I thought it just common sense. I’m pretty sure I mentioned it once or twice.
SM3 should be below other dominant jets as 4x FnFs don’t really make up for everything else it’s lacking. It’s basically a 10.0 frame with R-73 and KHs.
As for SU-34, just because you are supersonic and have ARHs doesn’t mean you’re remotely competitive against other jets, especially in a GRB setting.
It doesn’t even have HMD, so if you are getting clapped by it in your Rafale or EFT, I’m sorry but that’s on you.
That thing is two BR steps below top tier in Air and even then it’s not great to play, so trying to sell it as something that’s competitive in the air is hilarious.
I mean tbf, assuming the seeker actually exist. It could definitely be a Gen 3 thermals, it being gen 3 means it is expensive meaning Russia could never deploy it on an operational scale, hence why it could be in storage of whatever airfield Russia test their weapons from. But then again, they are using LMURs to scale, and I have no idea what the Matrix resolution on that thing is
And that’s just your opinion.
Only place where it isn’t fine is on 30SM.
That’s just your guess
Only place where it was fine was on the SU-25SM3, Su-30/Su-34 would be completly fine with Kh-29
1 Like
It’s mostly me wanting to learn major languages so I’m not locked out of communicating with the rest of the world. I also want to be able to read stuff from the Western periphery to get other perspectives about the world.
Afaik, the LMUR is not actually being deployed in large numbers due to prohibitive cost per munition. It has seen action though, with footage from its seeker being readily available, which is more than can be said for the Kh-38MT, and just another reason why its REALLY suspicious we haven’t seen any Kh-38MT use or seeker footage. The Russians haven’t even bothered claiming its been used a single time afaik, despite the fact they just about always post footage when they use a new weapon.
The quality of the seeker on the LMUR seems rather horrid though, only being able to ID a target basically on impact, which is likely why its commonly used vs stationary structure. The 2 way datalink likely helps it a lot with covering for that perceived concern, being able to guide the missile the whole way in and adjust course. Its also possible the seeker footage we are seeing isnt to the quality its actually seen irl tho.
1 Like
It’s quite common for footages to have some form of post-processing to actually mask actual capabilities of stuff. I doubt Russia is any different in that regards
I mean I’m just guessing, but it’s definitely too expensive to even use in the 1st place, and my personal copium is the seeker is French and they probably only have enough for testing with further purchases of the thermals after Russian MoD (or a foreign country) is final in purchasing it. Well that is before sanctions anyways
1 Like
The vehicle in game is real but it’s not Zerstörer 45, at least not in its intended form
1 Like
If there’s no pictures of the weapon being mounted operationally on an aircraft and then pretending that the weapon exists just because it was on a brochure means Gaijin broke their own rules of implementation. It shouldn’t have been added in the first place regardless if you believe there is a grey area of certainty that it even exists. It should be removed until there is proper evidence because right now there isn’t.
1 Like
Against the rules? How do you think SRAAM appeared on the Harrier GR.1 and PGM on the Tornado? And many, many others. It’s funny that you are only touched by the Kh-38.
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
I’m not too well versed on the history of both those munitions but…
Actual pictures of the things on aircrafts are pretty easy to find, unlike the Kh-38MT, which has never been pictured on an aircraft (or in any functional capacity afawk)
7 Likes
Pgms literaly have been sold tp UAE and been used in interactions 😂
5 Likes
I think others have already delved on that topic and answered those questions earlier. I’d rather stay on topic in this thread. This is a much more pertinent issue to how Gaijin implements obscure vehicles or equipment without proper material.
1 Like
LOL. One photo with the Hunter, on which the SRAAM was tested. Another Harrier T with mass-dimensional mockups of missiles. Where are the photos “pictures of the weapon being mounted operationally” on the Harrier GR.1?
This is the Tornado GR.1, on which the PGMs were tested (the only one of all). How did the PGMs appear on the Tornado GR.4, if they were not even accepted into service by the RAF?
Jesus you are grasping for straws.
We are talking about the existence of the ammunition for the vehicles. They did in matter exist and work.
Gajin adds stuff tp vehicles whe they have been cleared to carry them. The tornado gr 4 might not have used them in RAF service but it was cleared to carry and use them.
This cant be done with the KH38MT when the missle doesnt exist in the first place.
Like i said grasping at straws to argue stuff because u dont find real examples
7 Likes
You need to look at the manufacturer’s website, not the exporter’s.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.