[NOT REALISTIC] Tech Question: AGM-122 - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-18-2020, 08:42 AM   #21
Dagger71
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 684
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fri13 View Post
AGM-122 existed, and if it is a logistics or political reason why not use, then it is not a argument not to include in simulator.
It was never used on the A10 of any version. This debate is dead OP got his answer.
Dagger71 is offline  
Old 09-18-2020, 08:47 AM   #22
QuiGon
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 15,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fri13 View Post
Again, if you do not know something, then it doesn't mean that it ain't so.
If you can not provide evidence that project designers didn't test something or did but it was found not possible, then it ain't so automatically.

When one starts to use politics as argument that someone shouldn't be included regardless what could be possible technically, it goes already wrong in purpose of simulator.

As you can not avoid personal attacks, you have already lost all arguments.
How about you start proving that the A-10C could actually use Sidearms instead of just comming up with this wild request and then demand from other users to proof the opposite. That's not how it works...
__________________
Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

QuiGon is offline  
Old 09-26-2020, 06:30 PM   #23
Fri13
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: 6'clock
Posts: 5,749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuiGon View Post
How about you start proving that the A-10C could actually use Sidearms instead of just comming up with this wild request and then demand from other users to proof the opposite. That's not how it works...
I don't need to do that as I did not make a such claim....

How about you will learn that there are not just claims "not possible" and "possible" and then there are other arguments that doesn't need to provide any evidence as it is not making claims that something is or is not possible?

Can you provide evidence that AGM-122 was never even considered to be a compatible with a AIM-9 iR seeker missiles?
Can you provide evidence that AGM-122 was never even considered to be carried in A-10?

If you do not understand that not having evidence for X, doesn't mean that X is not possible, just like it doesn't mean that X is possible.

Let's make a simple example for you to understand.

Argument is that as no one has seen a photos of a fighter pilot carrying a book inside a cockpit on long flights, then it is not possible as there is no evidence for it.
Argument is made that as there is no mentions in any manuals about book being in pilot arsenal or to be used in a cockpit, that pilot can't have a book inside a cockpit.

Now someone says that because no one has not seen a such photo, or because it is not mentioned in a manuals, it doesn't mean someone can not bring the book with them inside a cockpit.
It would require evidence that specifically states that a book can't be brought inside a cockpit because it has been tested and found not usable.

Years ago I read about the AGM-122 specs and development by Motorola, but can't find the book anymore. It was explained how a AGM-122 was made "drop-in" replacement with compatibility to all aircrafts that can launch a AIM-9L/AIM-9M. Difference was that you didn't add the coolant bottles to launchers as it didn't need it. The missile itself work like those other missiles, you energize it and it's seeker does its own thing by searching emissions from while band it is capable use and locks on strongest found. Pilot gets growling sound signal for launching.

Only a USMC wanted it, they got it for their attack aircrafts and helicopters. Did the Air Force, Army or Navy want it? Why not? Not compatible with their aircrafts or just a political reason?

Sure there is a evidence that it is not technically compatible by any means with any other than those few airframes?
And no... Political reasons doesn't matter in technical questions.
A evidence for technical compatibility needs to be that it can be found that it is not compatible with it.

Have you seen the book?
Is a book mentioned in the manuals?
There is no book?
__________________
i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.
i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.
Fri13 is offline  
Old 09-26-2020, 06:37 PM   #24
BIGNEWY
ED Community Manager
 
BIGNEWY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 22,942
Default

As mentioned not realistic and no evidence to say it is.

If you do have evidence please PM me.

Closing the thread, please remember our forum rules here, if you can not post with respect to each other, please do not post.

thanks
__________________
BIGNEWY
Community Manager Eagle Dynamics
Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, TM Warthog, Jet provost rudder pedals, VIVE Cosmos

BIGNEWY is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:44 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.