more or less same seeker is just already wrong, IOG makes it much better at killing target behind cover, moving fast or hunting when lose lock
it has 25x zoom which mean thats its equal if not better than some TGP and its integrate directly on the missiles which mean you dont need a TGP to pixel hunt from 20km away
differences is speed, range, explosive mass and lock capability
this might be due to how gaijin implemented IOG
from what i have heard, when a missile switches to IOG it will still perfectly track you for howerver long the IOG works
so to get back to your example,
if you are in an SPAA and smoke the missile to force it into IOG it will still track you for a limited time and if you leave your smoke in that time frame the missile will “relock” you (technically it never lost lock)
1 Like
Spoiler
And before that we had S21s
And before that we had HVARs that behaved like rocket propelled bombs
Or the Ho 229 with full HVAP belts and unnerfed accuracy
Sensor FoV angle is 0.1°, so how big of an area an IIR AGM can reacquire a target in depends on its range. At 13 km it’s a circle with ~25 meters diameter.
Unfortnately you have to hurry to move to get out of the splash radius in time. KH’s are incredibly fast and you really can’t pop out smoke and wait for too long.
1 Like
Eh, you’re right if both are fired at higher altitudes, but the maverick is pretty disappointing at lower altitudes. At 1km atltitude launching at mach 1 the mav can not reach 12km (roughly the nominal IIR tracking range). Maybe with a loft it can about just, but there’s some issues with manual lofting post lock right now with TV/IIR weapons, making it annoying.
Anyway, this just tells you how bad the terminal energy is on the mav, if it’s going after moving targets, it’s even worse. So for the lower altitudes/lower launch speeds, range actually becomes a factor. It’s not the end of the world, but it does come into play from time to time.
So basically I’d say the difference in range (due to energy/speed difference I guess) does matter, because the Mav is basically living on the edge in terms of range, whilst the Kh-38 isn’t and allows it to basically always reach its target under any circumstance.
2 Likes
No problem, there’s more in the post I made if you’re interested Vehicle Performance at Top Tier Second Edition
I do plan on doing it again a week or two after the update is released.
6 Likes
Its not up to chance if you’re firing at a stationary target, and with how fast they move, the target doesn’t have to be stationary for long for the missile to get within its seeker lock range.
Versus SAM systems that tend/need to be stationary, it effectively has the full 40km range, well beyond the range of any SAM in-game and most likely any of the upcoming SAM systems as well.
Also, as @Morvran pointed out, along with myself many times, most AGM’s in-game do not have the option to fire from standoff ranges, while the AASM and Kh-38MT do. This likely means that the CAS problem gaijin is trying to solve with the upcoming SAM systems will likely get worse, as Russia and France will become the only nations with viable CAS at top tier, seeing as they are the only 2 nations with munitions that can outrange the likely upcoming SAM systems.
7 Likes
Are you seriously justifying the Kh-38MT to be in the game when there’s much more balanced (yet powerful) alternative that Russia can have?
The Kh-38MT is massively overpowered not solely because of it’s FnF, but because it is paired with a ridiculously good flight performance.
At first I would’ve understood (not agree) with your position that the kh-38MT needs to be in the game because Russia has no other IR AGM option available. But when given a choice to replace the the Kh-38MT with a balanced option, you only agree with it for the Su-30?
A “poor” platform doesn’t excuse you to get the most broken agm in the game
I honestly can’t tell if you’re rage baiting or not
13 Likes
If gaijin would change some lines of code and actually fix AGM65s they would be pretty good too.
1 Like
There’s far more evidence for the Kh-38MT existing than there is for the Kh-25MTP.
Replacing a possibly fake missile with a definitely fake missile is not a good idea.
If short, starstreak covers all the weaknesses that default apache has. Plus hellfire damage buff was solid.
If long, you can read this. Of course it’s outdated and half of it needs to be rewritten, but the basics haven’t changed.
1 Like
The key though, is that if Gaijin decides that a fake weapon is required for “balance” then they should at least pick one that has relatively similar performance to the AGM-65 rather than the one that is 3-4x better.
In an extremely niche way, especially as they can ONLY be used vs light tanks/SPAA. It fixes nothing vs tanks. You also only get 4 and doing so reduces your CMs significantly.
Maybe, but still doesnt change the fact Hellfire is much weaker than the Vikhrs
The Kh-38MT is not 3-4 times better than the AGM-65D. It’s certainly better, but the AGM-65D available in greater numbers on many of the aircraft that carry it, and more importantly can be brought with other weapons.
The Su-34 can carry 6 Kh-38MT’s and 1 FAB-3000 UMPK, whereas the F-15E can carry 6 AGM-65D’s and 5 GBU-31’s (or 20 SDB’s, depending on your preference).
It’s also premature to call the Kh-38MT fake, as it’s very much unclear if the weapon made it to a functioning state at any point.
1 Like
vs ifv, sam, helis, planes.
There’s nothing to fix. Apache don’t have problems vs tanks
In general, yes. In the context of purely killing tanks, they are quite on par after the damage buff. For all other targets teapache has starstreak so hellfire’s low utility vs non-mbt is irrelevant.
1 Like
There is no evidence and what evidence there is suggests its been canceled
1 Like
Boy this thread keeps on giving 😄
I agree it was probably canceled, but it is less clear to what extent it was prototyped before this.
Neither side in this spat has found great evidence. People who think it exists point to mockups and the existence of the Kh-38ML, people who think it doesn’t exist point to a lack of visual evidence and edits made on the manufacturer’s website. One does not have to be a deep skeptic to find both arguments uncompelling.
Proving a negative is nearly impossible.
they have auto aim irl