That is not true. To be precise there is no evidence that would confirm or deny that dual pylons are too wide to be fitted. It is just another “forum coolstory” that stuck inside the community. As for actual evidence - this was already talked before, we have extremely unreliable statement “there is no photos so it can’t be fitted” against equally unreliable “gaijin has access to documents that aren’t publicly available”. And this again just playing favourites.
You sure about that?
Pic is of F-5Ns, modified F-5E. F-5E were compatible with the flares pods which is why they get them.
SUs aren’t compatible with dual pylons which is why they should be removed.
R-77 dual pylon wrong dimensions report
Devs not providing proof and everyone else being unable to find and provide proof counts as being unable to prove the dual pylon capability.
counts by your own set of rules?
It counts because nobody has been able to prove this, either with public information or “classified” documents, or like another user above has said:
Let it sink in
Yeah it is not great
Spoiler
ignore this:
Still seems biased to me to give it that capability, when we don’t know if those missiles and dual pylons are mockups or if that is even the SU-30SM variant we have in-game, or if they’re for ferry purposes only - these are the same requirements they ask of us when implementing any non-Russian vehicle AKA F-15C Golden Eagle with its Amber (CFT dual) racks and MRML pylons or the Eurofighter missile racks, why do these vehicles need literal letters from Presidents and every detail known about them to even CONSIDER them for addition…
Anyways, this still doesn’t answer how the SU-27SM has dual pylons.
Those aren’t dual pylons, the R-77 is on the intake pylon…
There were, thankfully, no classified document leaks for Su-30SM. The only thing that “there is no photo evidence or publicly available information about dual pylons” proofs is your infromational limit. This could be considered an indirect evidence, but not a definite proof.
I know its not dual pylons but the devs think it is
What is there not to love.^^
Guys, anyone can link me source from which we took 19 tons as Su-35 empty weight?
I can’t find anything besides Wikipedia
How “official” this one is? i am just trying to dig trough all of this
I couldn’t tell you with a degree of certainty, maybe @kizvy might be able to have some more info, since iirc he originally posted it in the thread.
Edit: there is also the same page but for the Su30sm, and that one specifies that the empty weight is 18800kgs, and that matches the number we have in wt.
yeah, i remember this one. I am just looking trough uacrussia.ru (i take it it’s official site of UAC?) and “normal take-off weight” of Su-35 is 790 kilos lighter than Su-30SM while max take-off weight is 500 kilo bigger. So i am trying to find the correlation but there is so little data available around.
1 Like
There were quite a few numbers for the weight in this thread, some stating 18400 for some older models, and some going up to the 19k figure we have.
What the devs will chose to use to model this is a different topic ofc, maybe they have access to some sikrit documents that we can’t see.
the fact that flankers don’t load full fuel normally also adds to the confusion because there is no knowledge of how different it is for Su-30 and Su-35 since they have different fuel tank configuration than Su-27 and i only have data for Su-27 normal fuel load being 5300 kilos
Edit: If maximum take-off weight of Su-35 includes both full weapon load as well as full fuel load it’s a relatively simple math that leaves us with 15 300 kg which could be true but there is obviously no statements that would confirm that.
1 Like
There’s still also the big question mark that we don’t really know if the 19000kg number also has the Khibiny pods included, those alone would unironically take off some significant weight, especially in WT since we don’t hsve ECM yet.
true, about 600 kilo worth of dead weight
