Because the KH-38ML is the version that got more investment, passed mockup and went into service.
No one opposes the addition or legitimacy of KH-38ML because it’s a real missile, what’s your point?
Because there is zero evidence the MT version ever existed outside of a mockup.
That is a fundamental requirement for weapons to be added to the game.
They offered it as a proposal, and noone bought it. Either it would have been too expensive, it’s proposed performance wasn’t good enough or other weapons can do the job better in the real world.
3 Likes
It’s literally modular missile.
So it’s a scam project ?
1 Like
If what you said was correct then it would be shown in stats pretty clearly.
Just how it’s shown DIRCM helicopters blow other helicopters out of the water.
It’s literally modular missile.
You need the module to actually install. Furthermore, different weights etc. can cause issues. This isn’t lego, you can’t just plug it in.
So it’s a scam project ?
Scam implies dishonesty. This isn’t that, its just a failed project.
1 Like
In one year ?
It’s not, a gap is between 2 things adding something at the top is not filling a gap.
Yeah it kinda was (obviously Japan could have just gotten an F2 but gaijin was lazy or a subtree F16) and like I’ve said multiple time, every country gets bias from time to time but to match the bs Russia gets you have to pull examples from multiple tech trees.
The timescale does nothing to change whether it was a scam or not.
No it’s just missile was shown Zhuhai in 2024 and it’s failed one year leater because War Thunder players didn’t see any documents about it
1 Like
If there isn’t anything at top tier then you have a gap at top tier. You arguing semantics doesn’t change anything.
No you don’t.
Japan received more fakes and dubious stuff than RU despite having much less vehicles and popularity.
Again.
MOCKUPS were shown. A working weapon was never shown in any form. The same mockups that have been around for ages.
Ask yourself this :
The russians aren’t shy about showing photos of weapons, or the usage of said weapons in the current war.
We’ve seen loads of stuff, but absolutely nothing about the MT. Why is this? What could the reason be for them being suddenly very shy about this weapon.
The answer is, they don’t have it. Laser version? Sure! IR version? Nope.
2 Likes
So it’s a scam project ? Why else they would try sell unexisting weapon ?
Probably because they wouldn’t actually develop the missile until they got money from an order. This happens all the time
You clearly do not understand the process that goes on.
Companies offer proposed weapons all the time. A lot of the time, those weapons never come to fruition for various reasons. Just because something appears in a brochure, doesn’t mean it will ever exist.
It doesn’t make it a scam (you seem stragenly focused on that word), its a normal part of weapon development.
2 Likes
It’s not semantics. China doesn’t have an IR agm on planes. The EFT doesn’t have one. Adding in a fake top capability is not filling a gap
Which got removed or are about to be removed.
But please do tell me about all the made up Japanese center body missile pylons or Japanese agms that loft while no one else does or Japanese LDiRCM that can magically work through the helicopter.
Missile that has been adopted in 2012 by Russian military ?
There must be a language issue.
The kh-38MT has never been built, and therefore cannot have been adopted.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, you will be the first.
A kinda similar weapon would the the AIM-7R. It’s an infrared sparrow. It is based on the body of a normal sparrow but with a 9M seeker head. The project was cancelled due to lack of funding and interest. Unlike the KH-38MT, we have pictures of its test. The test pictures we have are from the RIM-7R, the naval sea sparrow
Another example is ‘blue envoy’, a british SAM in development.
It was quite far along, there were brocures etc. but it was cancelled and never produced.
Fire Shadow (great name), is another example.
Well i think one of the technical moderators said that evidence that needed to prove existence of seeker has been provided