I really cannot wait to get the F15 in game… with 14+ missiles.
1 Like
Just because they fit, does not mean that its works becasue these are LAU-115, exclusive for the F18.
And the problem with the chart is that we have no info on block and if it’s real or not
This is the f15EX, you gonna have to wait 2 years minimum for that
I already gave you a live photo of them in place and functional. So that gives us a minimum of 8 missiles. We are missing hard points.
16 Missiles is going to be wild.
For the Pakistani F16, which clearly doesn’t have enough space for another missile on each wing
Take the fuel pods away and it does. Since you think we shouldn’t have them anyways.
They can only mount bombs or fuel tanks on that pylon so no
1 Like
Their are 4 pylons. Use 3/7. Or give us the HTS pod and let us mount HARMs on 4/6 with AIM-120s x 6 using the dual launcher and slip an Aim-9M on the 2/8 point. That would be nice for Ground RB.
I would love to roll with 2 x HARM, 4 x GBU, 4 x Aim-120C and 2 x Aim-9M.
Okay, checked again. The PAF uses these dual racks, but they still can only carry 6 AAM
HARM can only be used on 3 and 7. Once again inner pylons are only bombs and fuel tank.
No one is “trying to dictate the loadouts we want”… and who are “we” anyway ?
Gaijin Staff do rely heavily on Facts and Historical documents… and so all that is being discussed here is, “What is historical and realistic” possibilities, no one is trying to take things away from you…
Images from other games, concept art and so on, does not count… the air Force may even have mock ups that look like the real thing, but are in fact just dummy weaponry that tends to be filled with concrete or some other equivalent that adds simulated weight for test purposes… so lots of things to take into consideration… I think most fake or dummy weaponry will also have certain markings to show that they are dummy weaponry as well, so that is something to look out for
I have been also seeing in a number of cases on the forum members using model kit diagrams that show weaponry load out options and this also does not count…
And as some have mentioned, some hard points are not wired to carry certain munitions or were designed primarily for fuel tanks on many aircraft in game, also some aircraft are also wired to carry only so many of certain weapon types as well…
We may or may not see all fuel tanks in game, and we may or may not see all types of weaponry, but over time more load out options can be made available in game over time… with historical documents that back them up…
I dont think we even have ECM / ECCM systems or game play mechanics in game yet as well… we may see that at a later point, but dont think there are any plans for that right now…
4 Likes
It is normal to carry the wing fuel pods. Normally you need to be airborne for more than 19 minutes (much less for most in game). Here is what we know:
Pylons 1, 2, 3, 3A, 7, 7A, 8, & 9. Can carry AAM.
Pylons 2 & 8 can carry dual launchers.
I have already shown you two images which display that both 8 and 10 AAM missile arrangements with AIM-120s will fit.
Pylons 4 & 6 have been successfully tested with Aim-120s and Harms.
See my above quote.
Testing is allowed for historical accuracy. We have Lockheed themselves showing that 10 missiles on a triple launcher is possible. That is good enough for what is in this game.
If concepts and art doesn’t count then a couple of tanks need to be removed from the game. As they were often built as concepts, and sometimes out of plywood etc. The Yak 141 is a good example. Their are entire vehicles in this game that were never prototyped. What I am showing here is a real world vehicle that functions.
To keep it simple for this game though.
I have shown the dual rack in live use.
I have shown that in fact 8 & 10 missiles will fit correctly.
I have shown that Lockheed has released an image of the triple missile rack.
Historical accuracy isn’t even a real thing in this game, because we have prototyped vehicles that were never even built in the game. So we can throw that out the window.
With the afore mention it isn’t unreasonable to expect the proper loadout on a real vehicle, I have provided more documentation than gaijin does for some of their claims.
Therefore. We should be able to loadout 8 missiles (at a minimum) on our F16C with the twin rail. The triple rail should honestly be in game, since we have things like the Yak 141 running around in its fantasy condition. At least what I have provided is real.
I have shared as much as I can find online without breaking any classified rules.
Hell nah, I can’t do this anymore. Imma go to bed
3 Likes
I have shown you proof it can be done. Now show me proof it can’t.
You haven’t proven anything.
2 Likes
Tanks aren’t made on concept art.
Yak-141 weapon systems were developed & ready for install. No fantasy.
You’ve shown nothing other than renders of Block 70.
Prototypes are part of history. F-16C cannot use 8 missiles in real life, thus not in game either.
2 Likes
Then prove me wrong. Show me documentation that the twin launcher isn’t in fact on that aircraft and that Pylons 1, 2, 3, 3A, 7, 7A, 8, and 9 cannot hold AAMs. I will wait.
That is an F16A by the way with the twin launcher.
The reason you don’t normally just seem them slammed full of missiles is because they run multi-roll loadouts, and the reason for the fuel tanks is because they need to fly for hours. In game we don’t. So we can skip the fuel tank and just load on Pylons 3/7 which are blocked in the image.
If nothing else we could load bombs or other ordinance on 4/6 and still carry 6 missiles. Or just load 8 missiles using the twin rail. You pick.
Pylon 2/8 holds the twin launcher.
Plenty of images show you they fit.
So go ahead, show me how it won’t work.
That’s not how burden of proof works.
You have to prove they can.
1 Like
It literally does not matter. This is peak US suffers attitude. The F16c is fine the way it is.
3 Likes