thats what you are doing
you started with “but what about TVC for the EF”
it is a clear cut
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “but what about X?”) is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.
thank you for showing your true colors and unwillingness of having a good faith argument
Of course it would be difficult to reach the level of the USA or Great Britain, but it is quite possible to reach the level of Germany and France
Ive been trying to have one the entire time but you dont make the slightest amount of effort to understand and instead cry whataboutism like you understand what that mean.
They are both potential additions for the game, one has an existing prototype, both are advertised in brochures, none have reports of ever being actually tested. Its one example, there are more that are similar. I cant find evidence that the MT was never tested, because you cant prove a negative so i found an example with similar parameters to show how ridiculous that discussion is
Comparing AFG with the current war is truly something…
Thats the point, the AJ isnt, its based on an existing platform without sigificant changes
Might I recommend not getting him started on semantics - the thread has been derailed by his English Comprehension skills already.
For further details I defer to my learned forumite @An_Pigeon - with whom I probably disagree on the issues of Bias. Wonky English use however - we’re on the same page.
you havent you have been defelcting the whole time with you bringing up TVC for the EF and stuff like “you cant proof nonexistence” as a counter for the picture of the kh38mt being mounted to a jet
you were intentonaly distacting from the point at hand so that people will stop asking you for something that proofs your claim
you said yourself what at means and it is exactly what you are doing here
you mean a gif of an engine being mounted in a test stand
so let me ask you a question what was is the original assumption of the kh38mt not being real based on
the TVC for the EF was a venture by a company that struggled to secure funding for the project
Osterhuber says that some pilots have described their experiences in the simulator as “eye watering”, adding: “We are nearly at the end of a feasibility study. We are now ready to take our concepts and show potential performance improvements.”
Funding to support a flight-test effort would need to come from one or more of the core nations or export customers, and/or industry.
meanwhile the Kh-38 is a modular missile system in which the seekers can be switched for one another and suprise suprise there is performance data for the seeker of the Kh-38MT
guys
There is not a single bit of proof that a functioning KH38MT was ever mounted or tested on an actual plane. No test report, no production numbers, nothing. Just Brochures and a low res picture.
Yes the “evidence” for the EF TVC is terrible but its equally terrible and both dont fulfill the standards Gaijin has for the game.
GUYS!?!?!
I don’t think any of the above crosses 2.11.
We’re not using the forum for political purposes - just having a back and forth over military history. Y’know, the entire premise the game is marketing itself on…
That one guy absolutely was tho
any talks about what is happening currently, geopolitically falls under that rule afaik
no matter what context
More like 3.1.6 perhaps, still, not something that should be on the forum either way in my opinion.
I would also avoid publicly discussing moderation, best to just flag and let the Forum Moderators handle it.
Fine then - fair enough - I’ll keep my counsel and leave it there.
I mean technical moderator said there’s enough proof behind 38MT, so any more discussions about that particular issue won’t lead anywhere.
the original assumption, why it dosent exist, was because it wasnt in any new brochures after ~2014
but well it is in a brochure from 2024
B-but they are still surely looking for investors by just burying the missile inside a multi page brochure with several other, already made weapons.
Some will never be able to accept evidence on something, doesn’t matter how good it is.
Reminder. If there was sufficient evidence that Gaijin had; do you not think a Techmod / CM would present it, to definitively prove it was mounted on, for each airframe.
The following isn’t enough to get the GPU-5/A mounted to the F-15A and -15C.
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.
Even getting later variants available to the ATAL is going though “review” at the moment.
“The source does not contain any information about the use of these missiles on the AH-64E.
Reports like this require direct proofs, not guesswork.”
- Launcher Fires two Basic , Reprogrammable Micro-Processor (RMP) or RMP Block I Missiles; No Missile Modifications required"
Nothing forces them to give out statements and evidence.
I think they have more important business than winning an argument on the forum.
Sure, other than liaising and building rapport with the community being the whole point of the job.
That being?
