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.
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
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
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.
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
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
They are not unfounded. There is a prover technical compatibility with the stations 5/7. They are also mentioned in many secondary sources, unlike the MRMs on the same stations.
I’ll try to properly report the MRMs too, since in theory they seem to be compatible too, but the ASM has more proof, which is likely why Gaijin added it on their own already.
Using this logic has never brought anything but bad things. Gaijin would rather remove ASM if we argue like this. Instead I’m collecting all sources I can find for the MRMs and seeing if that individually is enough to be added.
I think it’s better that they aren’t identical, since that proves the MRM markings and connectors aren’t simply a result of shared parts. Since it’s a different variant but still has them that is the strongest argument we have here.
Also considering even F-15E getting 120C-5 (not like it was already one of the strongest aircrafts in BVR) I don’t see the reason why F-2 and F-15J shouldn’t get AAM-4B as well, we even got semi-correct radar for F-2
Semi-correct ?
Minor nations are not allowed to be good, that would obviously completely break the balance
How？
Im obviously not trying to call you out publicly but instead stating facts. Keep your oppinion for Moderators for yourself, thanks :-)
[DEV] F-2A missing HMD // Gaijin.net // Issues
Well, for now I will believe it is just not finished.