Why wouldn’t the dual pylons fit on the Su-35/30/27? [This isn’t implying that Su-27SM can fire them, only that it can fit them.]
They were made IRL specifically for that engine width.
You can’t even tell that’s an Su-35 in the photograph because the wings and top side aren’t shown.
@Papa_Daniel
I have no proof that F-15C GE can use napalm either, yet it’s a safe bet that the compatibility hasn’t been removed.
that is an Su-35, please post a real life image of an Su-30 or Su-27 carrying this pylon
the particular example you used is from a display that prominently features the Su-35 as more images can be seen in the article it has been taken from
@Papa_Daniel
So if your standard of evidence is the exact aircraft, your standard for F-15C GE being compatible with MRMLs is photographic evidence of specifically F-15C GE with MRMLs in order for you to believe it can use them.
I and many others here disagree with that standard.
It’s why I looked for MSIP II photographs as well.
It’s why many here supported changing the rules of how aircraft are given weapons in War Thunder by citing newer aircraft in the family.
I prefer my standard of specific aircraft, OR older service variants of that line.
They will fit on Su-35, as it has more space between engines.
Wirh 27SM&30SM they wouldnt.
Gaijin model is wrong
The space between Su-27, 30, and 35 engines are identical.
No aircraft engineer would separate the engines further when it’s not needed. That’s added cost and complexity, when you can just repurpose base frame components and make the wings longer instead.
The Su-30SM model is not wrong.
And we know the dual pylon model’s width is 100% correct because the fins overlap identically to the real-life dual pylon, and the R-77 models are accurate as proven in the CDK.
Edit: No width difference. Because no engineer in their right mind would change the entire frame between the engines to make losing an engine worse for the pilot when there is no need to change them.
Yes, I did check R-37 dimensions before picking which R-27 to use for the screenshot.
Of course, we knew there was no width difference because of the dual R-77 pylon, the countermeasures on the Su-35 being identical in relative size to the space between the wings, and so forth.
We know the Su-35’s space between the engines is identical, so stop perpetuating the myth.
so you don’t have a photo, thank you for conceding
The same available space does not mean that the fire control can be compatible, nor does it mean that the circuits can be the same. The SU30SM can only achieve the combat capability of the SU35, which means more about the compatibility of weapons rather than the expansion of the number of weapons.
I see that you often don’t consider the overall performance of the aircraft. I think this is a one-sided consideration.
I always consider overall performance of aircraft in War Thunder, as that’s what matters most in air RB [air sim the flight performance matters less].
I’ve never once strayed from this standard.
I’ve criticized dozens of posts here that don’t consider the overall performance of aircraft.
And have constantly told said posters to use the overall performance of aircraft and not just x-factor.
So you are obviously speaking about someone that is not I.
Su-30SM would also be compatible with the mounting equipment that Su-35 uses.
Edit: We can agree about being skeptical on Su-27SM, but with it being part of the 2011? engine upgrade program at minimum, I feel we’d need to search for documentation to prove computer disparity.
You know, gaijin’s atleast being consistent with giving aircraft extra racks, due to later or specific variant capabilities. If they were inconsistent about it I could see complaints, but with them being consistent about it, it’s seeming its just, how it is.
12 on the Golden Eagle, 12 on the EX.(Boeing themselves advertise the EX as capable of carrying 12 AMRAAM, not more.)
Ported from the F-15C 2040C. Golden Eagle is 2010 to 2015 upgrade. F-15C 2040C concept was created in ~2015, MRML and amber rack comes from that. EX first flight is 2021 and took many features from the 2040C.
That’s how it always worked. Planes go through upgrades during their lifetime and Gaijin is free to represent a 2020 Golden Eagle if there’s enough proof of MRML being a thing on it instead of 2015 pre-MRML Golden Eagle.
That’s not how this works either. Burden of proof is on you to prove the Su-27SM can mount and electronically use the double rack. When this has been proven, burden of proof is on the other side to prove computer disparity or other reasons why it doesn’t work.
So far, nobody has ever brought proof that the Su-27SM or Su-30SM can use the double pylon, none, nada. So instead of filling the F-15C thread with this off-topic going in circle, please stop it if you don’t have hard data to bring forward about it and let’s refocus on the F-15C GE.
@CyrusJackson You responded to the wrong person as well.
I made no claims that Su-27SM is accurate, so there is no burden of proof on I.
The burden of proof is on those claiming it’s correct, not on those of us that are skeptical.
There has been evidence proving Su-30SM is newer and shares familiarity with Su-35 avionics though.
The reason Su-30 got brought up by someone else to begin with, was because someone misunderstood the dual R-77 situation.
Su-35 is older than Su-30SM, and both use the underlying Flanker airframe… at least above and between the engines.
F-15C GE is older than the Boeing MRML showcase, which is older than F-15EX and so forth.
F-15C GE shares certain upgrades with the F-15EX(Talon IRST, EPAWSS ECM) but that doesn’t mean it’s capable of using the MRML on the outer wing pylons because the wiring was never added there.
Furthermore, the F-15EX wings are strengthened since they originate from the F-15E. I’m not certain the F-15C airframe could even handle the outer wing pylons MRML(Probably why MRML are mounted on the inner wing pylons on the F-15C demo plane). There’s a lot more to a plane than simply updating some avionics.
Just because the Su-30SM is newer and has some avionics in common with the Su-35 isn’t proof at all that it can mount and use the double pylons. As said, if you have hard data about the Su-30SM ability to mount them, present them, otherwise, let’s just stop there and focus on the topic at hand, the F-15C GE. Thank you.
Exactly my point.
A lot of the upgrades put into F-15EX were from older service aircraft and test aircraft.
outer wing pylons have existed on the F-15 for a very long time, however F-15s without FBW system become too unstable to fly when using them, so they were unused until the EX
Point being, if people found enough info that the MRML was backported to the F-15C GE, then that’s all that’s needed to add it in-game as long as Gaijin is okay with that. Many aircraft in WT have weapons or avionics that were part of later modernization programs after their introduction. One example being the 2003 JHMCS used by the F-15C MSIP in War Thunder.
👍
Can you finally stop spouting nonsense? People working on the Su-30SM in real life told you that this pylon can’t be installed on the Su-30SM because the Su-35’s engine spacing is greater than on all other Flankers. There was even a report that the pylon’s size in the game is smaller than in real life. But you continue to spout nonsense, arguing that… “WELL, THE SU-30SM IS YOUNGER THAN THE SU-35, SO IT COULD.” Okay. The F-15K is older than the F-15EX, so I’m expecting the Taurus and SLAM to be used on the F-15EX.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/WrDpvZB3JfKV
No one has found any sources that the dual pylon for the Su-27SM and Su-30SM is real; the gaijin just introduced it because the Su-27SM had terrible statistics.
how ? is there any new pic with 4 missiles on the same pylon ? (2 connected 2 the pylon directly + 2 more connected to the same pylon thru MRML.)
