I think it may have been mentioned in one of the excerpts that @Gunjob had, as it is an excerpt from one of the Harrier manuals, of which I’ve lost the link(s) to.
Which currently there is basically no reason to take, and would reduce the magazine depth for the missile if it was needed, at least for the worst offender, Su-30SM
Don’t have anything on the resolution, this is the weapon description page from the Harrier GR7 manual;
Isn’t there a page that refences the scene being split into eight grey + B/W levels (Histogram normalization) similar to the functional description in the below excerpt 3.3.1.16?
This excerpt covers the AXX-1 TCS, not AGM-65
It’s certainly what I am remembering
Could you please post the rest of the intervening pages for the Maverick section.
I think what I may have been thinking of was the F-16C/J manual.
You are assuming the missiles aren’t just the mockups from the previous trade shows.
1 Like
yeah but that is assuming it was built
all we have confirmation for is a mockup at an expo which might have not been built to scale or been built to be suspended
2 Likes
Missiles from the 38M family share the same body so if 38ML was confirmed to be built and mounted to an aircraft, I don’t see why the other members of the family couldn’t do the same. They are bragging about this modularity themselves.
It doesn’t take a genius to take an already built body with working mounting mechanism and just install a different seeker. Photoshopping that doesn’t make sense.
1 Like
This comment is not for the sake arguing its real or not. However if there was a situation where they lacked the seeker, then they could photoshop it onto a body of a missile.
Example:
ADATS turret photoshoped (very bad render) onto a LAV. Both existed (2000s brochure), so why photoshop it?
19 Likes
The seeker has been photographed from up close so they definitely had something to put in.
yeah but if there isnt an IIR seeker for it they cant do that
no a mockup claiming to be a seeker was photographed that is a very different thing
the mockup might just not be compatable with the real missile
That doesn’t look like a scaled toy.
how can you tell? did you measure it?
is russia just not allowed to have good cas options? america has tv guided agms at a lower br but nobody cares unless its russia getting something that actually works for ground? if they remove it we should get the grom-1 back. Or leave it as is because apparently dodging a GNSS missile is harder than dodging a kh38MT. Idk why people complained more about grom 1 than the 40km kh38MT with thermals
1 Like
Shame they haven’t put the tape measure next to it so we can be for sure it’s not one of their “barely even scaled” models they’ve made for reasons with dimensions being 3800cm x 25cm, instead of 4180cm x 31cm, which is the fully sized missile.
Is the other 8 nations not allowed to have something equal to KH-38MT?
Like AGM-84, Brimstone 2, etc etc. Heck I think China can even get the Kh-38 but dont
Because the A-10 gets shot down instantly but pretty much any SPAA. Only the Pantsir can counter a Su-25SM3, let alone the Su-34 and Su-30
It was not removed because of GRB, it was removed because of ARB / ASB. To return it would require additions like Storm Shadow, Taurus, etc
It wasnt GRB. it was destroying bases cross map with stupid ease in ARB/ASB. It was completely broken. Besides, for GRB the Grom-2 and Fab-1500? are way more powerful.
4 Likes
well what would replace the kh38mt if there is any options? its one of the few good missiles russia has that has range and for once in the russian cas loadouts it has thermals,