should be Mach 5 (I doubt he’s got much say on stuff like this, though).
Japan should get the south Korean f15k slam eagle which is basically a f15e
They should already add south Korea for Japan, or as new tree, both ways are fine for me, but since theres almost nothing to add for Japan...
Yeah since they are both nato
sus
I hope thqt we will get the f22 raptor into the game soon
Probably 2026
@code6499 why you think in 2026?
@ first F/A-18A/C, then we must wait for everyone else to catch up technologically and then stealth fighters can come for most countries that have it
@@code6499 when you say stealth fighter you mean f35 and su75 right
@@Mr.gaming470 for US F-22 & F-35A/B/C, for other countries, f-35 (variant-specific; some countries have a lot more stuff in between now and f-35 like U.K. and Germany). For USSR/Russia Su-57, for China initially the J-20 etc