with that you are saying that gajin is using classified information to add stuff and breaking the law
they cant add it in those cases either
where did he say that
and if they are using classified stuff, i dont think they would have copy pasted the agm65 seeker
Im not saying gaijin is using classified docs. Im saying there are likely documents in archive that would prove the argument one way or the other, They are just not on the internet. Thats likely one of the reasons why gaijin retained a satellite office in Moscow for years after the move to Hungary. And why they enter into agreements with various governments to get access to those archives.
if it does exist I think it is more likely that it has to do with the tree consultant that made them copy the pars seekerhead (just an opinion)
KH-29 isn’t a valid replacement as it’s inferior in literally every single way.
You can’t really prove something is not real, especially with things like these.
Considering the missile is the same as KH-38ML but with IR guidance, the chances of it being real is very high.
Fake things exist in the game.
You still don’t understand how Gaijin handles fake stuff, don’t you ?
They can assume it’s created as 38ML is a fully operational missile but with a different guidance mode.
in that case they need to release the information they have stuff, but no matter what even if they continued working on it, until proven otherwise by you guys
no working version of the KH38MT exists and just declaring or imaginating it is wrong.
It is in your hand to prove it, until then the missle just doesnt exist in reality, no matter of mock ups or russia having developed IR missles of another kind before.
Non existince should be removed, the KH38MT is not a crucial piece of equipment and can be replaced by other types like the gps version or laser version. The MT version is not needed
Personally I think the missile is slated to replace the Kh-59 in its anti ship role. I expect Kh-59s current production line to be shuttered and Kh-38 take up its place except on the Su-57 where the 59MK2 will continue in place.
IR for high jamming environments and ARH for low jamming environments.
But should it and others be totally removed? That is the question
The onboard computing is the small device next to the seeker head in between it and LMUR
reasons you need to prove its real and we not its non existence
might be , might be not, but you need to prove that part. For all we know it works like taurus / aasm / storm shadow, seeker only activating on the last 2km for final approach against static targets,
In that case it works completly wrong and would need to be changed, but you dont know this because as of right now the missle doesnt exist
and are steadily getting removed for the exact reason
getting removed when possible, KH38MT is no need, replacements exists.
Typhoon works with laser brimstones, Su 30 will works with KH38MT
for which they dont know how its work and those cant be implemented right as a result should be removed
I’m going off of what he has put in his post.
u missing the point that the Maus is real
the vehicles like the tiger 10.5 , coerlian , panther 2. that chinese ifv have been removed for the exact reasons, they didnt exist
literaly works better then brimstones
“How am I supposed to seal club without automatic guidance 😢”
If you can dig up a doc from the RU MoD saying its canceled be my guest and forward it. Until then dealing in absolutes is a foolish endeavor. As it stands no one has put forward damning evidence in either direction in what over 3000 replies, just hypothesis at best derived from marketing material changes and speculation. That is to say not sufficient for advocating for removal.
And before you pull the “You cant prove a negative card” you can when its a government funded program for weapons creation. The barest minimum you would need is a meeting memo discussing said cancellation.
only Siths deal in absolutes
your problem not mine, i dont need to do anything
South America tech tree suggestion.
Not when gaijins policy is submit evidence of your claim so we can compare it to our own data and sources.