This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
It was… They were refused because you cant proof it cant carry it as it even never carried it. They wont list all weapons it cant carry.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
Iam pretty sure the wiring is in place bc the pylons are standardized and are able to mount the launch rail for the amraam
Look at F/A-18. It can carry LAU-127 which is universal for AIM-9 and AIM-120 on inboard pylon, but cannot load AIM-9 there.
so in that case any plane could hold almost any armament, because it doesnt say it cant
Idk about the hornet,
But why would they build a mock up with missiles there or make renders with amraams there if it isn’t possible
Potential modernization.
1 Like
Anybody got the report link for the Eurofighter pylon? It has good information on it
Potential modernization?
This render is from before the EF entered service
Proposed but refused loadout
1 Like
That doesn’t proof that it isn’t possible tho
"Okay mr Technical director of the Eurofighter program, every participating country rejected the proposed loadout of carrying air to air weaponry on the inner wing pylons.
But shall we add complexity, weight, and cost to the jet anyway in case they decide to model the jet in a video game later?"
I’m mostly joking. But the loadout being rejected by all participants strongly suggests that the loadout is also actually impossible due to cost and complexity
What would constitute proper sources? Would range charts( plural ) for known size targets suffice? Would these sources/ figures have an above priority over “range figures” from 3rd party documents, for example figures in magazines, theses without citation from where they come from, that aren’t directly connected to the manufacturer/RAF/GAF/ItAF?
That’s not what was said at all. I explained using a manual as proof something can’t carry something doesn’t always work. Because things can be tested and used yet not documented in manuals.
But can you confirm that captor-m radar is bugged, not just for sim, but for TWS, HMD, ACM
In that case thats double standart, i dont like it when that happens.
does it matter?
gaijin clearly doesnt only implement things that have been cleared.
the mechanical and electrical compatibility is there, as evident by the standards that they adhere to as published by the manufacturer of said pylon equipment:
here it is for the outboard wing pylon where MFRLs are typically mounted
and here it is for centre and inboard wing pylons where its disputed
you can also make an educated guess about there being enough space to fit the rail and the missile:
the rail ends pretty much at the same point as the missile:
compared to a bomb:
it simply sticks out a bit to the front so its not interfering with the landing gear
the only thing that would remain is aerodynamics which neither you nor i can judge
So TLDR i think this is perfectly acceptable for war thunder
HOWEVER i think gaijin choses to not implement this as means for balancing
1 Like
Fitting missiles something giving clearance to use it as for A2A role is something.
This kind of discussion has been made countless times for other vehicles on this forum, without solid evidence Gaijin will not accept this and we both know this very well.
Im more than happy to recieve additional missiles for my EFT but this decision is not up to me and by the looks of it Gaijin also doesnt support this idea. It might be balance decision or they simply refused to believe those pylons are cleared for A2A missiles.
Maybe in future we can recieve additional A2A missiles but as for now they will not change their mind.
way to waste my fucking time
next time just tell me you’re not actually interested