as i said, the doesnt matter
i didnt state its bad did i?
Still 15km doesnt get close to the proposed lock range of the KH 38MTm they are inherintly different seekers
Im pretty sure that’s a Izdelye 305, aka LMUR. Those 2 are different. It is not a Kh-38
Cannot post the source here, but reverse search leads to it
dude what are you talking about those have been posted like three times and they’re NOT IR seekers, do people even read the thread?
All of them are being use to describe the same missile. Izdelye 306 was suppose to be a version that was on the work with a tandem warhead. Edit; Read that 306 also should have 25km range.
1 Like
on the work, means it doesnt exist yet.
All the stuff only talks about the KH-38, nobody is saying the body exists.
But nobody of you is able to prove the existence of an actual integrated IR version.
Only ifs and similar. But the IR seekers of LMUR etc are different, they have completly different heads for the lenses alone. This already means its different stuff and cant be used to prove the workability
Never claimed that Izd 306 exit BTW. 305 has like 70sec battery. I wonder how much range you could get from them on a Jet.
no idea, but it gets confusing when you start talking about them and the seeker alone existing is simply not realy true either.
Nobody says russia doesnt have IR seekers, but the KH38 seekers with the needed specs is another matter. It is not as simple as putting on the seeker of another missle
They are synonyms. LMUR is the name of new lightweight missile project from 2007; Izdelie 305 is the manufacturer name and Kh-39 is the army index.
1 Like
Lmur and kh38 still are to different.
And the lmur seeker doesnt prove the existence/worksbility pf the KH-38 one
2 Likes
How many times does it need to be said just because it looks legit doesn’t mean it’s the real deal.
And you can’t tell specifications from an image.
1 Like
They are though. Post-sanction Sosna-U sights uses the domestically produced (probably copied Catherine-XP) TPK thermals.
What Russia lacks is the capacity to build it in mass like the French
A more logical conclusion would prpbably, they don’t have enough possibly french IIR seekers to use it outside of whatever testing grounds they have
I dunno about that. They’ve been installing gen2s on T62M-1 tanks.
They are making them, since they can’t procure them right now in high numbers.
But a cheaper missile or expensive tank? Cost effectiveness may vary, but it’s likely using the AGM is actually the cheaper option.
1 Like
Seeing as this is Russias only atgm / AGM IR aam in game, if they remove it, it should be replaced by something. KH-29 or KH-25 or something else with IR ability. TV guidance and no IOG for any other system they have is so bad, a tank simply moving causes a miss.
1 Like
In large scale, how much is that? A million pieces, two million? I don’t think they need to produce that much, dozens of units will be enough.
2 Likes
So you believe they are throwing these 3rd gen sights that they can’t produce in mass on missiles to be destroyed.
Comical.
On top of that I am fairly certain the Catherine XP is a second gen sight. Just as I am confident the SOSAN-U is a second gen sight. So what is your statement about that sight have to do with the 38MT having 3rd gen optics?
No most logical solution would be not throw the scarce thermal imager onto the front of a missile to be destroyed.
If that is the same one in the Challenger 1, Challenger 2 and TIALD then yes, should be gen 2 (why its only Gen 2 in the challenger 2 but Gen 1 in the Challenger 1 and TIALD in game is a matter for an entirely different topic)
5 Likes
Catherine FC not XP. Two separate imagers.
Follow the quoted message.