In theory they shouldn’t be easy to notch, at least not on its own, given the nature of two way datalink. I suspect this hasn’t been modelled fully yet.
Things are subject to change etc etc.
My one and only gripe with the AIM-120D is it keeping the same exact flight path as the C-5 for BVR shots when it technically shouldn’t. Sure, it “wobbles” less, but other than that nothing changes. No change in loft trajectory/angle or anything of the sort to at least bring a tangible change to justify the range increase.
I guess if someone’s thinking of launching beyond 50 km they shouldn’t expect anything different than what the current AIM-120C-5 offers
IIRC Turkey (or other nation i may misremember) did order that triple rack for their F-16Vs, but they cancelled that order, and it is unknown wether it ever made it past the paper stage despite being ordererd
Yeah Turkey was planning on buying it as a part of their Block 70/72 upgrade kit purchase order but after they backed out of that order it’s the last we’ve heard about the triple rack launcher.
hence why Kh38MTE/MLE and dual R-77 racks on, AND R-77-1 (export variant) is on the Malaysian Su-30, Paveway IV on the German and Italian Typhoons, etc etc,
Gaijin’s current policy when it comes to reports is if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt its compatible, it gets it, wether or not gaijin actually goes through the effort, or doesn’t being the “Balancing” exuse in, is up to them, but this is in potential
Yes it is inconsistent, hence why no AMRAAM on SAAF Gripen, and other examples
i don’t know the full story of the fakour, but from what i do know that would be a valid report, but i do have questions about it
wether or not gaijin adds it is up to them (they will most likely not)