And the UHT still didnt receive the missing armament
1 Like
Still 5 s meh
AAM-4s are a fairly minor improvement over AIM-120As and the AAM-3 while better than the 9M are not a major factor at the BR (and apparently not better enough to put the J and A at different BRs), maybe with decompression I could see it sitting between the C and Es, or if they un nerfed the AAMs it would defiantly need to go up.
@Smin1080p_WT hi，there is a report issue about the sound of autoloader, but no one reporting manager happen this,please report it thanks.autoloader sound issue
@Smin1080p_WT Hello, considering it’s the last day of the DEV server could the report on the correct implementation of the PIDS pylon be nuged? At least it could be implemented in the final update.
A bug report was created providing sources that it can in fact carry both AAMs and AGMs on the PIDS pylon.
Link to the report: [DEV]PIDSU and PIDS+ pylons missing the ability to use missiles.
4 Likes
(Gaijin this post is not empty)
1 Like
I am not too well versed when it comes to US pylons and their compatability so I am basing my opinion purely on what Gunjob has stated in other threads.
As far as I understand, yes the PIDS+ and PIDSU are compatible with smart munitions like the AMRAAM due to having the necessary data bus, coolant/fuel lines and electrics BUT the pylons themselves are unable to carry those ammunitions.
Other pylons must be used like you said the LAU128SE but this rail cannot be or at least has not been seen attached to a PIDS+ due to missing the necessary adapter.
Please correct me if I say sth wrong.
concerning the image you sent. What falls under 30’’ bomb racks?
There is a picture of a belgian (iirc) F-16 carrying an AGM-65 under the PIDS pod.
So if they want to make PIDS not completely worthless outside of air sim they should at least allow that.
The PIDS would remain beyond worthless in air RB, but it would at least be not completely worthless in ground RB.
Completely agree with that, the Maverick should be available on the PIDS+.
Sad thing is that this only encompasses the LAU-117, which as far as i know is unable to use anything else but the maverick
1 Like
No, the reason why is that regular A2A missile rails don’t fit directly on the MAU-12 (2000lb class NATO 14/30" ) bomb rack, The -128SE Is specifically designed for this purpose. And so could be directly mounted without an adapter at all. as preparation for the Development of the universal MML (TER-9A/A + STD-1760 for light stores and A2A missiles; I would assume this clears the way for AMRAAM + APKWS pods on the one weapons station (as a High / Low mix, for C-UAS duties), An image with the TER-9A/A standing in is show below).
It’s that the adapters needed to convert from NATO 14/30" to the missile aren’t cleared for subsequent fitting, the -128SE accounts for this.
Yes, but photos aren’t necessary, as all that should be needed is proof of technical capability to be mounted as such which this slide provides, and as the LAU-128SE has ~ 90% commonality with the regular LAU-128A/A it practically exists, and as detailed is possible.
Technically, anything certified as MIL-STD-8591 compliant, which includes the MAU-12.
3 Likes
Then I don’t really see an issue with AAMs being able to be fitted onto the PIDS+. Only thing that stands in the way is if the LAU-128SE has gone beyond the drawing table and actually been produced.
1 Like
Gaijin could add more avionics block in this area of the F-5TH, since one cannon was removed to make space for electronic equipment in real life.
2 Likes
I don’t specifically have any evidence of such an event occurring at this point(nor is it technically a requirement for additions to the game especially where balance is concerned), but I haven’t looked too hard.
But we haven’t seen any sign of it so far, maybe once things in Iran calm down we might se something on the loadouts used pop up. The key tell would be unusually mounted launch rails or mixed stores (for the MML) on one station.
3 Likes
Why does Gaijin have to model FCS components so big ;-;
On the AS90 they’re even modelling the indirect fire targeting computer screens as a fcs component. It’s literally an touchscreen and bypassed for direct fire.
They also need to break up FCS components more, bet you that that random bit of FCS in the Centauro 2’s turret bustle has little to do with the gun aiming drives or stab, but no, all FCS is magically linked…
Hope there is time for one more ship. Nearly all nations got a destroyer but none of them are missile ones
I wonder if there will be a fix for the Thai F-16OCU. It should either lose AIM-120s or be renamed to F-16 OCU2 to make it accurate with what it’s actually supposed to be in reality
1 Like
What happened to the Centauro spall liner
Any changes to M1296?
A tiny one but I am not sure which part of the IFVs hull is affected by this
1 Like