eagle3000 wrote:mixelflick wrote:The F-2 was as close as they came, and that was nothing more than a much more expensive (almost double!) F-16. And what did $120 million buy them? Sure, the AESA was cutting edge at the time but what did it get them (other than bragging rights)? The F-2's radar made it in theory capable of greater BVR kills. But even that's misleading, given the range of the AIM-120B it carries (approx 75KM). Not enough missile to take advantage of the radar.
The main role of the F-2 force is anti-shipping and generally air to ground. A good radar comes in pretty handy there. The requirement was for the F-2 to carry 4 ASM-2 anti-ship missiles at enough range. Something the F-16 could not do, hence the larger wing to allow carriage of 4 ASMs plus 2 600 gal tanks, better and bigger radar to find hostile boats and things like a reinforced canopy for increased bird strike resistance.
F-2 doesn't use AIM-120. The Japanese use AAM-4B. Which is an indigenous, truly BVR missile.
mixelflick wrote:I would have thought a better (and much cheaper) option would have been to purchase F-16C's. The money left over could have gone to funding an indigenous, truly BVR missile or buying something like Sky Sword II from Taiwan. It's a truly hypersonic, 100km range weapon that would have allowed Japan's F-16's to puch toe to toe with Chinese J-10's and their PL-15's.
Japan does not buy weapons from Taiwan.
Besides that, AAM-4B is most likely superior to Sky Sword 2. It's a heavier (222 kg vs 184 kg) AAM with more range (120 km vs 100 km, allegedly of course) and the first AAM with AESA seeker.
This is interesting, about the F-2 being primarily an air to sea anti-shipping aircraft. It struck me much moreso as a compliment in the air to air role with the F-15, in the way F-16 is in USAF - just more capable. And with an AESA radar/AAM-4B, I would think it would excel in that role and even be more capable than their F-15's in some regards.
If I needed an anti-shipping capability I would have developed the AESA radar, stuck it in their F-4's and plumbed in the capacity to carry 4 ASM-2's. I'd think that would have saved a boatload of cash, and I bet those F-4's would have a lot longer shelf life in that role (owing to the lesser G's of that mission). But that's me, I'm cheap like that...
I can appreciate 20 more km in range for the AAM-4B vs. Sky Sword II, but man does that extra speed matter in the DCS world. Have you ever fought an F-14 with its Phoenix missiles traveling at Mach 5 toward you? Even if they're easy to defeat by maneuvering, boy do they put you on the defensive REAL fast. And in the event you do get an AMRAAM or R-77 off at them during this time, it sure makes it difficult to give that missile telemetry data as it speeds downrange.
Sure, it's just a game. But parts of it are eerily accurate, and speedy missiles coming at you in multiples isn't pleasant especially when in the real world, it's life or death..