The Kh-38MT may not actually exist

[_Fantom2451]

Inert means no explosive warhead

[Zannafrancy12]

i actually think gaijin shoul relax on some of their requirements personally, but as i already said before we’re 7.6k post deep and there still isnt any good prood, we got extremely new weapons like kh-69 which have actually already seen combat and there are numerous pictures of it.

for kh38 we got two pictures one of a mockup up and one of a brochures that as far as i understand we cant even get our hands on.
you can strap a non functional product on a rail nothing prevents that which is why a single picture is far from enough evidence of its existance. i literally dont see why there is so much friction. russia operates viable replacements, things like kh38ml already are ingame and strong.

[ItsGaryy]

RU site also doesn’t list the MTE or any other variant other than the MLE. Only the EN site has it listed. Inconsistent data.

One picture from 2017? and one from a 2024 brochure? Yet this missile has never been showcased at any EXPO event since the 2017 mockup. Only the MLE.

[ron_23]

inert missiles are a production missile without the warhead and fuel so it is safe for training and in this case expos

they also list it as a seperate “sub”-variant of the KH-31P in this case

[sudo_su1]

@SwingfireOP

But… they don’t accept the manufactuers word.

The bug reports are littered with “we don’t believe”

I mean … It kinda depends …

Of course if a manufacturer makes obviously impossible claims, yes, it doesn’t make sense to take their word

But sure, I know sometimes/often they deny reports without justification …

(And that’s not even the worst of it … Sometimes they just ignore the reports and leave them in “accepted / forwarded” state for years without any answer or action)

[MotorolaCRO]

I benefit in what way ?

[sudo_su1]

@PercussionCap

RU site for rosoboronexport actually claims this:

I have already answered this:

@sudo_su1

It doesn’t mean there are two variants
It only means it doesn’t strictly need the GNSS guidance (I.e. in a GNSS-denied or spoofed environment it can still work by disabling the GNSS guidance)

GNSS is provided by the “base module”

@sudo_su1

Just look at my screenshot

What do you see in the subtitle/voice over?

“Compartment with an inertial satellite control system”

Now what do you see in the graphics?

“INS + Equipment compartment”

Where’s the mention of GNSS?

Why the subtitle/voice over says “Inertial + Satellite” but the graphic only shows “INS” with no mention of GNSS?

Because as I explained in my report, that’s what they mean by “INS” here.
They just make no mention of it because it’s not very necessary to mention it …

[PercussionCap]

That’s taking a lot of assumptions that we can’t prove.

[sudo_su1]

@_Fantom2451

Inert means no explosive warhead

And no motor propellant

[ron_23]

the KH-38 family of missiles are advertised as being modular, with the modular part being the seeker
it would make zero sense to have 2 sepereate production lines for the booster section of the missile

[MrBombastic8]

no

[PercussionCap]

@ron_2303

with the modular part being the seeker

They are specifically advertising modular warheads right now.

[ron_23]

there you go

[ItsGaryy]

lol

“with the modular part being the seeker”

[Flame2512]

@sudo_su1

But with all weapons and especially with more modern ones it pretty much boils down to taking the manufacturer/country’s word …

Unless you want Gaijin to order one of each weapon and test them in-house …

I’m not arguing that the stats are wrong or should not be used.

ron_2303 keeps arguing that the the fact that the brochure has stats for the seeker proves that the seeker existed. I’m just pointing out that It is entirely normal for companies to advertise planned or predicted stats for hardware that does not exist. So it is completely wrong to claim that the existence of stats prove the existence of the seeker.

[_Fantom2451]

They in fact do, purpose of inert missile is to cause no damage

[DevilO6]

Me, when “no damage” inert missile turns my leg into a pancake after succumbing to gravity and impacting it.

[Zannafrancy12]

you sure its kh69? i think its kh101

[sudo_su1]

@PercussionCap

That’s taking a lot of assumptions that we can’t prove.

You are not looking at the screenshot

For them INS means INS + GNSS
So sometimes they say “Inertial + satellite” and sometimes they omit mentioning the satellite.

Spoiler

As for the ROE website, just like @ron_2303 said it doesn’t make sense for them to maintain separate production for the “base module” with and without GNSS modules …

The cost of maintaining separate production and the cost on the entire logistics system (you have to manage and store and transport two variants instead of one) and training (of technicians) far exceeded the tens to hundreds of dollars that you save on components by omitting the GNSS module and antennas on the second variant …

Spoiler

It’s obvious that they just mean it can function in two modes: with or without GNSS
The latter being for GNSS-denied/spoofed environment

You have the same thing with Brimstone, which can operate in different modes (though in this case, considering the cost of SAL and mmW seekers it might have actually made some economical sense to make single mode seekers as well)

Spoiler

[ron_23]

@Flame2512

keeps arguing that the the fact that the brochure has stats for the seeker proves that the seeker existed.

it is more that the newer one has them and the older one hasnt with them being not that impressive
i have to take his word for it tho because i dont have such a deep understanding of IR seekers/ cameras

@tripod2008

It’s nice to see some hard data, but it makes things almost certain that the Seeker is improperly implemented, based on these numbers.

The “Self Homing Head Sensitivity” assmed to be noise equivalent temperature difference (NE∆T) of 270 Milli-Kelvin (mK) is ridiculously high for a “third generation” system, let alone requiring a 4 kelvin difference to provide sufficient contrast for a track to be maintained, needing “16 units” of contrast Is not great, especially for a brochure means that they’re not using a Histogram or other contrast stretching techniques to improve performance the same way the IIR/ CCD Maverick or many other Electro-Optical systems do.

claims that NE∆T values of 25~35 mK can be expected of an Cooled InSb Focal plane Array (AMBER Radiance I)

“Our cameras, having a noise equivalent temperature difference (NE∆T) of only 25 mK, can detect extremely small variations in source irradiance. NE∆T indicates the required temperature difference of a particular pixel with respect to the background to obtain a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of unity”

In short surfaces that are within a a quarter of a degree of one another have the same return(and depending on what is actually displayed it may be far worse), which is a magnitude worse than commercial gear from the late 90’s.

Sure with limits as above you will assuredly get passable contrast within a scene, but in no way shape or form will you retain details, and everything will be blown out and blobby.