the thing is that i would check whether or not is correct or not
i wouldnt go
hey you, give me about ABC and XYZ and stuff and then im done
i you give me ABC XYZ but give me sources, fact check it, compare to other sources, then i head to the sources myself to check for authors, bias, etc
and i would go on site like DTIC, or government official site to find it myself
since i have short attention span so i give it a document for it to analyze, then ask it is this actually what u took from the documents or you made it up base on the document, then it gives proof, i check then i go next
i wouldnt just ask it whatever and trust whatever it gives, im not that ignorant… Or am I?
Even telling it to only use a certain document it can and will make up lies. A great example is getting it to summarize something like Hamlet or Macbeth and then comparing its summary to the sparknotes summary. Either way while its fun to play around with using it for info hunting or god forbid academia in general is just asking to get crucified.
Either way this is getting hilariously off topic (Yes I know im to blame here) so lets get back to the topic at hand.
which… have u read what i said?
bro its not that serious bro u cant make it do shi like that, i mean even i dont understand fricking hamlet or macbeth for shi but i mean i get it
yes you, kh-38mt doesnt exist
this thread is getting dry, gotta get it to 10k somehow
Yes, we found a picture of it mounted on a plane but people keep moving their goalposts.
Ask it for its references.
Then you have to read them, cross reference and ascertain their validity then use those sources as your source.
Thats how it works as a tool
what i usually did, 100% if its important
I hope not cause I said I would buy a bottle of champagne to toast this pile of useless whataboutism if it got that far.
you better ready to buy that bottle of champagne
Honestly I think people would still deny its existence if Putin personally invited them to ride shotgun in an Su-30 and blow something up on a test range. They would say that the missile that they fired was probably GNSS guided and that the IR image on the scope was much worse quality than russia reported and that the entire footage was probably fabricated by chatGPT outright.
Wasted 8K post, L.
As far as I can see, this thread is still just the 3 Russian Mains in Chief defending Kh-38MT as something Russia needs cus “balance” heh.
What is certainly possible to say is that the quoted specs of 270mK sensitivity and 4 kelvin’s worth of contrast required to lock on are far worse than what is portrayed in game.
Love how there still hasn’t been any definitive proof that someone could say “Yup that’s a KH-38MT.”
how does it compare to ingame
which plays in to the likely way the seeker works irl, similar to stormshadows IR guidance phase and hamemrs.
Nope.
The Brochure specifically stated contrast, If it were using correlation techniques (as with the Hammer with Correlation, IR-TERCOM is used by the Storm Shadow and is something else) it would be able to function without target background contrast and attack a zero contrast target, which is obviously not the case.
So it should be a very shit maverick. it’s seeker is about a magnitude less sensitive. All it would really be suitable is as an Anti-Ship missile or very large & hot facilities (e.g. power station).
Thanks for the enlightenment. Seems my crack theory of it being a replacement for the early KH-59 variants might be true after all.
The resolution of the sensor itself is fine (assumedly, though as to what exactly is being used to set the resolution I don’t know), the thing is that it should have nowhere near the level of detail nor lock on range it does currently, especially for smaller targets.
Pretty much. When presented with a more balanced alternative and br adjustments, they will do anything in their power to dodge the question.
*we found a picture of something mounted to a plane that we can’t verify it’s a 38MT.
I assume that brochure wouldn’t be enough for a bug report.