The difference is those mavs are sitting on 2 pylons on good platforms and then you can still load other very nice ordonance.
You mean the update after Mig-27K was added, and 27K was incapable of night battles at the time.
Either way that doesn’t change the fact 38MT has not been proven cancelled or production.
We have evidence it exists, just not if it’s being used :)
Define “being used”
but you cant? most US cas has at most 4 pylons for ground ordnance even f15e only has 5
and when you bring 6 mavs normally the other two pylons can only bring 1 bomb each which is a much worse load than 6 kh38ml or hk29te and one large tv guided bomb
do we
if you have evidence you should post it because so far no evidence has been posted that confirms it ever progressed to the point of a functional prototype
We have evidence of a concept no evidence that it was actually made.
Well, that’s kinda the point
There’s no evidence on which planes can use it …
There would be nothing there if no orders were ever placed for it.
1 Like
So the A7E with the lana flir navagation pod just didnt exist at 10.7. My imagination then. So while you cant launch guided munitions with it at least you could see. Which is more than what i could do in a night match in any Russian CAS until su-25T which came almost two years later.
We literally do not have evidence it existed.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
You keep saying that, yet posted in this whole thread, there’s been multiple photos of different seeker heads, Laser, TV, and a magical third one.
not irl though
Do i need to post the bigfoot picture again or
12 Likes
Not necessarily true
i think its true for this one
These things “constantly” occur
GPU-5/A on the A-7E & -7K is almost certainly also erroneous (A-7D has video footage) due to the navy not participating in the trials, and the -K being being built only after the trials concluded but then the sales Brochure was raised as evidently states use by the A-7 airframe and that it is otherwise known the only difference between the -7D, -7E & -7K is the engine and 2nd seat of the latter, so it will stand even though nothing specifically supports their carriage of the store .
“The attached videos and photos show the F-15B-4-MC aircraft with tail number 71-0291, which is the prototype of the F-15E Strike Eagle. This aircraft differs significantly from the single-seat fighter version of the F-15A.”
I’d like to point out that these has also been no presented evidence of carriage of the -38MT for each specific airframe either, which outlined above is needed, so even regardless of if it is determined that a mockup store is suitable for carriage, each specific airframe (variant) that does have access to should need to be proven individually, since as outlined it’s not good enough apparently for a similar station / rail adapter to be sufficient either, as specified by Smin in the above excerpt.
Addtion of the AGM-119A to the F-16A-10 in the US tree
Wasn’t offered a chance to prove that the -16A in the US tree is a Franken-plane.
A report for the addition of the GPU-2/A to the US A-4E never got off the ground even though, evidence exists, I just couldn’t prove that the specific airframe variant it was tested on was an A-4E Early, not the A-4E Late or A-4F that the unit in question operated simultaneously
And similar issues would occur for a report for the GPU-5/A to be added to the same airframe, considering the Sales Brochure for the GPU-5/A linked above only makes reference to the airframe, not the variant as if later integration would be performed pending the client’s requirements, even if it can be proven by other sources which stations can carry what weights and or have existing wiring to mount gunpods, thus determining the potential stores configuration.
On a separate note it’s not as if removing over-performing ordnance from the game is without precedent, just look at the S-13DF as an example, even if it’s a store that has seen service isn’t a protection.
And as with the ZA-HVM, being a mockup isn’t a protection either, as it’s addition to the game was aborted at basically the last second before going live simply because it was discovered to never have been functional, but then as a counter point there is the Concept 3, which had a non-functional turret.
16 Likes
There is a slight * to the DFs part of the reason they were removed was gaijin admitting that they didnt know how to model thermobaric munitions in a way that would be balanced, and even then they were replaced with OFs.
I bring it up mostly because Gaijin are strangely resistant to providing the numerous Western HE warhead configurations for unguided rockets (HVAR, 2.75", Zuni, etc.) to basically anything for seemingly no reason.
But then won’t provide HEAT warheads for guided rockets like the APKWS II and others without explanation.
it really does make no sense since Eastern counterparts have no issue with receiving both, and it’s not like there aren’t a multitude of sources if any data points are at issue.
They could have also just reduced the “Re factor” for FAE warheads to something more reasonable from the ~3.85 that it was set to, and added other FAE ordnance in order to balance it out (e.g. BLU- 64, -72 , -76 , -95 or -96 etc.)
7 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like