The F 15 C golden eagle should have multiple air to air missile one pylon
2 Likes
Based on?
1 Like
It came to him in a dream
(He thinks AMBER racks were functional, I’ve still yet to see anyone prove the ones mounted were integrated and usable)
3 Likes
I believe he’s actually talking about the mmlr IIRC I believe in the, “wishful thinking on 15c GE forum post.” There has been images and documents from a few users regarding it and display it, as well as the fact that according to how gaijins displayed certain additions for balance like the su27middle double missile rack not ever being implemented in real life yet added, so it logically stands since theirs images for, as well as actual proof for its addition unlike the su27 it should be added.
It definitely didn’t need a second forum post for it, I have no idea why this user created this one without even posting all the general points as well as the actual evidence/documents.
I do recommend if your interested giving that original post a skim its actually really interesting if you ignore the small amount of players discussing things completely unrelated to needed improvements.
There is no evidence the Kh38mt was ever usable, there is no evidence the Mirage 2000-5f and RMV carried the PGM, there is no evidence the SU-30 carried the Kh38, there is no evidence the Ho-229 can carry weapons, the J6k was never even built, the XFU5 never even took off once, the Kikka has engines that were never built, i could go on all day…
Why do people pretend full irl functionality is somehow the standard for additions in this game?
2 Likes
Half the vehicles you listed were prototypes or unfinished aircraft, to which gaijin has stated multiple times over the years they have different standards for as opposed to production and service aircraft.
As for the Kh-38MT, totally agree that it shouldn’t be in the game unless it reaches production. But gaijin is gaijin there and only did two second of research into and now it’s too late to remove it.
For the Mirages, bug report it then. If it can’t use them, it shouldn’t be too hard to have it removed with proper sourcing.
it should get MRML pylons
2 Likes
There is evidence of Kh-38s [MT is still part of the same family of missiles], PGM was proven on Mirage 2000D, which extends to RMV as it’s a newer platform.
Ho-229 is a prototype.
The entire list in your post is all false-equivalence.
F-15C Golden is a service? aircraft. Without proof that it or older service versions, can carry that amount of missiles, there’s no evidence.
There’s no identifying marks for that aircraft.
It could be the same JZ test bed that was shown a few times, it could be F-15EX, or any other version of the aircraft with that amount.
Test beds, newer aircraft, etc are not usable for reporting older or different variants of aircraft.
The photograph has to be an F-15C GE aircraft, or older service F-15C that wasn’t a test bed.
it is an f15c as shown in more zoomed out images
we also have confirmation of air national guard wanting to order MRML pylons for their F15Cs as of 2017 and as a part of the program the in game one is supposed to represent
and we know for a fact that they are functional missile pylons because it is the same pylon F15EX use on stations 1 and 9, just located on stations 2 and 8
1 Like
Then it’s the test bed photographs that have been circulating. which is not applicable to any service F-15.
F-15EX is a newer jet and not applicable to F-15C GE.
Orders are great, but without photos of service aircraft being equipped with them, and without proof that F-15C GE is based on those F-15Cs… it doesn’t matter.
Dude, you know I’ll jump on the first hint of something valid. However, I’ve seen no valid photographs thus far.
I’ve seen photos of F-15s without identification, I’ve seen photos of the F-15C test bed that Boeing showed off in 2018, and I’ve seen F-15EXs thus far.
ah yes, so proof that the pylons are functional and that they are compatable with an airframe as why else would they consider ordering them
in addition to having shown an aircraft of that kind with said pylons clearly isnt proof