The inner ones are LAMS-7 and the outer ones are LAMS-6. LAMS-6 are liscense produced variants of the Frazer-Nasch CRL (Common Rail Launcher).
Thanks.
I was trying to figure it out so I could do this
*The fuel tank pylons are also LAMS-7, just an extended configuration, I vaguely recall them being called LAMS-7B but I dont remember confidently. I meant LAMS-6 were the SRM pylons.
The pylon incorporates a BRU-47. The BRU-47 carries missile launchers, ASMs, bombs, fuel tanks, and other equipment. When carrying the AAM-4 and AIM-7, the LAMS-7 missile launcher is attached to that BRU-47; when carrying the AAM-3 and AIM-9, the LAMS-6 is attached.
Oh that’s what I was talking about. I thought you meant the inboard fuel pylons were the LAMS-6 and the outboard ones were the LAMS-7. Okay, so the inboard fuel pylons are the LAMS-7B, the outboard ones are the LAMS-7, and everything goes on the LAMS-7 or LABS-7B with the BRU-47/A bomb release unit. Then just the IR AAMs go on the LAMS-6 (btw what are the missile rails on the wingtips and the ones mounted on the LAMS-6?).
One other question, is the BRU-47/A considered part of the LAMS-7 pylon, or is it considered seperate and mounted in the LAMS-7? I know on a technical level it is mounted into the LAMS-7. But I mean in terms of how it is classified, does the classification of LAMS-7 include the BRU-47/A, or is the BRU-47/A considered seperate and just mounted to the LAMS-7? Also, for radar-guided missiles, there is a missile rail mounted to the BRU-47/A. What is that?
This also means you end up with the weird situation for the triple bomb racks of a BRU-33/A triple ejector rack mounted on a BRU-47/A bomb rack mounted on a LAMS-7 pylon.
Is there any word on the AAM4-B being added into the game? Because it seems that every update there is a new AIM-120
aam4 is already basically on par with aim 120 on range while being better close range. I dont think we need a arh missile with an insane seekerhead
I mean considering the AAM-4 is underperforming by a very large amount, it would be more prudent to just buff it.
AESA seekers provide no lock reliability benefit in warthunder.
3 Likes
thats only because for some reason gaijin decided to model e scans with the same notch sectors as normal mech scans for some reason. not sure bout other radars, but ik irbis on su-35 and su-30sm2 can differentiate 5 m/s or ±1.25 degrees within 50 km which would be almost impossible to notch irl. I would assume other esa radars can do something similar.
I would assume by the time next gen missiles come with much newer aesa seekerheads, I would assume gaijin will actually model the advantages esa radars come with.
Course this is all speculation
I’m still praying.
Please gaijin. 🙏🙏🙏
5 Likes
I mean, if there’s already Su-30SM2 with the ability to guide in multiple R-77-1s while notching other people’s radars, then there isn’t really any argument against the F-2 having 4 missiles with AESA seekers is there?
F2 with HMD, AAM4B, and AAM5. IM GOING TO AHHHHHHNJIN IJEMDO
3 Likes
Sadly the F-2 getting better missiles would do it harm as it would likely raise its BR and its no where equal to the top dogs.
Unless they gave it the extra missiles, AAM-4B and 5 and HMS then maybe sure but i rather see AAM-4 and AAM-3 be buffed and see more decompression
2 Likes
I’ve been using the F-2 to grind out the the event, I’ve forgotten how nice an AESA radar at 13.7 is.
1 Like
I think this video kind of sums of how I also feel about air RB and why I think the F-2 is fine as is. Not that I wouldn’t want buffs such as AAM-4B and all that.
Also the ability to just click on radar contacts to switch to them instead of manually cycling through a hotkey also helps a lot.
2 Likes
I thought the AAM-4B also got improved range, no? I remember when the AAM-4 came out a ton of people were complaining about it having some crazy range and an AESA seekerhead only for them to be corrected and pointed towards the 4B-
exact same motor and frame just different loft profile and aesa seekerhead. so in game would be identical other than seekerhead
1 Like
The only crazy thing about AAM-4B is the new AESA seeker, range only increased slightly.
Fixing the current AAM-4 and AAM-3 would already be more than enough.
5 Likes
Gotcha, well, what exactly is wrong with the AAM-4 right now?