Thats result of IOG, not GNSS. Or you could say, GNSS is “improved” IOG by removing drift while retaining CEP.
2 Likes
Cruise heights should be variable dependant on the mission flight profile chosen by the launch aircraft or mission parameters butbetween 500, 15,000 and 35000ft - terrain following is more of a suggestion than a rule
The whole flight profile basically looks
Cruise - Terminal point - pop up - impact
I wish it had gnss + followed terrain at much lower altitude than it does rn (700m is absurd). 50-100m so there is a chance to get aa with pants down. Also there should be a way to detect and avoid trees because currently maps are brimming with 40-50m high sequoias. Would be nice to have double rack in middle of f15e so I could fit 16 gbu39, 2 agm84 and 6 agm65. But perhaps Im asking for too much.
yea but like i said, the source is for AGM-84A harpoon missile, not AGM84H
actual lies.
ALL TV/IR ordinance will ALWAYS prefer surface lock instead of IOG. It works exactly same for all of them whether SLAM, hammer or kh38. IR/TV missile going into IOG is such an insane rarity that only happens where ground is not lockable (some building corners)
1 Like
im not sure i follow
IOG on KH38MT doesnt work the same way it doesnt work on SLAM or hammer. Its a thing with every TV/IR ordinance since it was introduced.
so this is straight lie. There is nothing different
2 Likes
oh i guess im wrong, maybe the reason kh38mt still being able to land near target despite going blind is because of its speed
mavericks and other AGM drift so far from target because its so slow, unlike kh38
all of those are 20km seekers which usually pick up tanks at like 12-16km depending on condition, so as long as you get in that range they will fully track.
You also have hammers which do the opposite of cruise missiles and climb for 85 degree for terminal which also makes them less susceptible to terrain.
For anyone saying you want to reduce the cruise altitude you are further nerfing this missile
how would it be nerf? flying low would just reduce the chance of getting shot down by AA
and would make it so much worse at hitting targets
Your nerfing its angles of attack.
Instead of going top attack for better damage.
Ot will on side and will do less damage.
But then it would be better at taking out anti air since they are not armored and then AGM-65 could be used on tanks to kill them or just damage them
@thisconnect你好 that would be true for most missile but AGM84H have a feature where it “pop up” and top down attack on target during its final phase of flight, so flying low the entire way there would be better for it so it has less chance of getting shot down
not to mention the warhead is 75kg SAP-HE which is better than ~51kg HEAT found on AGM65D so it should one shot every ground target it hits. Granted they are direct hits, and still wont compare to Kh38’s 250kg HE warhead but it still should be enough to kill nearby SPAA
Yes it could be great but what happened if the enemy is behinde cover ?
Final pop-up attack
They go in parabolic trajectory once they are close enough. Should work just fine against radar vehicles or single vehicle systems which have to be somewhat exposed to scan surroundings efficiently.
This is for only for agms, and applies to every missile with combined tv/ir+gnss.
Who are you trying to misinform?
unless you are trying to mislead people…
War Thunder developers are perfectly capable of implementing LOAL. They have already done so for ARH missiles, for the Japanese SAM SPAA, for the IRIS-T SLM, they have done so for SAL missiles, and even IR AGMs that transition from point lock to track lock AFTER LAUNCH do this.
1 Like
Nothing exists for NATO that matches KH38?