These are the examples that immediately come to mind, but if you look into it more closely, you’re sure to find similar cases. Furthermore, if we don’t limit ourselves to ARH, this problem would likely extend to even lower BRs as well.
Not talking about J-15T here. But plus your point you just said was balance and now you are trying to goal post shift to realism (it’s not even realistic for j-15t)
prove that these jets cant have dual pylons
Fully agree. It’s just become ridiculous at this point. People now expect everything to one up the last addition in missile total. People coping for pobit to get something that only exists as a render in a PowerPoint was ridiculous to see.
If you include SARH and IR missiles, A2G weapons, there are some examples here…
I thought I should include R-27ERs for MiG-29A/Gs first but, from my research, seems it was technically possible if BZPP-44 software update was installed. In addition a US exchange pilot confirmed that the German MiG-29G he flew did show the expanded DLZ of 27ER when the 27ER training plug was mounted.
None of those are extra missiles, thus disproving your own claim.
All of those are also realistic, which is an off-topic discussion.
Then prove that the F-14D was equipped with the coolant unit in Station 3/6 required for operating the AIM-54A/C.
You can’t prove it unless you made it up because they never had it and NATOPS manuals for ground crew says they only uses AIM-54C+.
@TheGreatAlonso
Red herring, off topic, & false burden of proof.
The proof is proving that the F-14D is incompatible with the externally mounted system that provides the cooling:
You have to prove this is not compatible with the F-14D, aka functionality was removed.
So cool attempt at making stuff up, but it falls flat.
Proving the plumbing was removed only removes AIM-54A/C from the outboard pylons.
Proving that the system itself is incompatible would remove all 6.
Unfortunately, most of the primary sources from NAVAIR cannot be posted on the WT Forum, but most of the mentions are included in TACMAN Vol. 3.
This is dangerous , “Technically possible”
However, unlike examples involving other aircraft, this was not entirely fake. It seems this software upgrade took place in the late 1980s and applied to MiG-29 9.12A/B variants, including export customers outside Russia. The last piece of the puzzle was whether these operators actually had the R-27ER in their inventory, but unfortunately, none did except Russia.
‘He has never heard of burden of proof’.
all dual a2a pylons for chinese flankers are quite made up (except J-10C´s), and they have never been seen to carry them
The dual racks for EF´s are real
The extra micas werent on the french Raf cause of politics basically (and the greek raf idk)
Your arguments make sense, but sadly Gaijin probably won’t make these changes at closest future.
I talked to a BRM who is pretty close to gaijin, and he told me that thare are some “design ideas” devs make/think about. These ideas have a big chance of staying in-game for long time until devs decide to abandon the idea. Those being: double racks for russian planes (as you mentioned) and etc.
So the quote itself:
“You might like it or not, but it’s there—and there’s so much of it that it won’t be cut from the game.
Some aspects might be changed if there is rock-solid evidence, while others are simply design choices.”
And IF they somehow decide to pull it off, they’d face major BR changes, and it will be more and more complex for them over time which is the second reason for not trying to make ARH loadouts, let’s say “correct”