and they forgot to make it heavier like it should be
rn its only 100kg heavier than ADF
and is over 1000kg less than PoBIT
its empty mass should be ~1200kg heavier than it currently is
1 Like
1 Like
tbf its the same level of realism as EFTs dual amraams, or Su30 with dual R77, or J15 with dual Pl12
arguably even more realistic as there have been renders of F16s with those unlike some of the loadout options in game
4 Likes
F-21s, proposed upgraded F-16 for India. A digital render for an aircraft variant that never came to fruition.
The EFT’s MFRL are capable of dual AIM-120, so that’s more proof than the F-16
The Su-30’s proof is dual rack on the Su-35, its part of the Flanker family so its not crazy to assume the Su-30SM can use it
The J-15 w/ dual PL-12 is in the same boat as the Su-35, it uses the same pylon as the J-16 does which has been seen w/ 2x PL-12s, so its also not something crazy to imagine (iirc)
1 Like
according to what sources? are they rated for the weight?
again it has never been seen or shown on renders
so a completely different airframe that has received both physical/structural and avionics upgrades
so again a completely different airframe, and this time not even closely related
they have also been shown in other places including US DoD presentations about future capabilities
and included in a Turkish F16 purchase although the order was later canceled
it has not
that is a simulator/emulator not a real cockpit
2 Likes
so the simulator used for training EF pilots is not good enough
could have been set to show projected capabilities or something similar
or maybe that icon is used for multiple things not just AMRAAMs and it is showing two of a different weapon there
I mean, that’s completely valid for him to care now only because China is getting it. He’s just interested in what’s available to him and what he’s grinding. It would be hypocritical if he was arguing against it previously and then switched stances once China got it.
1 Like
its also a ton lighter so…
It’s a dookie engine for 14.3
The devs consider the flanker series to be compatible with all similar pylons, hence why the Su-35’s dual rack proof is used for Su-27SM and Su-30SM + SM2 (?) dual racks. I’m pretty sure all of the Flankers (beside Su-34, which is just a variant of the Su-27 (?))) are considered variants of eachother.
Except if the pylon is rated for it, then its possible, no? EG the AIM-9 for the MiG-29N report was accepted since the MiG-29N was seen with a Hawk 208 pylon integrated w/ AIM-9.
But was it proven to have existed? All of these exist and therefore there’s some plausibility, but what of the triple rack F-16 pylons that’s been seen only on a render or mentioned in a presentation, or a deal that was never delivered?
1 Like
ah so the same image of a simulator MFD screen as above is still the only evidence
which I already replied about how that is not exactly a great source
so you mean its because the devs feel like it?
they havent done that for much more closely related aircraft such as how F15s are missing a 30mm gunpod because despite all sources saying compatibility the only image of it was on an F15B?
ok so theres the answer MRML exists and is rated for 2 missiles, just stick it on F16 pylons 2, 3, 7, and 8
who cares about compatibility anyway
and your example is irrelevant because it shows a Mig-29N equipped with a sidewinder and is not just saying x pylon exists so put it on y
I am actually main French.
I play with almost all the nations in the game.
Several nations in the game likely received the F16V.
But I really enjoy playing with China too.
I have a lot of fun playing with the minor nations.
I grind all the minor nations (with the exception of Japan, which I’m grinding now) before grinding my first main nation, which is the US.
((I’m researching the f16CM right now, actually).
Yes, I fiercely defend China and Israel because they are the most wronged in the game
2 Likes
There are also renders of the Bulgarian F16V.
Edit:
To be honest, it’s a common render, it’s an advertisement commonly used by Lockheed.
But it’s still listed on the Lockheed Martin website.
Huge false equivalence fallacy.
It is no where close to F-15C MRMLs.
Didn’t you claim they were real? Now you’re claiming they’re fake…
Su-34 was not mentioned.
Flanker is one airframe type, Su-34 is the only other airframe made post-2000 besides Su-57.
So yeah, your posts are claiming MRMLs are fake by lying about other real missile racks with equivalent evidence.
where did I mention F15 or MRML?
yes and no, it is a broader category, but there are differences within it
and notably Su-35 has undergone both significant structural modifications, and significant avionics upgrades compared to the aircraft in game
again provide proof of any of the three configurations I mentioned, because there arent even photographs of them on the ground or digital renders
Your posts alluded to it by mentioning other multi-rail missile mounts brought into the game using the same exact standard.
You’re talking about Su-34, which is a new airframe.
Su-35 is just wider wings & new electronics; said electronics were implemented into Su-30SM, Su-30MKM’s 2019 refit, etc. & wingspan doesn’t matter.
F-111C has wider wingspan & new electronics over F-111A, that doesn’t make F-111C a different airframe.
& F-111F is newer with shorter wings than F-111C, that doesn’t make them different airframes.
Photos of dual pylon R-77s & MRMLs are all over the forums…
Edit removed some off-topic rambling.