And what is the difference from ML if on the final route the missile relies not on a laser but on a thermal signature?
It’s literally the same rocket, just with a different tuning.
Because the thermal imager would not be able to provide a useful return against tactical targets, it provides no corrections in the terminal phase of flight to correct for misaligned point of impact and predicted target position.
At least assuming its a contrast seeker, which would be fair.
And if it happened to be a correlation seeker, it can’t track moving targets, and only provide a single positional update at that, like the French IIR guided Hammer.
In-game laser means having to manually guide and have visual of the target (which means the target can see you as well and fire back). a Thermal seeker is fire and forget so the plane can hide and not worry about getting shot at in the same way.
IRL a thermal seeker can’t lock a bridge. And the requirement for sometyhing to be added to the game in general is that it had at minimum a functioning prototype IRL, something that many say hasn’t been proven for the MT version. The issue many have with this is that other things have been denied being added to the game because of this requirement but the MT version was still added, so they feel like this is special treatment instead of being equal for everyone.
Maybe. But there is a variation of such missiles. Do you understand how the military works in Russia? If you lie, you will be put in prison. I don’t think it is profitable for the manufacturer.
The systems can be anything, but it is obvious that the missile works like an ML and corrects itself at the end of a vertical attack, not with a laser, but with a thermal signature.
I should really praise gaijin that model and add so many beautiful and useless FCS modules but don’t even fix spall liners issue and ricochet bug, nice.
If it’s fair to assume that a bridge might be a Zero Contrast target, it would require a Correlation type seeker not a contrast one, which is not what is modeled in game.
Early US Designed Electro Optical seekers should not be able to lock onto the ground
“Seekers like these can track optically contrast objects. As it is not possible to implement true contrast edge tracking in the game we allow seekers to lock on any point on the ground. So any point on the ground is considered contrast object.”
Well, there are IIR / Electro-Optical Hellfire’s that at very least meet similar levels of proof as the -38MT, which would solve the issue for the hellfire equipt vehicles.
Also in the game the attack is not so vertical, in life he hits almost vertically.
The launches are different.
But these are game conventions.
Because the idea that Russia can produce expendable 3rd gen IR systems for a missile(on par with western TGPs) is laughable.
Edit: being butthurt by this statement doesn’t make it untrue.
9 Likes
If the systems are the same for ML and MT. The difference is the adjustment on the last section of the flying path. During the vertical attack.
Why can’t the MT version be launched via GPS?
How does your personal opinion correspond to reality? or is your opinion is reality?
Do I need to explain the hurdles of thought that a country that had to import IR optics until less than a decade ago, has somehow managed to not only create their own, but made them so readily available and cheap as to be expendable on a missile… LMAO I can’t even.
Literally you think they are capable of throwing away the equivalent of a Damocles or Sniper pod, with every round fired
Edit: cope
As far as i have seen that isn’t the case, i think there is more proof and data for a Thermal guided Hellfire than the MT. At least from what i have personally seen.
I don’t think i’ve seen any proof of the MT more than show room images of a mockup seeker and brochures saying it is for sale.
The issue isn’t its flightpath or settings in-game compared to IRL, the issue in question is the MT’s existence IRL at all to begin with.
and what prohibits Russia from buying this optics in China? or in Europe. now some russian drones are made from Czech parts in 2025.
If there was a government order, then it exists 100%. I already wrote. No one wants to go to jail for lying about a non-existent weapon.
Cost? You aren’t going to up the missiles’ unit cost 8 fold (at minimum) for an expended item for no return (what ships does Ukraine even have, and it’s not as if other Radar guided options fulfill a similar role), where those systems for example could be far more effectively used refitting MBTs.
1 Like
Where did you show this? I’ve not seen this.
Not only that but an “order” generally isn’t enough for something to be added to the game either. Many things have been denied because there is no proof of actual deliveries and use/testing.
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.
2 Likes
I’m not telling you what’s added or not. There are not many missiles in the game and there are things that were only on paper. Because it’s a game.
But this missile exists because that’s how the military works in Russia. Any open sale of weapons goes through a declassification procedure. Which means that the specifications were actually issued by the military, not the manufacturer.
Maybe some characteristics are not accurate. But now ML is not accurate either. With the study of the video of use.
Where did you get this information?