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.
