Launch restriction is 1.4, and even F16C hits 1.18M on deck using 4 missiles, 6 mavs and pod
F15E goes a lot faster. There’s some examples.
But we should keep this talk after you get SU25 and try to actually use those 25L’s over S250 and you will know. And get that A10 and tell how much less effort you actually need on kills in ground games
so you are comparing to top tier CAS
thats like me saying AGM-65A on the A7D is much worse than russian CAS options because the KH38MT on the SU-30
well I hope you would read where that answer was when you start hopping in conversations what are not going on with you.
If you cant find, shortly, he asked how airframe changes underperforming missiles. Now move along.
removing the FAKE Kh38MT is a great idea the Kh38ML is good enough
there was no other new evidence presented and that was just before a bunch of mods brigaded over and shut down the thread
Seeker is a prototype at the very least and the rest of the missile being real is confirmed.
Seeing it in Zhuhai 2024 pretty much seals the deal.
you mean seeing mockups with matte black paint “seekers” on a single low quality brochure that looks photoshoped but isnt confirmed to be because it was brightened after it was scanned
Even the Harrier 2 at .85 mach struggles to get more than a reliable 10km launch from less than several thousand metres of altitude
You are just salty it didn’t get removed.
No, there were close up photos of the 38MT’s seeker and Technical moderator said it’s confirmed that the seeker was at least a prototype.
no, there was a closeup of something that vaguely looked like a seeker with a sign next to it saying 38ML and the missiles casing just saying 38ME
oh boy, wait until you learn that you need to follow Kh-29L all the way until it hit. complaining about to “head down” for 3-5 seconds meanwhile Kh-29-L you have to literally follow the missile down while maintain LOS
he can try them now with Su-22M3 quicker to research while having the real “wet” speed compared to Su-25
No, the discussion now is ‘Why people complains about Kh-38 being unfair in 12.0, while no one said anything about AGM65 and 62 that lacks soviet counterpart at 9.7-10.3’
Because in comparison to the NORD / Bullpup, at the time the AGM-62 / -65 Wasn’t much of an upgrade.
Especially because the A-4E / G. 91 were both so prevalent at the BR.
Trees are dissimilarly balanced, and there are no options available that have both access to F&F ordnance and have similar performance to the A-4E, let alone the A-7, so they won’t be at the same BR.
The A-4 & A-7 were literally the first of all aircraft to actually see service with their respective guided ordnance.
And besides a similar issue could be brought about the lack of the VB-1 / -2(Azon),VB-3/-4(Razon) & VB-13( Tarzon) considering the presence of the Fritz X.
or X-4 counterpart(s)
From book about Russian air launched weapons. It is more likely than unlikely that Kh-38MT exists in some capacity.
MCLOS to TV wasnt much of an upgrade folks
there are actually, Su-17M4 at 10.7 since they supposed to be able to carry 2 Kh-29T or KAB-500kr on 1987
which for some reason A-10A that got theirs just a year earlier being put at lower BR
It’s not that the program is, or is not a fabrication, it’s if it actually produced a functional seeker, that was mounted on an AUR, and subsequent was mounted on each airframe it is modeled on in game.
As that would be what is required at a minimum for successful addition to the game.
If it’s not sufficient to passed as a suggestion by a report it shouldn’t be added to the game, once again I’ll point to my attempt to get the GPU-5/A (30mm gun pod found on the A-7, F-5E and a few others)on the F-15A as an example.
You sometimes need to find hyper specific documentation, and even then it goes both ways as an example;
The report for the GPU-5/A 30mm Gunpod to be mounted on the F-15A & -15C was rejected, since I only had pictographic evidence of it mounted to the F-15B that served as the surrogate for testing the F-15E configuration during trials, even though other sources state that it can be mounted on the MAU-12 bomb rack with no modification, and the brochure makes no reference to a specific variant.Further the A-7E also has access to the GPU-5/A even though the USN never purchased any, nor was party to said trials but they were flown on the A-7D, of which the -7E is a modification of, I’d put in a report for its removal but I’m not exactly sure how you are supposed to go about finding “documentation” to prove a negative.
I really don’t know how much more clear you can get than “no modification required”, And further on a “per platform” basis is near impossible.
It still flys dead straight and has a larger warhead, it is perfectly serviceable and outranges the Walleye from low altitudes, and airspeeds since it has no propulsion.
