The Kh-38MT may not actually exist

It’s often fairly difficult to tell exactly where deficiencies lie in any given person’s understanding of the issue, let alone their level of technical literacy regarding a topic or papers and their willingness to go and then bridge them (or have the time to do so), themselves even if I provide direct links to relevant assets to do so, also to some degree not everyone is willing to even accept any explanation provided and will challenge it regardless of supplied references and sources, which is why I constantly link backwards for the lay third-party to judge for themselves (should they wish) the level to which I am will to go to to show sources.

To some degree I’d expect and want some push back on issues so I can refine explanations and find reasons and further avenues to go looking for bridging sources to strengthen arguments and gradually expand the pool of excerpts that I myself know about and can then further reference.

For example How would you even go about explaining Control-loop topology to the average WT forum user, it just gets into the weeds far to quickly, or otherwise into university level math that many aren’t even able to conceptualize, due to lacking five or six critical layers of understanding to even approach the simplified block / flow diagrams.


When writing the report itself, I hit the character limit four times over (and source limit, for direct submission, had to use a zip file) for the bug report portal and repeatedly had to make recursive executive calls as to which major group of arguments to focus on and remove others that had less evidence, more tenuous links, or otherwise less relevant in order to make things significantly more concise to free up headroom in the character count so I couldn’t actually reference, or cover all of the contributing areas I wanted it to.

Much of the lack of flow is solely caused of multiple concurrent re-writes, and about 85% of the relevant content of the report being on the cutting room floor somewhere due to the reduction of scope.

I get it but, to some degree I’m limited by what sources & excerpts I have on hand and the areas where I feel that the Article explaining Gaijin’s reasoning is weakest, or makes jumps in the logic compared to the weight of evidence to hand that can be directly linked to the FIM-43, -92 or Igla, and this be self evidently directly relevant, instead of being imposed as relevant by those on-high.

Also I don’t have the time or drive to cover all potential avenues, And I doubt that people really want my specific interpretation what is important without at least some way to see for themselves within a technical discussion, because as evident I will minimize some aspects simply because I feel I don’t have what I need to prove things concretely, or at least without something to back up my position, or become to circular where new evidence keep being introduced progressively instead of reaching consensus as to what has already been provided.

7 Likes

I get that it’s difficult to be concise and pick where to start, but Gaijin’s entire argument in that devblog and the resulting ingame Stinger/Mistral overload values hinge on assuming a (drastically simplified) aerodynamically stable missile, having the control surfaces deflect to their maximum value each half turn, equating control surface deflection and airframe AoA, and then using the integral of the resulting fully rectified sine acceleration profile as ratio between maximum overload in the maneuvering plane and average overload. Showing that Stinger/Mistral use an aerodynamically unstable/minimally stable design and that

  • their AoA does not return to neutral without active input (Fig. 6e, 95)

  • the pitch rate and control surface deflection to maintain AoA are far smaller than the one necessary to attain it

blows that up instantly. There is no ratio between maximum overload in the maneuvering plane and average overload for a sufficiently aerodynamically unstable rolling airframe missile with closed loop autopilot. Everything after that falls under the “neat to know” category.

It took me half an hour to understand how what you wrote contradicts the devblog. I saw similar things (either by you or other people, I don’t remember) numerous times before, thought “this doesn’t contradict the devblog at all” and dismissed it. I wouldn’t expect the people that work the bug reports to be more thorough/patient, if they were that devblog would’ve never seen the light of day.
To be fair, it’s hard to blame them, most of what they see is bogus.

Looks like we’ve officially broken 2000 votes.

@Smin1080p_WT hate to bug you, but is there ANY statement from gaijins end at this point? Any smidgen of hope this is even being looked at?

24 Likes

Looked at, ignored i’m guessing. There’s simply no way that this can break almost 6k replies and 2k votes and pass under the radar.

2 Likes

its also shifted to 85-15 from the 83-17 it was at for ages

2 Likes

cuz they dont really have any knowledge on these either
i bet 90% of devs just work because “its my job” and 10% would have some kind of enthusiastic to their work
600 devs across the entire department

1 Like

I mean, it’s a job, not a hobby. The moderators are in fact volunteers, but not the devs. Also some of the work aren’t even done but Gaijin but other smaller workshops.

No point in asking anymore at this point.
If they wanted it gone, it would’ve been gone already.

More likely it would be removed in a major patch, which is when changes to aircraft loadouts usually happen.

They would also look for alternatives to introduce in the same patch, so as to not disrupt the loadout too much.
The devs often buff and nerf stuff in a whim, but I don’t remember changes similar to the removal of an entire weapon class on vehicles. We often see the opposite when new armement is added and br adjusted accordingly (aka fox3 introduction), but not the opposite. At least not on something as major as that

They still have the Kh-29TD though, which is just as good as the AGM-65s

5 Likes

Do they already have it as a loadout ?
Anyway, I personally doubt the devs will do anything about the 38MT personally. It brings so much players in the Russian tree paying for premiums short term (even if there’s an impact long term), that it would not be worth for them to do anything

1 Like

Yeah, the aircraft that have Kh-38 also have Kh-29

Not to mention KAB-500 and KAB-1500.

1 Like

Are these not just TV? According to the wiki they are and TV seekers are horrible in any conditions that arent clear day. Not really close the the AGM-65s

With a targeting pod it’s alright.

Not really because youll only get a point lock and not a track lock. It makes quite a difference when the vehicles can move so quickly

I’m not going to be complaining if Russia can no longer take over matches with a blatantly OP weapon. The Kh-29 is still better than many other nations get.

2 Likes

Only germany would have worse munitions, with their brimstones. Every other nation either gets IR mavs/bombs. or is also stuck on the TV seekers of the Kh-29 (only china)

China doesn’t

Read the rest of my sentence lmao