They use them on Mirage 2000 and F-16. Never seen UAE Tornado with PGM.
It has been mounted and fired we have shown that to you. The backwards compability exists and stays.
You werent able to prove the same
Well, bit of a fun fact about that.
The manufacturer website stopped showing military products a while back (no clue exactly when since the archive links for it are all broken starting around late 2022 it seems), and is just fully inaccessible now.
On the other hand, I have picked up an archived version of its catalogue entry for the Kh-38ME, and the info is actually neatly split down the middle.
The 3 main things of note are;
- The munition is still noted with the “E” designation, indicating it to be for export (suggesting looking at the actual exporter website is valid)
- MLE/MTE are noted as options (point towards MTE not being a dropped program yet at the time?)
- The mockup used for the MTE isn’t the MAKS 2017 mockup, its the MAKS 2009 one. It doesn’t have anything resembling the izdeliye 65MT seeker, with the 9-B-7738 seeker seen on the MAKS 2009 mockup. (points towards it not having left the mockup stage)
So the manufacturers website doesnt actually tell us much of anything regarding this discussion, firstly because its ~3 years out of date, and secondly because it has points in favour of each camp.
If anything, I’d suggest it actually points even more in favour of the Kh-38MT NOT being real, since;
- Despite the manufacturer using the export designation, the exporter isnt mentioning the Kh-38MTE as an option, suggesting it cannot (yet?) be purchased.
- Even the manufacturer doesn’t have a newer model than the MAKS 2009 mockup to use for their brochure (we already knew this cuz they used the MAKS 2009 mockup for the CGI design on the 2021 brochure I provided in the original post, but this just corroborates things)
7 Likes
Covering their ass against Harriers, you said it yourself buddy.
Dying to Pantsir in your 14.0 jet is like dying to Su-34, pure skill issue. Sorry that I had to tell you this way.
Gr4 already has FnFs + 15 Brimstones, what more do you want ?
You can’t prove it. So the Kh-38MT has as much right to exist as the SRAAM on the Harrier and the PGM on the Tornado.
1 Like
yet Brimstone which combat proven and have mmW FnF still lack it was designed for in the game
but KH-38ML that at this point probably not even real at this point.
Cope.
SRAAM on the Harrier
Cope.
Now where’s your proof of Kh-38MT being carried by Su-25SM3/Su-34/Su-30SM?
11 Likes
Can we keep this on-topic instead of arguing about the PGM and SRAAM again please?
2 Likes
Read it again
He probably means the kugelblitz. But there are pictures of the turret and shipping forms for it iirc. So not fake aswell just not good documented because germany got fucked from all sides (many german projects in 1944 and 1945 have that problem).
Spoiler
Or he means the ostwind 2, but the problem with the ostwind 2 is that gaijin modeled the dual flak 37 wrong with are not horizontal but vertical. So more or less a bug than a false vehicle
Spoiler
Desperate
The vehicle we have ingame existed aswell but not under the name zerstörer. The möbelwagen was a testbed in general for flak mounts including the quad 30mm
That’s just moving the goalpost 'cus you’re unable to prove 38MTs existence and discarding provided evidence on the basis of grasping at straws at how the variant of the aircraft isn’t entirely correct (again, pylons are the exact same between them).
Fun fact: Tornado GR.1 and GR.4 have the exact same pylons (one is an upgrade of the other)… so yes, the backwards compatibility exists, you’ll have to prove that it doesn’t if you wanna claim that GR.4 cannot carry PGMs. Good luck.
So what I’ve got of you so far is “I can’t prove nothing, but I’ll argue anyways because I can’t have my favorite nation possibly nerfed”. Truly desperate.
4 Likes
Everybody mad af when the missiles are not going to be removed anyway.
I’m not holding my breath on gaijin removing the missile. I think its the right thing to do, but I have doubts gaijin will do it.
I’m more interested in them either providing new evidence the thing actually exists, or not doing so and admitting the missile is likely fake but they dont feel like removing it.
Would be pretty funny to me if an angry Rafale fangirl trying to prove “French supremacy” in military technology player eventually lead to the discovery that a russian air to ground missile was not in fact real. I’d hope they mentioned that fact on the wiki article lol
2 Likes
You guys already got an answer on this line of discussion, Idk why you’re bringing it up again
Fun fact: one pylon is not enough to use a missile. GR.4 is upgrade of GR.1 which (except for one experimental aircraft) could not use PGM. What kind of backward compatibility are we talking about? I have not heard of Tornado GR 1 being modified to use PGM.
The Kh-38ML and Kh-38MT are identical missiles with different seekers. You’ll have to prove that it doesn’t if you wanna claim that Su-30 cannot carry Kh-38MT.
You’d have to prove the MT even exists before you can prove the Su-30 can carry it, and instead you’re here arguing off-topic subjects non-stop and wasting everyones time.
6 Likes
Can we please stay on topic, the topic is not about other weapons or other vehicles its just about KH-38MT. Whataboutism is not only dumb, its off topic.
18 Likes
What is this line of thought even? All the pylons are the same, as they all have the exact same wiring - if one can use it, so can the others. Do you know how this even works? You’re just wasting people’s time here by arguing off-topics instead of trying to prove 38MT exists.
The Kh-38ML and Kh-38MT are identical missiles with different seekers.
ML exists, MT doesn’t, simple difference.
You’ll have to prove that it doesn’t if you wanna claim that Su-30 cannot carry Kh-38MT.
Non-existence is the default state until proven otherwise. Now get looking for proof that MT exists ))
6 Likes