It’s max range max which actually determines the upper maximum lock range iirc, for example on the aim-9g:
“rangeBand0”: 5500.0,
“rangeBand2”: 8000.0,
“rangeBand3”: 8000.0,
“rangeBand7”: 1000.0,
“rangeMax”: 11000.0,
So a true maximum lock range of 11km, assuming conditions allow for it. It’s also why some missiles like the AAM-3 can get like 10km front aspect locks when the range bands say they should be limited to like 6. That being said, the range bands on AGMs is usually pretty close to their max range stat, ie the AGM-65G has a range band of 20km and a max of 24, so even if the variance allows for it it’s unlikely an AGM will significantly exceed it’s rangeband anyways, the exception being the KH-38MT due to it’s longer max range due to its ground lock range.
Its not, or atleast was not last I checked. I had submitted a bug report a few years back where, due to its absurdly high heat signature, the R-60MK was capable of locking an F-14A through over 30km of clouds in rear aspect, well beyond any of the ranges stated in its code. As stated, the range bands in the code are given for a preselected standardized target. Targets that deviate from this standard will cause the lock range to also vary. Maybe they changed how their code works since then, but I havent heard anything about that.
For those who doubt my claim about 30km+ rear aspect lock through clouds, heres the bug report along with one of the pics I didnt add to the report properly and cant be publicly seen:
Also, this whole convo is just massively off topic at this point. Could y’all please take the respective debates to the correct threads and come back to discussing the Kh-38MT please?
yes but do the videos shot it autonomously tracking with its onboard IIR system or is it being guided via data link from the helicopters tracking system as it is known to employ MITL guidance
I’ve seen the videos he’s referring to, they are definitely autonomously tracking the target after the gunner locks onto the IR signature of the vehicles.
They are. At least some of them, if they have IOG they can be launched outside of the seeker range, for example hellfire. If they lack IGO they are forced to be launched in LOBL, for example laser mavericks.
Maybe someone has already suggested that the Gaijins introduce the GBU-53/B StormBreaker? Or is it even worth suggesting?
This would be a great response to the introduction of the KH-38MT.
It’s MMW like Brimstone should be so if anything it will be locked to SAL only if added at all. It’s also unpowered so it is even easier to intercept with guns than the Brimstone. I think the US has better options.
Also there’s likely some limitations to the IR seeker present or at least there may be a debate on it like there was for AASM-HAMMER.
Like? Remember you do get 2x / 4x per station, so they can be massed. Sure if you need something to die other PGMs, JSOW, CBU’s or HARMs are better but the magazine depth it offers is definitely a step up in terms of F&F performance
It practically does it all, short of Capital ships though it is worth noting that seeker doesn’t identify, only classify targets as specified. and that due to it’s use of a Ram Air Turbine, range is effectively solely a function of release conditions, though in exchange takes a drag penalty.
and that the Warhead looks fairly similar to the AGM-114R’s so the effective radius against heavy armor isn’t great.
Well, Su-30SM probably shouldn’t keep the Kh-38ML either, as there seem to be no evidence that it can carry the targeting pod required for self designation …
funny thing is that the coelian got removed because it only existed as an mockup.
instead they added ost wind of which there isnt liabel proof it was ever built.
