Of course, many sites say that there is TV/IR detection. But in fact, we have no data on these containers, nor do we have data on the cameras located inside the complex, and given that there is no cutout for the front and side hemispheres, we can say that it is designed to detect targets directly under the aircraft, which makes it even more useless than the useless Mercury container, which uses the Hod thermal imager model
Yeah, but with mode 2 apparently so unbelievably OP that it makes KH-38MT look no more OP than a bullpup. Typhoon would be a good alternative
2 Likes
You can see rectangular window from below.
I have also some pictures from Su-34 which looks like thermal image (but is possible that its only contrast TV). I would post it but I cant because from recent conflict image. I can post to DM if you want.
Because aircraft and tanks aren’t equal.
Back then their standards were different. It is a very old vehicle.
It is! However, the cat is out of the bag and it’s not going back in.
Alright so when can we expect the J7W2? After all, the airframe was very much real (there’s even footage of it taxiing around under its own power) and jet engines weren’t something alien to imperial japan, they had several. So by those standards it should be added.
Nobody has been able to prove it’s not zero. And unlike the F-20, nobody has even seen the damn thing in flight. It’s not in the manufacturer’s website either.
There is also precisely zero data, subjective or otherwise, on exactly how good the seeker is. This topic only exists because OP wanted to know if the Kh-38MT could even track tanks or if it was like the recently added Penguin ASM.
1 Like
meh, britain isnt allowed to have anything better than russia either way
Yeah… im not looking forward to 5km max lock ranges on the ASRAAM and R-74 being able to lock at 20km
1 Like
whats the effective range of the ASRAAM again? like 15km?
According to Sekrit soviet documents about 10km.
According to MBDA about 25+km
According to secondary sources 50km
Depending where you ask, from 20 to 50.
Most likely, this is just a contrasting picture of the sighting system (a photo of which has been around for a long time). And in the current conditions, the Su-34 does not use the sighting system at all and it is installed as ballast (except for operations in the Black Sea)
I can send them to you and we can assess.
I don’t have an opinion formed as I’m not familiar with it’s capabilities.
Take an ASRAAM and make it shoot ground vehicles not air vehicles.
But if you have no issue with a mockup weapon like KH-38MT then Typhoon should be just fine.
1 Like
They are both vehicles in this game.
It still passed through while others got denied for being fake. You either add everything or only add real things, without any exceptions.
True.
Fakes are a years old mistake that are never going away, at least in terms of people complaining about Gaijin rejecting their vehicles due to lack of evidence.
Who knows, it might come if Gaijin deems it’s a worthy addition.
Let’s assume it’s 0.
It’s still pretty much more realistic than many fakes we had in the game and is quite similar to 16AJ.
Gaijin uses the same seeker on all top tier IR AGMs.
How fast is it ?
What seeker does it use and how far away it could lock ground targets ?
How many of those can be attached to the plane ?
su-57 fly before kh-38mt is even relatively real would tell you sth
So sad! Ain’t important to the fact Russia was the first to get a proper counter.
Also it didn’t matter that Atakas had less range than what AH-1Z had, they still outranged everything ground based til 1.89 (atp heli-based AIM-9s were also pretty bad).
I wonder why you didn’t mention that heli based 9Ms back then were also utter poo tho ))
Cus Igla’s were unironically considered better.
And the AH-1Z was added with 1.81
So was the Mi-35M, can ya stop trying to whataboutism already? Bringing up “b-b-but this other vehicle…!” isn’t going to change the fact Russia in 1.87 was the only one capable of actually keeping other helis down, and its own heli in the air via the existence of Tunguska.
Arguing against this fact will just make you appear less genui- oh wait you’ve been defending Russia however you can and with every deflection and logical fallacy known to man and aliens alike. Nevermind.
8 Likes
Very (regular ASRAAM is well over Mach 3)
Same as ASRAAM. I’ve seen 10 km engagement range mentioned somewhere I think.
Three per launcher. I guess up to 6 launchers per plane (same as Brimstone)
so 10km reliable, 25km on something slow or unknowing and 50km head on
Gaijin’s consultant for japan at the time made a mistake and claimed this configuration was built, when it in fact was not. The real Ho-Ri was partially built and looked very different.
So while now we know it’s fake, it wasn’t so at the time.
The swedish T-80 and Mi-28 are never going away from the tech tree. Sweden looked at them once so they got added.
It isn’t. For the F-16AJ we know all of its components worked as tested on YF-16 (and even many not in-game such as landing gear door Sparrows); we have no such evidence for the Kh-38MT.
Even if this is true, the 38MT benefits from much higher speed and having IOG.
2 Likes