There is no justification for there to be any connecting wiring to the ASM, as the pylons are common, allowing the MRM launcher to be fitted to the fuel pylon.
I have no clue what you tried to say with this one
The fact that it can be installed without additional equipment is not evidence that it can actually be used.The “installation” of ASM and MRM can be done on their pylons, including the fuel pylons. You are correct that to “operate” them you need actual wiring. What is the rationale for wiring for ASM?
Going back to the topic, based on the rationale for cutting DL channels, 4/4 or 6/6 would be logical.
Number of datalink channels has nothing to do with wiring on pylons. There are marks for connections of ASM on wet pylons, it doesn’t even makes sense to make connection but not make wiring for it as connection points are making pylons heavier and if something is not intended to be shooted from it pylon wouldn’t have connections for it. But in the same time there are no proof there are connection for MRM launchers. I personally assume that if there are marked connections for installing weapon system than there are wiring for it because that is how military engineering works, you need to design systems that can be reliably operated by a bunch 20 year olds in potentially very high stress conditions and with very limited time. If marking says X goes here, it does and it will work like you it or not.
Rational for cutting DL channels is a misunderstanding of the source or information that gaijin got in other place and they just reopened existing report that was referring to the same topic, again, on this you should go to technical/ suggestion mods and ask them directly as I don’t have access to Gaijin internal report system
For me personally it doesn’t really matter would it have 2 DL channels and 4 MRM/ ASM or 10 DL + HMD + AAM-4 on every wing pylon as long as there are source for it
1 Like
Please read on. I’m not saying the number of DLs matters, but the rationale used for it.
In other words, there is no marking of a usable GBU, so the GBU is totally unusable :)
Looks pretty usable to me, GBU-54 is exactly the same as GBU-38 in terms of connections as it is essentially same bomb. As for double smart pylons I don’t know if JASDF has them or not, but I assume they do
4 Likes
Hardware-wise he’s right, the pylons should physically be capable of fitting MRMs, since they use the same weapons rack and electrical connector.
Personally I’d still follow the markings, which on the unique front panels still note ASMs despite not being a service loadout, while they don’t seem to be seen on the main electrical panel. This would hint at ASMs being integrated but not MRMs.
But at the same time, ASMs are not even known of being tested there, and the main electrical panel markings aren’t clearly visible, so I’m already going off of assumptions. So while I’d agree with Gaijins loadouts so far, we might see something else once we get more information.
Again, no evidence. What is that long line of text on the main electrical panel that you are looking at?
Photo you found is most likely from before JDAM introduction so it is kinda irrelevant since we have latest modification possible
source?
Inert bomb can be installed directly because pylon itself is compatible with Mk.82 as far as I understand, so even unmodified machine can be shown with it for demonstration purposes. Live munition is much better demo in your case but I personally only found this photo with live GBU-38
You can see the connected connector. There are no GBU markings.
“The connectors are the same, so you can attach them. Recruit, don’t make the mistake of using them in real combat.” “They’re just markings, and can’t actually be used. Recruit, don’t make the mistake of using them.” The level of trust is the same lol
And sorry, but the aircraft used in this exhibit seems to be compatible with GBU. There are no markings, though.
Anyway, munition, especially inert and only on the ground doesn’t matter regardless of how it installed as then you should accept MRM for stations 2 and 9 as it was shown on XF-2A. Especially in case of Mk.82 family bombs cause you can just strap any modification of it on the pylon as long as pylon compatible with base version, it is kinda point of JDAM and US made guided bombs in general to make guided munition compatible with old holding system. I don’t know context of this exact photo, nor date it was taken but with shot this close it is likely stationary exchibition on an airbase open day. I can name you several reasons why marking on this specific pylon on this specific plane is missing, but it is doesn’t matter as we have photos with all correct markings already
It is blurry cause shot from pretty far away, but seems that all markings are there
F-2A, RN 63-8538 from 3rd TFS, photo taken 2024/12/08 at Naha air base
More oever, since we got version after Sniper XR inroduction all photos prior to like 2018 are kind of irrelevant because they would refer to older model anyway
There is evidence, it’s the ASM markings. What we don’t have is proof, like a direct confirmation of the loadout.
For the MRMs we don’t even have such evidence, since the only line on the main electrical panel that could say MRM could also say TER, which I’d say is more likely since it is a confirmed loadout.
Hmm.
It’s not evidence.
So your interpretation is not evidence, And what are those long markings next to “TER” that you see?
A bug report with no documentation explaining the MRIU and insufficient translation is suddenly approved.Then, bug reports that claim the bug report is wrong are demanded to have further evidence, military secrets.
There are no moderators who understand Japanese. It is a language barrier.
This might be a translation error. In my replies I used “evidence” (something supporting a theory) and “proof” (something supporting a fact).
The theory is that ASMs can be used on the inner stations, so the fact that the have ASM markings on the unique, not shared panels used at the front of these pylons is evidence, but not proof.
Those appear to be longer Japanese text, unlike the MRM markings that are written as roman letters “MRM” on other stations. Since fuel tanks are a confirmed use exclusive to the pylons, same as this marking, that is my theory for them.
It could also be a marking for rockets, which is also Japanese text on other pylons, but there is another marking of Japanese text much closer to where the rocket markings are on the other pylons, so I’m leaning towards the first idea.
But also as I said before these are theories only until there is more clear images. I see it as the most likely, but not as a fact.
Yeah, that’s pretty silly, but I think we can do some interesting things with this logic. Hold on a second.