its interesting because even stuff as obscure as the Kh-25MT and MTP have real images, but the 38MT doesnt
12 Likes
Its not what my entire post is based on either, its just supporting evidence. The fact they use the old missile model from the 2009 mockup in the 2021 brochure doesnt help your point tho.
There are images of the SALH (obviously) and ive seen images of what I assume to be the GPS only head on an aircraft on the ground. Thats 2/4 seeker options that were originally offered having actual images of them on jets.
From my (limited) understanding, the Grom-E1 and Grom-E2 are developments of the Kh-38MK (satellite guidance only head) that have since been photographed and used in combat, while the ML appears to have been the only combined guidance option that actually went on to be actually developped and stated to be used.
There is no aingle point I’m stating to be a 'smoking gun" that the Kh-38MT fell through and likely was never developped, its a combination of all the available info. As some ppl have said, its impossible to prove a negative, so I cant (and have never said) that the Kh-38MT absolutely never existed, just that the level of evidence that it has existed operationally is equivalent to that of other weapon systems that have been removed from the game.
I’d also like to reiterate that the Kh-38MT is absolutely horrible for the game, the only people who like it are those abusing its power to pad their stats by abusing how overpowered it is compared to all other AGM’s and SAM systems available. Its not like the game would be worse off if it was removed pending confirmation of its actual functional existence.
8 Likes
I’m not arguing anything about if it should be in the game, for what it’s worth. I don’t play tanks because the game mode has become increasingly unfun over the last ten years. I hardly play air for the same reason.
For that reason alone I’d like it to be gone, but I’d like a lot of the game to change in ways that the devs seem to have no interest in pursuing.
I think your point about it falling below other standards is absolutely valid. I’m more talking if it existed at all or not, because that was the discussion above.
Sorry for the confusion.
2 Likes
Yeah im not accusing you of anything sorry for the misunderstanding.
Im just saying theres a lot of evidence that suggests the Kh-38MT never left the conceptual/mockup stage, with no single point the whole thread is depending on.
Imo, the mix of this info, the fact the evidence of the Kh-38MT’s existence never surpassing that of weapon systems that have been removed from the game already, and balance consideration should be more than enough to remove it from the game, but it is just my opinion based on all currently available evidence at the end of the day.
This is why I provided all available information in the thread, and imo have been more than fair towards considering the information provided by those who believe it “does” exist and should stay in the game, but I’ve yet to see even the most basic of evidence provided by them that its gone beyond just a concept and mockup.
The furthest those who believe the Kh-38MT exist have gotten was likely disproving that there hasnt been a mockup since 2009, with a likely mockup in 2017 as well. Thats not proof of its existence, that just proof of a second mockup yanno?
2 Likes
I believe it’s very likely that they built at least one seeker for T&E. the advantages of a system like that (comparable in a very broad sense to SLAM) are evident, but the cost/benefit may not be there, and that was likely determined at some point during development.
Do you know any Russians/Russian weapons researchers who may be able to dig further? They told us not to tag Stepanovich but I feel like his skills would be incredibly useful here.
1 Like
I mean, threads open for any person who has proof of a functional Kh-38MT to provide said info, and consdering how popular the threads been, and how certain pro-russian players interactions with it, I’d be suprised if someone who cares about the Kh-38MT being ingame isnt already looking into it.
11 Likes
How image recognition works for IIR missiles isn’t necessarily by using image recognition to cross reference with a database. For a lot of IIR missiles, what they do is instead take an initial “image” the seeker takes of the target, then tries to continue tracking it, looking for the shape with the minimum difference to the last frame (or average of last frames), to use as the target.
While it is true with more modern stuff you could keep lists of every target if you had sufficient data, that data is both hard to come by, difficult to efficiently process in large amounts, and can have issues in certain view angles where data is missing. As such, particularly for air to air missiles, they use the prior described method. This is also similar to how other optical seekers, like those used on some maverick variants work iirc.
1 Like
And you also want said data to be stored in a device that can survive -50º to 100+º celcius and dozen of Gs without loosing any data in the process. That alone discards most if not all commercial systems, and when you go specialized like that, you definitely aren’t talking in hundreds of gigs
An SD card actually isn’t that far off on the temps nor the G-loads. A SD card with industrial ratings have a stated operational temperature range of -40ºC to +85ºC, can handle up to 500g of shock and likely wouldn’t be that much harder to design specialized for missiles and be produced for that sole purpose.
Edit:
They are also available in Terabytes of size, i found bulk order online of the 512GB costing ~150€ a piece if you buy more than 50 of them, and the 1.5TB ones cost ~550€ a piece if you buy more than 10 of them.
Shock rating is very different to the sustained G forces something can sustain. If you look at military papers for G force ratings for components they usually express the amount they can withstand with regards to frequency and direction of the force.
All this being said, yeah honestly off the shelf components are good enough to be used, the real issue with them is their susceptibility to interference in comparison to specialized equipment means that they’d be less ideal then specialized equipment. Again though back to the thing i said earlier about this not really being how most missile based IIR systems function.
that is a problem that can be solved with proper RF-shielding of the components
Very true, looking at the datasheet it’s 25g continuous bend/torque/bump with shock/vibration of peak to peak 1000g (and no, that isn’t a zero to much x) ).
Not really there either, Regular old industrial microSD cards are surprisingly solid in almost all regards.
Here is the datasheet for a random one i just found: (https://www.mouser.se/pdfdocs/S-45u_fact_sheet.pdf) Now this specific one doesn’t mention magnetic/RF shielding but i’ve seen several ones that do.
I think in general many underestimate how rugged things can actually be built on a large non-expensive scale today.
but are there that many advantages?
assumming the seeker functions like the one found on an AGM65D there are but if it is more similar to how the seeker on an IR AASM is IRL there are fewer as the main benefit over a GPS guided version is resistance to GPS jamming
Mistral SATCP and Stinger would say otherwise
14 Likes
It doesn’t, but the differences between the Correlation, and Contrast seeker methods were only implemented for a very short time before being removed from the game since for the implied target set Contrast is in effect superior since it can’t drop a track without outside interference.
The advantage of a Correlation seeker is that they can effectively hit a “Zero” contrast target or specific point on a target by using the rest of the scene to set up the intercept, the issue is that if the scene changes too much from when the target is handed off the missile the track is lost, which for static or semi-mobile targets is good enough. and subsequently why it gets used on missiles (larger SAP / GPHE warheads) where the target set is bunkers infrastructure and fortifications.
Contrast Seekers effectively work orthogonally and use the defined contrast edge of the target with the surrounding scene to attack the centroid of the target, as such if the target point has no contrast (as with a zero contrast target) it fails to lock on (e.g. a point on the ground) and so needs to be re-cued. of course the downside here is that not all points can be targeted, and the point of impact is set by the target geometry and as such may not be most effective.
Though being Maverick & other ordnance that reused the seeker, specific. There is some configurations that also have Correlation tracking modes (confirmed to be present on the -65F &, -65G & -65K & GBU-15 /AGM -130) specifically for Ship & large facility attack, by the maintaining the offset from the point of aim from the centroid of the target in each axis independently, as established target handoff at launch to strike a specified point by the pilot, not the centroid.
2 Likes
my point wasn’t necessarily correlation vs contrast seeker rather if the theoretical seeker for kh38mt would have only used its IR system to compare to a target uploaded before launch and provide minimal correction to adjust for IOG drift in an area with GPS jamming similar to how the AASM has recently been found to operate
Then where are the countless western ordnance examples that we have actually have detailed performance, test, and operational histories for and yet are missing for “some reason”.
Unlike a mockup sitting at a trade show.
The problem is not the missile itself in all honesty. It’s the double standard that only exists for “some reason”.
22 Likes
look at this, theres even drastically differing sources on KH38 so it really does feel like gaijin pulled stuff out of thin air to add them Community Bug Reporting System
Arguably the problem is the missile. Its literally the best AGM in-game and its not even close. Even the devs admit its a problem (not just it, CAS at top tier, but its the most obvious case of something blatantly broken). Removing it for balance reasons would be entirepy justified imo, but the fact that its broken AND likely never existed? Thats an easy slam dunk.
That being said, it is somewhat odd that the missile was added despite literally no real proof of its existence beyond a brochure and a mockup, I’d assume gaijin would put a little work into their research, and it is fully possible they have actual evidence, but it also is possible they have no evidence.
I hadnt gone into researching the missile mentionned on a brochure with the assumption that it wasnt ever completed either, it was just the result of all the available info after having done so.
2 Likes
well, only because they let it be
1 Like