Its either that or Gaijin is bein lazy to implement it.
The report you can see above is aimed to remove this limitation and add every air-to-ground weapon that is missing.
1 Like
So its just Gaijin laziness not to add AGM65 to those pylons.
It seems like triple mavs would block the countermeasures from being able to be dispensed until they’re fired
1 Like
I mean technically Gaijin can block relasing countermeasures from pods until you fire 2 mavericks.
Not so complex to implement it since they already did with wings.
Adapters, such as the ADU-299/E do exist, which are used specifically adapting 30" & 14" lug equipt racks (such as the MAU-12 the F-16 uses) to being able to carry the LAU-7 / LAU-127(similar to the LAU-128, which the F-16 use). For example. Gaijin care about “Technical” capability, not actually if it was done or in inventory (As otherwise When Did Australia acquire Walleyes, or AIM-9L’s they probably shouldn’t be on the to be added Hornet(s))
It’s because there would be spacers added, and not just rawdogging the LAU-88 to the PIDS+ like a caveman(as is done in game), also it is likely that it would be further restricted by Slant loading missiles(omit outer Maverick on the Triple rails in this case) to ensure clearance.
As Slant loading issues for the LAU-88 specifically(F-4E can’t do so in combat, F-16 needs to do so for large stores (e.g. external fuel) on adjacent station(s), etc.) have been previously reported and had nothing done, it’s unlikely to actually be implemented.
4 Likes
So your whole argument rests on the idea that there isn’t an adapter for the LAU-129 rail to a standardized pylon…rated for 5000lbs of stores… Got it… I see we are using the “stupid” defense today.
So it’s just the same as the idea that the inboard pylons aren’t MIL-1760 in US F-16s for “some reason”
1 Like
Clearly a marketing lie.
Don’t you know only the Israeli’s are intelligent enough to mod US aircraft.
2 Likes
Welp, it such unfortunate then for it can’t actually mount A2A Missiles.
If you have any proof of PIDS being used in combination with air-to-air missiles, you are more than welcome to post it here. Until then, there is nothing further to discuss about.
Why would they? None of the US units equipt with the PIDSU, have Counter-Air / interception as their mission set. It’s all Battlefield Interdiction and CAS. So they would never have a reason to take more than a self defense loading for Air to Air, External Tanks and two pair of whatever ordnance they are slinging.
It’s not that it can’t it’s just that they don’t, the same way the F-16 can carry guided ordnance on the Inner wing station, but don’t because excess fuel is more important in Real life actions, as it’s much easier to send an extra pair of fighters up with spare ordnance, than it would be to re-task refueling assets closer to the mission space.
Well unless we can have hard proof, solely relying on analogical reasoning is bad tbh, because this analogical reasoning is also solely on Gaijin discretion, so far, they didn’t want to implement it may be due to balancing reason but also for hard reason for now that PIDS only carry A2G weaponry.
Has this been reported?
From memory, yes. I’ll see if I can find a link.
I don’t know exactly what was used as a source but partially at least.
1 Like
ADU-299 doesn’t have a MIL-1760 connector for modern munitions like AMRAAM and others. ADU-830 is the one used for LAU-127 carriage on Harrier.
None the less though, LAU-127 simply isn’t cleared for F-16 because they have the F-16 specific LAU-129 instead that is built to universally mount on the wingtips and AAM stubs, and LAU-129 can’t be adapted for ADU-830 because the MIL-1760 socket is positioned in front of the mounting interface where it’s in the middle, or behind, on virtually anything else to balance them on a MAU/BRU type ejector.
So sticking AAMs on PIDS remains a leap in to fantasy with all kinds of subsystems and adapters that simply don’t exist on F-16 in service anywhere in the world yet.
3 Likes
The point was more generic, to provide evidence that adapters which convert the 30 / 14" standard bomb rack to be suitable for an AAM rail such as the ADU-299; as used on the A-4, A-6 and many other aircraft to permit them to mount AAM rails (Aero-3 / LAU-7) do exist, and still remain to be implemented.
Man, I didn’t know Sidewinders needed a MIL-STD-1760 connection, did I. Pretty sure even -9M’s predate it too.
And besides that seems like a massive oversight for standardization if the plugs can go wherever they fit.
Also apparently the LAU-128SE fixes that If I’ve understood the geometry issue right, and bypassed the need for an adapter by integrating it into the rail itself.
Well it’s proof that it’s a technically solved issue, might be worth writing up.
Would this be sufficient evidence that it is possible, or would we be looking for it to actually have been done.
7 Likes
I can add a note for the developer, but there is no guarantee it will be taken into consideration. After all we are talking about hypotheticals here.
Why else would it exist if not to fix this exact issue?