They were in the bug report that prompted that change?
You should know exactly why Gaijin changed MICA and nothing else, it’s their standard operating procedure to only work on things that are A- bug reported as erroneous, B- not making money, or C- actually breaking the balance of the game so much that multiple BRs are unplayable
Additionally if MICA was changed according to the bug report totally instead of the half measure it’d use J band radar seeker which some RWRs at top tier back then could not detect (try notching a fast missile that doesn’t even show up on your RWR)
Your post is indirectly claiming AH-64E can’t use 16x AGM-179s cause photographs only shot it one either side, but not all at once…
AH-64Es have the same over-performing LDIRCM as Mi-28NM with double the missiles per sortie.
There is no evidence Su-27SM2/3 cannot use the double pylons that were developed for the Flanker series of aircraft.
Not only that, but with MRMLs on F-15C GE, the precedent has changed that can even allow R-77 dual pylons on Su-30MKI if it gets introduced to War Thunder, despite it being older than one of the Su-30s listed in the R-77 dual pylon brochure.
@Panther2995
I don’t need to, because I’m not making a claim.
I cited the R-77 dual rack brochure including a non-vectoring Su-30, which is older than all the Flankers that have it in-game.
Su-30MKM has the rack as well, but it’s the 2019 upgrade.
Su-27SM2/3 [whichever it is cause I forget which one adds the engines] is also another upgrade, which I make no claim on. All I’m doing is pointing out that it’s a Flanker, received upgrades, and is after other Flankers cleared for use.
Proving Su-27SM2/3 one way or the other doesn’t interest me, because F-15C GE has MRMLs, which is the equivalent of giving double-rack R-77s to Su-30MKI.
@Panther2995
There have been no photos shared to me of F-15C GEs with MRMLs, only variants after GE, such as the 2017 Boeing Showcase, which was a future variant.
It was still based on F-15C platform iirc which is the main selling point in this case.
On other hand I haven’t seen a single Su-27/30’s with double racks even as mockup and iirc the main reason why they cannot equip is the gap between engine intakes are not big enough to fit double racks compare to Su-35.
However my point still stands, if you can find a single photo that shows current Su-27SM/30SM is equipped with double racks I will retreat my statement.
Provide proof that R-77 dual pylons cannot be fitted to Flankers [Su-35/30/27].
The only newer service Sukhoi aircraft with different engine spacing are Su-34 and Su-57.
Provide proof that Su-30 or Su-35 aren’t Flankers. Su-35 adds wing-span, but not engine spacing as that would require a brand new airframe and cause issues with engine distance stability.
Here’s proof that R-77s are correctly modeled in War Thunder which proves that the photograph is identical engine spacing with all other Flankers. Unless that dual R-77 photograph somehow isn’t an Su-35 and is instead an Su-27/30 of some kind… but I think it’s an Su-35.
“It’s still based on the Flanker platform, which is the main selling point of the R-77 dual pylons.”
Again, MRMLs and R-77 dual pylons [I forgot their official name the day after reading it] are the same exact situation if & when Su-30MKI is added to the game to Britain with them.
How can the dual R-77s not fit on Flankers [which includes Su-35] due to engine width?
We have photographic evidence, it’s linked in the post you replied to.
Weird how the R-77 fins perfectly overlap between the in-game screenshot and the IRL photo.
If they can’t fit, why is there a photo of a Flanker with them?
Or are you going to claim these images aren’t an IRL photo of Su-35, and in-game screenshot of Su-27?
Are you going to claim that R-77s and R-27ERs are both modeled too small to justify your existing beliefs?
Or are you going to stop perpetuating myths?
Edit added the dual pylon images from the quoted post.
What width?
You can clearly see there’s no added width in the provided photographs comparing to screenshots of in-game Flankers.
The Su-35 is not featured in War Thunder, so how can those screenshots in my post be of an Su-35?
When Su-35 is added to War Thunder with no added engine width, don’t be surprised. Cause Sukhoi didn’t add engine width, they added wingspan.
If Sukhoi added engine width the singspan would be over 16 meters instead of 15.3.
So either those dual pylons aren’t on an Su-35 in that photograph which proves they fit on Su-30s, or it’s an Su-35 which proves Su-35’s engine width is identical which we knew was identical for a decade now.
I’m unsure how this myth started and how it’s perpetuated.
You have zero proof that the engine spacing is different.
