“Normal” GNSS modules are not “active” nor “homing”
So it’s possible by “Active satellite navigation” and “Active homing device” they mean something more than just regular passive GNSS guidance for the MKE …
And if you agree that the old brochure is very poorly worded then it doesn’t prove anything since by “inertial” they could also mean “inertial + satellite” (And just worded it poorly) just like in the video …
tbf
give it more drag coefficient to make it closer to avg cruise speed
gen 2 thermal and 15x zoom(which is still better than 65D btw)
limit 4 on su-34(brochure mockups) and 0 kh-38 at all on su-30sm(since there isnt any proof of it, even 38ML)
then i think its good enough
Okay, is it functional? Why isn’t it mentioned on their site anymore? What more do you have other than a brochure image showing it only mounted. That doesn’t prove that its functioning.
you do realize its literally just a matter of removing the missile trail right? aim9m NEVER had a single problem of its smoke trail appearing, the chaparral was clearly on purpose.
and this conversation is offtopic now its pointless to continue it.
Yes, but given how they require proof of carriage for other planes (and not just any missile, but actual live missiles; E.g. in the case of A-10C and triple AGM-65 next to the TGP), automatically giving them to every new top tier Russian plane without any proof is somewhat unjustified …