The front intakes of Su-35 could’ve been modernized, but the engine mounting position is blatantly identical between Su-27 [original] through Su-35S.
Note, NONE of these facts are being used to justify dual racks on Su-27SM2/3 in-game.
I am not doing that.
All I am doing is refuting the spacing myth, because I find it annoying and have evidence.
There’s a reason I grabbed photographs that have weapons mounted in the center for good reference.
I am not your enemy, KYoo, I am at worst an ally.
We’re all on the same page of loving aviation.
Edit:
I haven’t found a good top-down of Su-35 and Su-27 to provide 100% proof of wing span differences, but I know from underside photographs of Su-35s mounted with weapons that the added aircraft width is purely from the new wingspan, which also adds the extra fuel to Su-35.
Because the photographer cited it, I have the full image on my primary desktop which shows the full wingspan [which also shows the Su-35’s wingtips], and the cropped image shows the iconic Su-35 tail with the protrusions… oh and you can see the extra flare/chaff dispensers on it as well.
So yeah, I have no reason to believe that this isn’t a photograph of a real Su-35 doing a flight.
I mean, read the full run-on sentence of mine. :)
If I didn’t include the photographer’s claim, I felt my reasoning would be incomplete.
I also never noticed the extra flare/chaff of that Su-35 photograph until today. XD
Nope, and that argument is easily used against you.
There are dozens of service Su-35s photographed with the same exact engine spacing as all other Flankers, because they’re all still Flankers. Su-35 adds 1 foot of wingspan on each side of the aircraft, that’s where all the ~2 feet of extra width comes from.
If there’s an experimental aircraft… extra spacing could’ve easily been an experimental version that never passed experiments.
Which is why despite these engine spacing claims occurring every few months, a total of zero photos have been posted proving the case.
Yet 5? to dozens of photos proving identical engine spacing have been posted.
All Su-35s have the same wingspan.
And dual R-77s were cited “Su-35” with no specific variant, as well as one of the either testing Su-30s or modernized service Su-30s prior to the thrust vectoring variants, and perhaps one other vehicle I forgot.
Either way, Su-30SM and 35 can both use them, which means Su-30MKM’s is correct because that’s a 2019 vectoring Flanker using many modernized systems.
The only contention is if the Su-27SM2/3’s fire control computer can handle it, and we won’t know without a manual, which we won’t get under normal circumstances for like 30 years, and can’t share on this forum until it’s unclassified.
Answer that then. How are MRML and R-77 dual pylons the same situation? And how are MRML a precedent that changed R-77 dual pylons situation.
MRML can be mounted on the F-15C GE, wiring is there. It’s only a matter of whether they were bought or not for the F-15C fleet even though they’re in inventory for other planes. Which isn’t a problem for Gaijin own standards(See non-US AH-64E JAGM).
R-77 dual pylons cannot be mounted on any planes currently in-game as far as we know.
MRML and R-77 dual pylons are only the same situation if Su-30MKI [for Britain] comes in with the dual pylons.
MRMLs on F-15C [I forgot the variant they’re introducing recently IRL, not the one in-game] is akin to Su-30SM, MKM, and SM2 getting them.
Su-35 and F-15EX getting dual-mount pylons are equal to each other.
And as you admitted here:
This quote of yours indirectly defends Su-30MKM, SM, and SM2’s R-77 count.
Without evidence that Su-30SM/MKM/SM2 use legacy fire control systems to Su-30M of some type, and Su-35, we cannot prove that those Su-30s are incapable of using an asset developed for advanced Flankers.
And without access to an Su-27SM2/3 manual, we don’t know one way or the other.
And if your argument is “Well, Su-30SM documents are classified and we can’t equip those because we can’t grab classified documents to prove Gaijin’s position.” then that position can be used to justify the removal of systems from NATO equipment as well.
As for LMURs, reducing them to 4 would reduce the Mi-28NM’s BR. This is not my stance, this is a consequence of the BR system.
I’ve never made a claim on Su-27SM2/3, not once.
I’ve defended Su-30MKM’s missiles, because that’s from 2019.
And without evidence to prove otherwise, standardizing fire control computers among aircraft is standard practice in the aviation industry. If you want to claim that a 2019 Flanker uses a worse fire control computer than a 2014 Flanker, I want to see proof.
If you’re not going to claim that, cool we’re on the same page.
Oh, and if the Su-27SM2/3’s double mount is correct.
The reason it wouldn’t be on the dual-pylon brochure is because the document was made prior to the SM2/3 upgrades of the Su-27SM.
This is not a claim, this is an explanation on documentation & dates.
Weapon carriage is simply whether the airframe can physically hold a weapon on a pylon.
Fire control is the actual ability to fire that weapon.
I don’t get how this is so hard for you to understand.
There’s no proof that a dual pylon can be mounted on Sukhois other than the Su-35. The burden of proof is on you to show it can be done. It is not our job to disprove something that has never been demonstrated to begin with.
Take the MRML on the F-15C GE as an example:
It can be mounted and fired because the wiring and fire control exists. The inner pylon + airframe can also handle it.
By contrast, the F-15C GE technically has fire control for missiles on the outer wing pylons, but it can’t actually fire them due to missing wiring and airframe instability. Fire control alone doesn’t make it possible. Same is true for the R-77 situation.
So saying a non-Su-35 dual-rack R-77 is ready to go is basically like saying, “We can just slap outer wing pylons on an F-15C GE instead of an F-15EX and it will work.” It doesn’t. Structurally and electrically, it’s not supported.
Until someone actually shows this is possible on non-Su-35s, all your claim are just speculation.
Have you been living under a rock or just trolling right now? NATO equipment has been suffering from that for years lmao. Challenger mantlet, Abrams hull armor, AMRAAM performance, and so many more. If documents are too classified to prove it, tough luck for the Su-30SM. Get in line behind 99% of modern stuff in WT.
Okay. Glad to see you parroting my own take and agreeing with me. Not sure what you expect by parroting my takes…
However, we’ve already proved that Su-35/30/27 can physically hold those weapons, what has not been proven by you or others is if Su-27SM’s upgrades ever included a fire control computer capable of using more than 6 R-77s, and the dual pylons being compatible with the electronics.
I’m unsure how this claim that Su-35 cannot carry its own weapons came from.
Do you think the aircraft was/were Su-34 in those images?
Again, the burden of proof is on someone that claims a newer variant of an aircraft removed support of a weapon system.
Claiming Su-30MKM cannot use the double mounts is akin to claiming F-16C Block 50 cannot use AIM-7s.
There has been no evidence posted anywhere on the forum proving the myth of Su-35 being a different airframe to other Flankers.
The only images shown prove larger wings.
I normally don’t cry “bias” but as of recent they have been ridiculous with new Russian equipment, initially putting the bmpt at 10.3 was the tipping point for me. I’m honestly surprised they moved it up so quick.
Meanwhile western equipment is assumed the worst performance unless you take an example to gaijin headquarters and do a live demonstration.
Yet recent real life events have proven Russian equipment to be mostly propaganda hype.
Clearly you failed to understand my post. There’s no definitive proof the Su-27/30 can physically carry or has the needed wiring for it. Same as how a newer program of the F-15E still wouldn’t magically make it able to carry outer wing pylons like the EX unless the EX FBW + wing wiring was added to it.
Where is the valid proof for 30 and 27 serie carrying it then? Manufacturer info(be it a brochure, or statement) or picture. Post it here. Unless you do, don’t bother answering. Seriously. This debate has been talked to death.
@CyrusJacob
The proof of Su-30 is the R-77 double pylon brochure at minimum.
A citation doesn’t require a link, though I’d provide one if I had it on hand.
And by all means prove to us Su-27SM can electronically use them if you want.
Otherwise stop bringing it up to people that aren’t talking about that.
