From the dev update today: dual mode GBU-24 was added to the F/A-18C Late, replacing the older GBU-24/B. According to datamines it should be the GBU-24E/B, so same warhead as the GBU-27, unlike the currently copy pasted EGBU-24B from the Tornado GR.4. First US aircraft to receive a DMLGB as of now as well, so that’s cool, took a little while though…
Additionally, seems that according to the datamines, a SEAD mode might be pretty close, some bomb targets have been added, additionally to the RWR changes and SAM assets from earlier datamines. I imagine that SLAM and CBUs/JSOW-A/B might make their debut there first. It would be the only place where they could be in an unrestricted implementation I imagine.
Glad you agree with me that Kh-38s are superior to AGM-65s in a direct comparison.
In the context of ground battles though…
For now all that acceleration does is lower the chance of getting “frags stolen”.
I’ve intercepted all IR AGMs using ADATS on dev server, and Pantsir in live server.
I am not most players, I made it a desire to learn how to use all SACLOS guided missiles in the game.
@ashton
Which would matter if the maximum range of in-game missiles wasn’t 20km; so for now it doesn’t matter that the Kh-38 can glide 40km while AGM-65 can only go 23km.
No missile can be consistently launched from beyond 20km at this time.
So while Kh-38s are superior to AGM-65s [direct comparison], both are superior to SPAA ranges [being OP in ground battles].
Glide ratio is important since for a target at a constant range, one can be released at a lower energy (Speed or altitude) state and still make it to the target.
And with such a large difference there is a substantive difference in the level of exposure to a given threat that occurs, which is partially where it matters.
Since for example the pop up part of a generic release maneuver would only need to be half as high for the Kh-38 vs the AGM-65.
@HondaCivici
As I said, it matters IF you care about your frag getting “stolen” by a tank.
Since I don’t care it doesn’t matter, a dead tank is a dead tank whether I’m the one that caused it or not.
It’s funny how everyone is arguing against me all because I said Kh-38s are OP.
I don’t understand how stating a fact can cause this response; either agree with me that they’re OP or disagree without trying to do some weird attempted justification.
Edit:
Just because someone has used AGM-65s unimpeded by SPAA for 2 years doesn’t mean that a superior missile isn’t OP.
After all, I’ve been calling Kh-38 superior since its introduction.
Right now most on-paper stats aren’t in-game because the game has limitations: 20km range, hardkill APS systems, and SPAA that can intercept every IR AGM with the right skill set.
However, fragging the AGMs themselves, which you cannot frag an entire salvo of heading toward your allies, is not fragging the platform that will RTB and gain new missiles.
They will still be available for sorties until a fighter aircraft destroys them, or they make a mistake and get close.
And on top of all of that, ALL IR AGMs use the copy-pasted AGM-65D IR seeker at this time.
So with everything that is occurring right now, the standards are set to state that Kh-38s are the only OP missile, and until the point where those standards are in-game my previous statement is true: “All IR AGMs are OP in War Thunder.”
A nice reminder that @ashton agreed with everything I said in his original post about Kh-38s being OP and wanting AGM-84Es.
But you know… somehow I’m the bad guy for wanting AGM-84Es, and saying Kh-38s are OP…
@TheScienceOfWar
How is wanting AGM-84Es, or saying Kh-38s are OP, provocative statements to you?
Who would get upset over someone saying Kh-38s are OP?
Who would get upset over someone wanting AGM-84Es?
you’re evading your own arguments and points whenever actually logically confronted about them. Someone proves that KH38MT is more capable than AGM-65, and you pretend you always agreed with that when you spent a week arguing otherwise and claim everybody else doesn’t think KH38MT is OP. they just had to argue TO YOU that it is more capable, which is why it is OP. in this game, it is an unparalleled weapon. AGM-65s are useful weapons, KH38MTs are significantly harder to counter and require significantly less effort
it’s almost like two completely different people are running your account. except, in actuality, you’re just really bad at gaslighting people
Yes, I’ve proven that the Kh-38MT is more capable than the AGM-65.
And before you claim “edited post”, yes, whenever I come across an old post I fix the information to be current or delete the post if it’s flat out no longer relevant.
So here’s the edit history for you with poor wording censored, as the poor wording does not represent me now or in the past.
The most important part is me stating that Kh-38 is more powerful than the AGM-65 in a direct comparison, but I used the term “on-paper” instead of “direct comparison” back then cause I didn’t think of the better term at that time.
So tell me where I evaded my own argument that Kh-38 is superior in a direct comparison to AGM-65?
As I said in my initial post, I support expanding armament to neat stuff that fits within its BR.
I do think AGM-84E would fit in its existing BR personally.
The Penguin is an anti ship missile that can lock tanks, but here we are. The GCS-1 for Japan was denied because they said it’s IR seeker could only lock ships, but here we are. Gaijin is very clearly pick and choosey with these kinds of weapons, and due to it being a MW wave seeker, they will probably just go “is of ir guided ))))))))” like they pulled with laser only Brimstones.
Either way I’ve been supporting GCS-1, and AGM-84E.
All I can do is apologize that my initial post was poorly worded, and it should be worded correctly now to what I meant from the start.
I’m new to this tactful statement making and being explicitly specific in my posts.
I’ll get there, and I deeply apologize for my participation in the misunderstanding between us.
