The implication is that the dual rack pylons physically could not fit in the Su-30, so seeing that it is impossible for the dual pylons to be fitted onto the Su-30, it makes a statement that claims there was “sufficient information” highly questionable or atleast puts into question on what the developers may consider as “sufficient information”.
(Sorry EFT lads, had to pose a question one time on this topic)
If I recall correctly, we once even had confirmation from BBCRF, which supposedly works on flankers, that the dual rail couldn’t be mounted on the Su-30 because the narrow space would make the missile impact the airframe on launch.
Doesn’t matter what people think, you are playing an artificially buffed aircraft with features it shouldn’t have access to, if we are following the typhoon route and starting with tranche 1/2, Rafale shouldn’t even have RBE2-AESA as this came with F3
And HMD, and a chunk of engine thrust, and 2x extra missiles.
What they can do is reduce the current Typhoon in-game to the earliest variant and add a later version with AESA and whatnot, and buff/change the CF3 to the fancy, latest variant and add a basic one before it. Instead we have Frankenstein Typhoon and Frankenstein Rafale in game bearing no resemblance to their real life specs.
If they can add Finnish F-18 and F-18 MLU, they can do this too.
Isn’t this the eurofigher thread ? What is up with everyone speaking only about russian aircraft or rafale, there are threads dedicated for them and an eurofighter vs rafale thread…
60km theoretically…. Consider 2 things:
1: tpod doesn’t work beyond 30 right now so SAL is 30km whether we like it or not
2: it’ll get there in 2-3 business days and that’s assuming gaijin models the motor and seeker life correctly to get that far. I mean our current brimstone has a “20km” range but will never get that far while still having the seeker on.
Most missiles in game can’t hit things at 1/3 of their stated ranges unless the target is either stationery or travelling in a straight line. I wouldn’t hold my breath even if 60km Brimstones are introduced.
Just going to point out that the F/A-18 isn’t cleared for the BRU-61, only the -55, so would only have access to dual stores stations not quad, so has access to 8x AURs total.
It might later-on get access to the Triple Rail configuration of the MML (TER-9A/A + MRL / HSRL family of launch rail), but that’s a future decision I’ve seen no movement towards, but with UAI being a thing it shouldn’t require much work.
looking back at it c5 simply had placeholder stats from when before amraam a/b got heavily nerfed. it makes sense they would nerf it, as they had left it untouched in the same state that it was in since it first dropped in the files.
This could be the case, but my point was that they should have thought of making a better performing seeker, compared to the A/B, from the getgo. It makes no sense that we don’t have differently modelled seekers at top tier yet, except for the MICA.
The C5 is an already poor performing missile, a “harder to defeat” seeker would have been fine tbh, at least to make it superior for the 2 minutes of BVR phase in the match.
As of now throwing the whole amraam loadout at the start of the match is pointless, for how easy it is to evade, and once you get to the WVR phase the MICAs and R-77’s are obviously gonna perform better.
The report has been seen, but it doesn’t make much sense when Su-30s have clearly been seen fitted with the racks of more than just the 2 x R-77 claimed on earlier documentation. As such, taking into account footage of Su-30s with these racks fitted, the devs consider this loadout viable.
Spoiler
Last time I checked, this was also the Eurofighter thread. So please keep it on track.
Smin, to stay on topic, if we would get an mail from the Bundeswehr which confirms that the 8 AMRAAMs would be possible in theory, would that be enough for an report?
