It is not speculation check out the SM2s load out and compare it to the SU 35 it is practically the same. F15A was developed when? Its like saying the SU30 from 1997 carries the same weapons as SU30 SM2.
The interpretation of Smins statement is speculation. The SM2s loadout might very well be the same as the Su35s but as long as you guys dont have any actual proof that they share complete technical compatibility the SU30SM getting 38MTs is just a double standard.
Because youre not racing to by a ferrari vs a corrola, youre racing to buy a a 1960 corola at 1960 vs 2026, the price difference is just from the rarity not the performance, as vast mayority of owners of these didnt even pay anywhere even close to the marketplace value
Not sharing complete technical capability does not mean they cant both carry KH-38 Mt missile. There are differences, otherwise the SU 35 wont be produced. F-15 A and later F-15 versions have like a 25 year or more gap. SM2 and 35 dont really have such a vast generational gap if any.
And being related developments doesnt automatically mean that they can both carry 38MTs. Which is precisely why Gaijin usually requires actual proof for technical compatibility.
True they did not, but then 1960s should then be raced against 60s stuff not late 1980s DM33 or?
That’s irrelevant, as br is measured on the vehicle’s own performance not dates, youre just paying for rarety not performance
In a way that is true, they either both carry it or they dont. Since both are of same era and share weapons then both carry them or not. You cant have one carry them but the other can’t since they are compatible.
Plain and simply not true. One has actual proof that it can carry them. The other doesnt. Just because they are from the same era doesnt mean that they share all weapons. Claiming that they are compatible without proof is just pure conjecture.
Well maybe that one was on a different mission in comparison to the other the avionics they carry is similar and being able to launch 38Mt for either of them is based on mission selection, or other issues related to marketing.
Yeah maybe thats true but other weapons dont get added on a maybe they get added on a proof of some form and the bar is incredibly low so it absolutely speaks volumes that no one can provide any.
Well I am not sure about other weapons but the comparison of F15 A vs later F-15 variants is not in the same category as Su30Sm2 and Su 35 compasion. F15 E and F15 XE would be a much closer comparison in generation and oridnance than F15A.
The Su-35 & Su-30SM [first one] were R&D’d around the same time, with the 35 starting development first.
MKM in-game is the 2nd newest, & SM2 is the newest.
Su-35 is a Flanker, & some of its systems is proof for the future Flankers of course.
I however only saw Kh-38s photographed on Su-35 this last week, before then was an Su-27/30 type, and of course Mig-35 [plenty of pictures for that one].
I’m unsure how the Flanker avionics suite works in relation to modular air to ground weapons, which is why I haven’t posted anything in relation to this discussion.
All I know is the rather potent air to air modular nature of Sukhoi’s Flanker avionics suite they’ve been using since Su-35/30SM.
@H_ngma
I haven’t posted any speculation in this topic.
Don’t confuse other people for me.
The most I said is “Kh-38MTs being removed won’t impact me outside air sim & Nuclear Escalation.”
I don’t have skin in this fight; I don’t use CAS in high BR ground, & I don’t die to Kh-38s in ground.
It’s up to y’all to make your arguments on what should & shouldn’t happen, & I’m not going to disagree cause it’s not my place to hold a position here other than “Getting unclassified information about more Flankers to shed light on things to prove what’s capable is the best route.”
In a way you are right but performance and price should go hand in hand but anyway.
The comparison is secondary. The point is that he specifies the need for mentioning the specific aircraft type with the specific weapon.
Just saying that 2 planes are related (not even the same aircraft type) is not enough to establish technical compatibility over the entire weapons catalogue.
Yes you have. You speculated that Smins statement is only meant for the specific F15 older vs newer situation which is pure conjecture especially considering the 3rd statement where the further clarifies with the Tornado example.
yes thats true the development is around the same time. But I see you are not a fan of multiple hits from above, that is one of the reasons why I am researching air, to do some crazy stuff in the air.
My answer to all this is that later generation aircarft especially the ones produced recently no matter who produces them have a great degree of compatability, since I have been involved in production for many years every company and not just aircraft tailor their production lines and make it very easy for one vehicle/plane to be equiped with similar features. Therefore, it is not hard to utilise and install components from one aircarft to another there are limits of course. But in the KH-38 case I dont see how that would be an issue for either aircraft to do so.
@H_ngma
I made no such comments.
I literally quoted Smin…
You’re ignoring Smin’s 3rd post…
He’s talking about a source not specifying which variant, which is an entirely different situation.
You can’t use “F-15” for F-15A cause it could be talking about F-15EX. [And you can’t use it for 15EX either.]
You can’t use “Tornado” for GR1/4 because it could be talking about F3. [And you can’t use it for F3 either.]
That’s what the third post is obviously talking about, which has nothing to do with an F-15B/Su-30SM2/etc document attempting to be used for older variants of those aircraft.
A document saying F-15A talking about AIM-9Ms can be safely used for F-15EX if the store hardpoints don’t change [which is probably how we’re going to see AIM-9L/Ms on F-15EX in-game].
Granted, F-15E’s document also shows that, & that’s the alleged predecessor.
Hes talking about a source for a different version of the same aircraft being used to establish technical compatibility for another version of the aircraft and he even uses 2 examples so you understand thats its universal and not just meant for the F15.
Hes literally talking about both. One example with the source specifying the exact type, the F15B in this case and one not clearly specifying the type, the Tornado. Both are ineligible to establish technical compatibility over an aircraft type not otherwise mentioned.
That is where youre speculating btw. Smin is nowhere stating that a newer aircraft just gets technical compatibility based on being a newer aircraft without any proof that the compatibilities carried over.
Precisely. If you guys had anything stating something similar about the Su35 and Su30SM except for correctly stating that the development is closely related then this wouldnt be a discussion. The bar to “prove” technical compatibilities is insanely low and the SU30SM cant even clear that apparently.
Well technical compatability between SU 30SM2 and SU-35 is as close as you get to compatability, yes SU 30 SM2 focuses more on ground superiority than Su-35 but that is the primary role hence the reason why you have a two man cockpit. " the Sukhoi Su-35 (specifically the Su-35S) is compatible with the Kh-38 modular air-to-surface missile family, including the Kh-38M variants designed for tactical strikes".
Its like comparing F-35s of different countries all can be easily configured to carry similar weapons. Now if you are comparing anti ship missiles I think this is where the diffrence lies in terms of hard points being installed. That is Su 35 vs SU 30 SM2.