yes so 3 options, none of which have any documented testing or proof that they existed in a functioning state and gaijin decided to use the least balanced possible option
2 Likes
which is also the least irrealistic as the other ones never even left paper, the 38MT at least has a mockup to model it from, the other’s don’t even have that
really? because from the performance goals in one of the brochures 38mt wouldnt be able to track tanks pretty much at all due to poor thermal resolution, so how is adding it in its current state the most realistic option
because there is at least something regarding the MT, there may not be much more than mockups and brochures but that’s a LOT more than nothing except very rare mentions with no pictures and an abandonned project.
As for the seeker performance, this is simply a copy paste of all IR F&F seekers.
No nation is entitled to a capability. The brits don’t use IR FnF missiles on the ground but you dont’ see gaijin making up a weapon to fill that gap do you?
Furthermore, what is currently modelled is so far beyond its own marketing brocure it would make 1980’s pravda editors blush.
2 Likes
you say that when im pretty sure ive seen pictures that claim to show a KH-25MTP seeker
not my point, i’m saying that since gaijin wants to give the russian tree an IR AGM, then this is the least bad option. remember that before the 38MT arrived, the most potent missiles in the tree were the Kh-29TD which i’m pretty sure you’re aware are a lot less potent than something with an IR seeker.
this is as far as it goes
is still kinetically superior to agm65 to an insane extent and is the best air to ground weapon for china, so why exactly does russia get special treatment to give them a fictional air to ground missile that vastly out preforms anything else in the game and breaks gaijins own rules about weapon additions
1 Like
im pretty sure ive seen something else too, but that is already as much info as there is for kh38mt
it’s not all about kinematics, the seeker is the limiting factor of the 29TD along with 2/3 of it’s carriers (at least in the ru tree) lacking TGP’s making the usage even worse.
yes that is not the only relevant factor but with its significantly better kinematics and warhead it already is contemporary to agm65d which has a better seeker but unreliable warhead and much higher chance to miss or be intercepted
It. Doesn’t. Matter.
If that’s what Russia has, then thats what Russia has. Russia players wanting a good IR weapon is no excuse for creating a fantasy weapon.
And no, this is not the least bad option. Introducing a grossly overpowered weapon is never the least bad option.
4 Likes
i’m not gonna talk too much about the warheads as i’ve not had only good experiences with the warheads of the Kh-38Mx’s, as for the missing, i don’t have an aircraft with mavs so i’m not gonna talk 'bout that.
don’t get me wrong the TD is defenetly usable but it is often limited by the seeker and carriers.
as opposed to creating another grossly op weapon out of even thinner air? my point is that it could’ve been worse as the Kh-29D and Kh-25MTP are to my knowledge even less real.
there is the same level of information on all three, and neither Kh29D or 25MTP would be as blatantly overpowered as 38MT is
1 Like
because the unrealistic vaporware IR guided AGM traveling at mach 1.8/ mach 2 is so much better than the unrealistic vaporware IR guided AGM traveling at mach 2.2, i don’t see much of a difference…
move more, the warhead is huge, keep that in mind, and i did say move to cover, rocks, ditches etc do help a lot i know it’s not perfect, just saying it’s the current best there is against it
didnt read this earlier but wow
how can you even type if you think that would work
in game IR ignores ESS