The same proof that has been provided to prove Su-30SM can use dual R-77 pylons is to the same standard as the proof used to prove F-16C Block 50 can use AIM-7s, and AV-8B+ can use AGM-65Ds [because we can’t use the AV-8B+ manual due to it being restricted], and so forth.
You can claim Su-30SM can’t use something that was made for Flankers, but I can claim AV-8B+ is incapable of using AGM-65Ds [or whichever AGM-65 variants I’m actually thinking of cause the sub-variants are all mixed in the mind. because there is no photograph of it on the platform, and the documentation cannot be used as evidence due to restrictions.
I bet everyone complaining about the dual R-77 pylon has never once complained about AGM-65Ds on AV-8B+, AIM-7F on F-16C Block 50, napalm on F-15C Golden Eagle, and every other classified jet that inherited equipment from its previous versions in-game.
That’s an AGM-65E, not a 65D.
As for the other, I said used as proof. That photograph you provided wasn’t used as proof when F-16C was added to the game.
Did you even read that thing? It literally uses a failure to prove the positive as the proof of the negative, which is the exact process I described
so, just like I said, you prove a negative by failing to prove the positive. The burden of proof for double pilons on the SU-30SM is still on you because we already succeed in proofing that it doesn’t exists by not proofing that it exists
Well, provind or disproving something based on a single point is also not particularly good. Even with Unicorns - if the horn is actually not made out of bone but out of something more degradable like cartilage there will be EXTREMELY small chance to find a fossilised evidence of a unicorn.
But that’s off-topic. In regards of dual pylons for R-77, only thing we have is photo evidence vs Gaijin access to information that isn’t publicly available. Both sides are equally unreliable so it is pretty much personal bias at this point.
