I think what you are looking at is a ball bearing
1 Like
Hugely off topic but Hughes’s AAAM is not really a meteor. It shares the fact that it is powered by a ramjet but is a very different design in countless ways. It’s more an evolution on Phoenix than a MRAAM.
2 Likes
wait i was confused and now i understand why, i wanted to reply to Demokrat4 response about agm169. not to you
1 Like
it’s a matter of telescope magnification and expected FoV. It doesn’t matter if your 256x256 FPA is 5mm x 5mm or 25mm x 25mm(it does matter but not in this way) as long as your telescope, refracting or cassegrain, provides the expected magnification. Which is something that can be accomplished in small OR large packages.
locking onto a heat signature is one thing. but to track a target’s thermal silhouette completely (since its not just an Anti tank weapon but also an anti building weapon), requires a larger seeker
although later we found out that it is infact a thermal seeker mockup. the thing i pointed to earlier is the servo motor side
Heh, IIR technology has become pretty modern in the last decade. The Rafale for exemple uses IIR systems with half spherical FOV for their missile approach and warning system since 2012-2013, and can be seen on the tail. It’s a pretty small device in general, despite having a pretty big lens to get that big FOV.
1 Like
The copy pasted the seeker from the AGM65
one of the example of small and large fov IIR seekers is literally the MAW of f22
the bluish screen thingy is the MAW here, its ir band (definitely iir unless it will struggle detecting missiles)
All I see is a crumbling ram coating
this
yeah but its still larger than a pinhole lol
We’re not talking about the Kh-38 in general but the MT variant specifically, of course some variants have been used but the Kh-38MT was seemingly never used
Ok so, thought over the information provided by the ppl claiming this to be a Kh-38MT mockup, and did some more digging, and I mostly do believe they are in fact correct.
I’m not sure why the news article that discussed the missile shown indicated it was an MLE armed with a SALH seeker, there is still the possibility that there was information provided to the person who took the picture indicating it to have been a SALH seeker, but it does seem to be wrong. I have found a model making company that appears to have been the ones to have made the mockup, and they indicate it to be an MTE model.
That being said, the missile is still a mockup. This only brings the number of known mockups ever made of the Kh-38MTE and publicly presented to 2-3, and all other evidence that the missile was never produced or actually worked still apply.
It is also to be noted that it remains absolutely bizare that the latest known brochure for the Kh-38MTE does not use the same model as the MAKS 2017 mockup, instead using a computer model of the original mockup seen at MAKS 2009. Not sure what to do with that info.
I’ve updated the thread info to reflect the new info.
As a sidenote, @MightyBaozi any chance you could do something about the people spam flagging the post because they dont like it? Seems like an abuse of the forum flag system.
18 Likes
Btw you should fix that. All the photos you provided state “Х-38МЭ” on the side, it’s not a thermal seeker one, rather a general model mockup. The one you’re searching for would say “Х-38МТЭ”.
“Т” in the middle goes for “Thermal”
Here’s a higher resolution photo.
1 Like
Maybe because journalists don’t understand the difference between MT and ML
That’s just your guess. About a hundred missiles are spent on testing alone.
That’s just your guess
5 Likes
if anything given its absence on more recent brochures and at more recent expos it failed testing and the concept was dropped
Then please provide evidence that such numbers where built and tested. Even just evidence a single KH-38 with IIR guidance was built and test fired is enough.
GIven how it is nearly impossible to prove a negative, in the absence of concrete proof, the assumption must be that it did not exist.
11 Likes
No, its a thermal seeker model. The notation difference is because the missile was originally called Kh-38M (or Kh-38ME for the export designation). The seeker options differentiating the missiles seem to have came later, but it is a mockup of the Kh-38MTE for all intents and purposes.
The missile seems to have been renamed to Kh-38ML (or Kh-38MLE for the export model) nowadays, retaining the ML designation for the laser seeker, but pointing to the fact that there no longer are available variants with alternate seeker, making the old Kh-38M designation outdated.
About the link you’ve provided. Don’t you find it just funny how they don’t provide a photo of a seeker head-on? Instead for that purpose they’re using a photo from some kind of convention, a photo of a general mockup “Х-38МЭ”?