What are you talking about lol If the AAM-4 is not allowed, then neither will the six ASM-1/2 be allowed. That is already ahistoric.
Are the ASM-1 stats correct?
I was reading the suggestion and it says the explosive mass should be higher
Speed is correct acording to the suggestion
The electrical connections for an ARH missile like an AAM-4 are not the same as the connections required for an ASM-1/2, simply put.
The photos taken show that the pylons can have the missiles on them as is, the problem/concern for a real life mission would be range, hence why they usually have fuel tanks on those points. However, it does appear that missiles CAN be carried on the pylons at the cost of range.
1 Like
Just because the ASM connector and the MRM connector are different, it is not evidence.
Thanks for the dual plane report by Xeno_quaza. The mystery remains, the same off-boresight capability as the 9M while still having a larger seeker, but it’s better than it is now.
Mate, it’s just a set of anti-ship missiles you are getting so worked up about. These aren’t some op KH-38.
Saying there’s no reason for the devs to refuse to add two more ARHs, and as it stands it’s not even OP. Again, if you allow 6 ASMs, you MUST allow MRMs too. Neither of these actually exist, so there is no justification for this. It should be clear whether it is historical or realistic for the game.
1 Like
The pylons are marked identically between the 3 pylons in the images shown, and are designated as an ASM station. Dunno how much clearer that can get for you.
There was not that same evidence for the AAM which is denoted towards the back of the pylon as it’s a separate connector.
Saying ‘I have 6 apples so thus, I MUST be able to also have 6 oranges’ is… Silly.
3 Likes
It’s you who are ridiculous…
[3 pylons in the images shown, and are designated as an ASM station]
In other words, would it be sufficient to show that STA-5/7 has similar indications as those present in other stations (MRM and TRE connectors)?
In other words, the proof that’s been demonstrated is that at the very least all the pylons visible can handle the ASM connectors. If you can get a photo including any MRM branding between the three in a similar fashion, then the argument is going to be easier to make to Gaijin.
You’re welcome to make the point to them yourself, however, you will still have to prove the pylons are identical and not just similar
3 Likes
Is the only evidence that the three pylons are compatible with ASM connectors simply because they are visible?
Maintenance regulations were invented for a reason and pointless application of markings clearly doesn’t fit into them
2 Likes
i am confused what are you guys arguing about?
is it the 6 ASMs’ or 6 AAM-4?
because both of them are possible.
Gaijin allowed the 6xASM loadout but shot down the bug report for a 6xARH arrangement likely because it didn’t have enough supporting evidence.
1 Like
It’s both. Currently collecting photos of it.
If this is evidence, I think it would be very historic. I am looking for a photo of it.
Here’s a bigger question;
if I recall, waaaaaay up there in the discussions of the F-2, didn’t it get a MAWS system at some point either early on or did it never receive such?
now this is what i don’t like though, gaijin have pretty weird on standard.
one time they said “if it’s capable we can add it”(paraphrasing) on the other hand it is known to be capable but not adding to it. well this is a literal case of it definitely can and the proof literally on side pylon.
so yeah it’s just gaijin BS
1 Like
Technically, with most of the pictures I’ve seen about here, is that there’s the connection points for the ASM electronics, but because of where the inner-most pylon is, it’s not clear if it’s marked for the missile electronic bus as well as the ASM
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.