@coffee_can-psn
It’s cool you discovered that today.
My photo that proves the R-77 double racks are real & on the Flanker series of aircraft…
That doesn’t prove him right unless he’s claiming that they’re real.
Su-35 is a Flanker, so is the Su-30 & Su-27.
& just like the F-15A cannot use weapons the F-15C GE & F-15EX can use.
Su-27 cannot use weapons the Su-30MKM/SM, Su-35, & other Flankers can use.
ahh yes, if change the argument then suddenly you’re right, but that’s not how it works post a picture of it fitted the su30sm if you want to prove it can carry it, otherwise your opinion isn’t acceptable as a source
f15a cannot use pylons it’s not rated for, duel racks aren’t used on su30s for what we can assume is a reason
@coffee_can-psn
That’s not how proof works…
What is your hatred of F-15C GE & 2019 Flankers receiving realistic systems?
“F-15C GE didn’t specifically have the equipped!”
Who cares?
The avionics can use them, they’re meant to fit there, the manufacturer of the double ranks say those aircraft can use them.
Manufacturers ARE NOT “my opinion”, I am not manufacturers.
So yeah, if you have proof F-15C GE & Flankers years newer than Su-35 cannot use systems manufacturers claim they can use, provide it.
f15 ge was shown with racks I believe, and it’s not my job to disprove a negative, I don’t have to find your evidence for you as well as disprove it lmao
F-15EX was, & a test F-15 never used in service.
Newer versions of the same aircraft series are backwards compatible unless otherwise proven.
a test version of the f15c is a lot closer than an entirely different aircraft, there are structural differences between su35 and su30sm
@coffee_can-psn
There are structural differences between F-15C GE & other versions, that doesn’t mean anything.
Using composite materials doesn’t change aircraft.
The avionics & weapon mounting doesn’t care.
the difference in f15s in minor, su35 is extremely different from the su30sm, completely different airframe
This while the pobit is left to rot with 6 missiles while capable of double and triple racks irl is kinda crazy
@coffee_can-psn
Again, using composite materials isn’t a major change nor make an airframe different.
Su-35 is literally a Flanker, same NATO designation, same dimensions.
The primary differences are the moving of computer systems, fuel tanks, & air brake [or the lack thereof] within the dimensions of the Flanker platform; upgrading the avionics & store position count.
The airframe is the same, just as F-15A & F-15C are the same airframes despite new fuel tanks & structural changes.
why are yall arguing about this bru
j16 should have those pylons for the additional pl12’s, because it does in real life. why bring russian flankers in to this
1：The Su-35 has a redesigned rear fuselage with a shorter central tail sting，while Su-30’s rear looks more like a conventional Su-27. So their rear fuselage isn’t the same shape. especially between the two engines, the contour is completely different.
2: And Rostec identifies its weapon-control system as the 35-P, together with the Irbis radar system. The Su-30SM/SM2 instead uses its own avionics/weapon-control architecture. There are brochures showing this system(30ПИ-P) contains only 10 ARM control points.
Source:
https://rostec.ru/media/pressrelease/2753/
https://roe.ru/pdfs/pdf_6932.pdf
https://uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/lineup/su-35/
https://uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/military/su-30sme/
3: More importantly, TASS explicitly states that the Su-30SM has 12 suspension points but can carry only up to 10 R-77 missiles. Rosoboronexport independently confirms the aircraft has 12 hardpoints. Therefore, “12 hardpoints” clearly does not mean “12 R-77 stations”.
Source:
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3849938
If you claim that the Su-30SM can use the Su-35-style twin ventral R-77 launcher, please provide a Su-30SM-specific technical source or operational photograph showing that integration. Evidence from the Su-35S alone is not sufficient.
TO CLARIFY STANDARDs
@firedjs
Glad you discovered the differences between the Flanker variants today.
Not sure why you’re posting what you learned here.
Please provide evidence that future aircraft of the same airframe are inherently incompatible with weapon systems of previous variants.
If you have proof, go make historical reports on the MRMLs & double rack pylons in general to have them removed.
Just as R-27s got removed from Mig-29KR on dev server as proof was found & provided.
The J16 doesn’t have any proof that it can hold double missile pylons on it for the PL-12 despite the best efforts of the Chinese community to find some.
literally the start of the post dawg. it does have double PFT-12.
AS has been said a million times throughout this post and every other topic on the J-16 this racks are not compatible with the PL-12 and are for other munitions.
Wait under engine pylons too? Never heard of double AAM pylons there before besides that one goofy mock up model with like 22 missiles. Imagine if that loadout is actually possible lol…
I have discussed with my friend in Chinese forum, unfortunately, It is very possible that it’s bomb pylons. But it’s still not impossible to have double pl15 there.
