My bad, thought you were talking about 2x per station for AGM-84s.
The KH-38MT is NOT an AGM-65 equivalent, you have clearly only ever used Kh-38MT’s and not AGM-65’s. Come back to this argument when you have flown aircraft with both weapon systems.
7 Likes
I don’t think so, none of the brochure’s I’ve seen indicate anything other than BRU-61 on the wing station(s), though with UAI compatibility I don’t think that it would be particularly difficult to actually mount the BRU-57 if there was a need.
3 Likes
Yes, but it wasn’t formerly adopted, so I don’t think it really should be added. It really doesn’t need it either. Also not to mention, the USAF only tested the A variant, which is one of the wacky submunition variants, they never fitted the C variant to the F-15E.
nice, unrelated, but bottom one shows BLU-27 for F-15E. could be a nice option for it.
it might as well get it if its possible + some were in possesion of USAF during F-15E service life. if they give it to hornet (they should) they should also give it to the F-16 and F-15
I edited my post while you were posting this, the USAF only evaluated the AGM-154A which is a cluster bomb, which Gaijin has never added before and likely wont. The AGM-154C is the only variant that isn’t a cluster/submunition utilizing bomb and that was never tested or fitted by the USAF.
what about the B
It really depends on if you could prove a specific configuration exists, after all they denied the GPU-5/A (30mm gunpod)for non-15E’s due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
CBU’s have been mentioned on a few leak lists now (alongside Anti-Radiation Missiles)as being in the works so is definitely something that could apear at any time in the future.
1 Like
The USAF only tested the A, as they stopped being involved during development of the B and C variants.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-154b.htm
according to this (not the best source, i know) the air force canceled their order in 2002 but JSOW-B in LRIP 2001. which means it had to have been tested sucessfully.
and cant anything that can use JSOW-A use the B or C? isnt the only difference the warhead?
maybe JSOW will be different though, after all the whole thing about it is the different variants only change the warhead and some electronics (but not compatibility iirc) right?
the A and B are GPS only, the C is GPS/IR guided. A USAF aircraft shouldn’t get a weapon the USAF never procured. That would be like giving the F-15A AIM-7P’s, a USN only sparrow variant.
1 Like
fair enough about C. but for A and B, they were joint developed and in production (LRIP for B)
Only if Gaijin really couldn’t find a counterpart for the USAF, to which they don’t really have a direct counterpart in the 1000lb class, but they do have the GBU-62 (500lb JDAM-ER), GBU-15 / AGM-130, AGM-84 H & -K, AGM-142(HAVE NAP), AGM-158(JASSM), AGM-184A (JSM) and others.
4 Likes
werent those only used by B-52?
In that specific configuration, yes. but as the last image shows a light weight variant was trialed as HAVE LIGHT.
4 Likes
nice. i do think the JSOW will come sooner than JASSM, simply because range and JASSM is faster/better guidance. which is why F-16 and F-15 could use it. its also just a pretty cool glide bomb
@ashton replied to the wrong person.
I said Kh-38s are OP, and have primarily used AGM-65s in ground battles as my primary CAS option after GBUs.
With all ten tech trees completed for air.
I own every US aircraft and 95% of Russian aircraft, I would rather use the Su-34 any day over the F-15E in GRB but hey guess I’m the idiot who knows nothing.
1 Like