Good thing the USMC never got these, they were just one bored Marine Engineer away from bomb capable F-106s lmao
2 Likes
I don’t even know what the Marines would do with 106s…
eat crayons in them
3 Likes
Yes and? I should be able to drop the entire MER rack on more aircraft than just the F-106, the fact that I am unable to do so is a failure on gaijin’s part.
Not required, MK8X have inertial booster fuses, all they need is a high enough force applied to the bomb, the angle is not relevant.
Cool let me re-iterate for the umpteenth time now,
There is no technical limitation stopping the F-106 from carrying and dropping a MER rack or a MK84 from it’s wing pylons, thus, it is open for consideration on the aircraft.
It does not mater if the F-106 did not use the weapons, it does not matter if they were installed as a joke, they are technically compatible, thus, adhere to the limitations set by gaijin.
1 Like
and the weapon is not compatible, the bombs cannot be droped like intended, at best you could jettinson the bomb rack
just ask smin yourself then if you really belive that the bombs are fully compatible
3 Likes
The implication there is that the plane in question actually had this capability. The 106 never did, so there was nothing to remove.
Asking for FICTIONAL LOADOUTS while pretending it is more accurate because of a technical compatibility is not convincing.
2 Likes
Yes they are, within gaijin’s definition of such as I have proven at length now.
The bombs can be delivered like any other aircraft of the same generation, the only difference is the method of delivery, as already stated, gaijin missing the feature to drop a entire MER rack and having it fuse is a game issue that needs to be fixed.
Yes and such is a missing feature that needs to be added across the board.
It outright does and I have proven such at length.
So you admit that the ord option falls within Smin and gaijin at large’s requirements, thank you .
also the F-106 in those images are not the one we have in game
so at best you could argue that the bomb racks are a field modification, but we dont have a normally fielded F-106, we have a test/prototype aircraft
1 Like
No, you proved it could, at most, jettison the MER and the bombs. Which does not trigger the fuses.
1 Like
you proved nothing
you showed two pictures and are doing mental gymnastics around them
that is simply not true those bombs will not fall straight down but tumble through the air drift around and will hit god knows where
do you really think that there isnt any safety that prevents the bombs from detonating, unless being properly dropped
2 Likes
Which falls within the requirements of gaijin, otherwise we better remove all the track armor from every single tank in game.
And?
Fuses are live the moment the arming pins are pulled from MK8X series bombs on the ground, you don’t need to do anything other than drop them to get them to go off, like, well, most bombs in service today.
I’m surprised you don’t know such, you are aware that the master arm switch on a aircraft does not safe bomb right?
I’ve proved the ability of carriage and delivery, thats all that is required.
16 but good job counting.
And? You are aware thats the same exact way the high drag napalm bombs work in game currently right? They are not aerodynamic, they tumble.
For the MK8X series yes, you remove the safety tag and wire seal and the bomb is live. Per TM 9-1325-200, the only requirement besides removing that component is “A minimum airstream speed of approximately 150 knots”, a selectable delay can also be set via the dial for how long you want the munition to fuse after triggering.
As also shown in TM 9-1325-200, the fuse will show a red indicator, indicating a live fuse when the ground safety mechanisms have been removed for flight.
1 Like
which wasnt able to be modifed on the field
and how is that supposed to work if the bombs arent falling nose first due to them tumbeling around in the air while being attached to the pylon
It’s not, mounting something doesn’t necessarily mean it can be used.
Hardpoints may be compatible with rails and pylons, but if the aircraft isn’t designed to use them or have them functionally integrated, it can’t use them. The only exception being if attempt to make it usable were made, and changes are wiring were added, but this isn’t the case. You could theoretically mount some modern missiles on really old outdated aircraft given the rails and missile are capable of being used together, it doesn’t mean the aircraft is able to use the munition.
Another issue with this is that there’s only images (and we know it’s because it was all for the sake of a joke), which are a single secondary source. You’d need two secondary sources or a single primary source at the minimum stating the ability to use bombs if you want gaijin to add that capability ingame.
As for the underwing Aim-4s or Aim-26s, go ahead and bug report them, they are compatible with the aircraft (assuming the F-106 that tested them is no different from the one represented ingame ofc, such as with experimental wiring which I doubt is the case, but regardless be prepared for it to be “passed as a suggestion” and nothing comes of it).
3 Likes
Except there is no modification required, as already stated, you just need to attach the existing mounts, your only requirement for your quote on quote “field modification” is the bombs / MERs themselves.
I would hope the plane that you are flying reaches a speed of 150 knots to arm them given that airspeed requirement is the ground safety, they arm as you fly, not as they fall. That feature exists to prevent some idiot smacking the bomb while on the tarmac and causing it to go off.
As already stated I am operating off of the exact wording Smin has given, the aircraft is “technically compatible” of such and thus adheres to gaijin’s stance on the subject.
There is no need for wiring or changes to use said ord as already previously proven, there is nothing stopping a F-106 currently from mounting and delivering a MK84 or a similar 30 inch lug equipped piece of ord beyond doctrine.
Except that dumb gravity bombs and missiles are fundamentally different systems with different requirements, a MK8X bomb only requires a means of carriage and a means of release to be deployed, the F-106 in it’s current state achieves both requirements to deploy said munitions.
So thats the thing, there are no sources that support the Swiss F/A-18s being able to employ or equip a majority of their ordinance as the Swiss government did not procure such ord, gaijin instead inferred, due to certain systems not being omitted from the Swiss bid, that such ord would still function onboard the aircraft.
Incedently the most realistic weapon addition currently available to the Swiss hornets are their JDAMs for the sole reason they employ the same requirements, for standard use, as the normally dumb MK8X series, with only a carriage requirement and release requirement for deployment, this is also why the F-15C MSIP is able to employ ER JDAMs while never being wired or equipped for handoff with such weapons.
Once again, “technically compatible” is all that matters today to gaijin, and that is the measure I am following.
wait so i wont see a Sabre with the Aim-9X?
thats tragic
2 Likes
unironically that would be a good event
old jet/aircraft platforms theoretical/artificial upgrade vs modern fighters
There is no point in bug reporting the underwing missiles, and even though there are pictures and it shows them on the video that demonstrates the helmet mounted sight, the bug report was rejected because according to gaijin that only counts as proof that the plane carried the missiles, not that it could use them Community Bug Reporting System. Yes I know that sounds incredibly stupid since the whole point of testing something is to see if it works rather to ferry it around (and to be fair their next argument that the modification doesn’t apply to the HMS plane is much better), but you’ve gotta understand that’s their way of saying “we like what it has now and don’t want to change it, if it needed change we would have no problem giving it stuff that never existed”.
As for the underwing mounted bombs, consider that back then if you wanted something done you could just ask the mechanics there to do it and get the paperwork done after, if you felt like it. Saying X plane couldn’t drop bombs because it wasn’t built for that is absurd when you have planes like the F105 that was gradually modified into a bomb truck with external hardpoints, despite starting out as a low level nuclear bomber that carried the payload inside an internal bay. Field technicians could have added wiring for the F106 to drop bombs from the wing hardpoints, much like robin olds ordered his squadron to rewire his F-4s to be able to use sidewinders instead of falcons, or some guys added Suu-11 gunpods to their F-102s, both jobs far more daunting than simple bomb racks, and yet both were used operationally.
But back to the Falcons, and to reply to zennafrancy12, I would say that the reason they put a dual thrust motor was to sacrifice peak speed to maximize range and maneuverability with the little delta-v the missiles had available. It’s a visible tradeoff if you compare the smc of the aim-4g with the aim-4d, and it pays off better when launched at high altitudes and supersonic speeds (maybe that’s why they are called super falcons…). Can’t blame them for not designing missiles to be OP in a game where you can see a big red missile warning when they are approaching.
I do wonder if the extra initial speed of the AIM-4D’s would make them feel better to use than the AIM-4Gs for the average warthunder player, though.
PS. I’m now confused, was the aim-4D designed before or after the AIM-4G? Because apparently it went into service after the 4G and uses the same seeker, but uses the earlier chassis and rocket motor. Maybe they had spare GAR-2 missiles that were about to be discarded and decided to recycle them for a profit…
2 Likes
(which the Six wasn’t modified to do)
As BasherBenDawg8 said, just putting things on any old plane doesn’t prove it could actually use them. Equating a prank job with functional equipment is ridiculous.
From that picture you posted:
“No bombs could be carried on the TER as the F-102A did not have the wiring to drop bombs.”
A lot was carried over from the 102 to 106, and I doubt this would change. Plus, this configuration was never flown because they quickly realized how little firepower they were actually adding.
2 Likes
No, but you can see a Sabre with AIM-95 TVC missiles. And an F9F-8. And a F-8 with them. And F-14 but that’s less funny than the older jets.