Yeah, I would agree with that.
1 Like
i can explain this.
first about the kh38, because it was never bought, it didnt exist in russia storage, hence the missing name.
second, the R77-1, as some source says, was intergrated on the su30sm late 2015 and 2016. the brochure max out at 2012.
1 Like
Appreciate the clarification.
Granted, proof is needed for removal of capability according to precedent & rules of War Thunder armaments.
I have no opinion of that…
Same but that doesnt really excuse anything, does it?
Might be but so is information about a lot of things in the game and those dont get preferential treatment either.
Well i mean thats not really an argument to just add any missing weapon that might be a fit, is it?
But stuff like that is precisely why having consistent rules for everyone is so important and why clear proof is preferable to speculation.
No. They are not.
Most sources describe them as close relatives, similar, but distinct types.
You appear to be trying to take 2 + 2 and make it 9.
okay, show.
P/EP are anti rad missiles I think.
And P/EP on image is Cyrillic analog of R/ER which are sarh missiles.
Those say Rs,
P in Cyrllic is П
Also notable that NATO applies ‘Flanker G’ to the MK variants. Su-30SM is assigned ‘Flanker H’.
If NATO consider the types distinct that’s another good reason to suspect you are trying to make 2+2=9…
That’s true, but it also shows that the brochures contain limited information in the Aircraft’s armament.
Flanker-G is for MKK Derivatives, Flanker-H is for MKI Derivatives (MK with Canards and TVC).
could you show where does it say it.
i could just google image of a source and post it.
cmon its the minimum you could do to end the discussion
My mistake. However the treatment of the Su-30MKI and Su-30SM as distinct aircraft remains in most literature. They are not lumped in together in the same way that a Harrier GR7/9 are for example.
1 Like
This is true, a lot of Literature also states 30SM uses N011M (it doesn’t.)
If I had to guess why they’re differentiated, It’s because the SM is usually seen as a direct upgrade over the older MKI.
But I’m not sure, I’m not the author of these books.
Sure but then what are we supposed to use if not brochures and other accessible information?
You googled your killer source…
Right.
In other news - I’m going to google and show absolute proof that all British Typhoons can fire lasers from the pilot’s eyes! I found it on the internet so it must be true!
classified docs. ( kidding )
thats gaijin problem. i dont mind if we remove kh38 along with outher weapons on planes.
its just make the cas less balenced.
Well, if the brochures for the weapons list the plane, then it could be added.
And since we’ve already established that the 30SM is an iteration of the Su-30MK (Namely the 30MK with Canards and TVC) it would make sense why gaijin would add the Kh-38s.
unfortunately, you can’t really prove a negative. Personally I’ve never seen Kh-38s on 30SMs (or any Su-30MK variant) so I’m not one to say with 100% certainty of they should or shouldn’t have it. But since it was advertised it fits into Gaijin’s standards. 🤷♂️
i googled what source ?
