Warhead weight.
Only real source for comparison I’ve got at the moment. But its about double what I can find for Mk83 1000lb bombs, and they need 5-6 to destroy a base.
but its largely how gaijin chooses to model the warhead, so was just for now, going by just mass of explosives more than anything else
id guess 4-5 cruise missiles to a base then, since a good chunk of weight would be the penetrating bit
so tornado and strike eagle should be able to take bases right?
Yeah, something like that. But this is largely off-topic now
yeah, to be back OT, unless there is a FAE version of Kh-38 warhead like S-13DF, i dont think Kh-38 will be huge issue in sim
SDB II has a stated 74km range vs moving targets and upwards of 110km vs stationnary ones, along with a tri-mode seeker, and the F-15E can carry 28 of them, or 12 and a full air to air load. It would allow a single player the ability to wipe a whole ground team twice, any single bombing base, or directly attack the enemy airfield from effectively anywhere on any map in-game.
Both would be fine if they were added as SALH only, both would be undodgeable death volleys with 60km+ range if they were modelled right.
Theres no reason to add ALCM’s in-game, def not what I was talking about
Less range than brims but trimode seekers and still outrange all SAM’s in-game. Also you can presumably carry 28 on the F-15E, so same issue as the SDB II.
At this point tho were getting off topic, so I’d like this line of discussion to end.
have you made a bug report to get rid of Kh-38MT yet?
I dont think its going to be quite so… “simple”
I dont think its something that cna just be bug reported at this time. I can see this being passed onto the devs via a tech mod internally rather than via a community post / report due to it being mostly a lack of evidence rather than a source stating it never existed
kind of hard to find an official thing saying a missile variant didnt exist no?
There might be a doc out there somewhere talking about the project being terminated. At least they seem to be reasonably common for many British developments.
but largely yes, proving a negative is unbelievably hard
Storm Shadow could be like a fixed AASM. Launch it towards enemy spawn point with an SPAA up from far away, let it travel and then it’ll pop up with IR seeker turned on looking for the SPAA
well thats the thing, from what I’ve seen Kh-38MT is a private company mockup thing, not a full govt weapons program like some of the British developments you are talking about. so its probably going to be impossible to find conclusive evidence, especially since its Russian to boot (dont mean this in Russian bias way)
Maybe, but if/when we get LOAL like that. Im not sure why you’d fire off 2-4 Storm Shadows that may or may not be able to do that over 18x Brimstones that definetly can do that, and do it better
Could be an option for devs if they don’t want to fully model the Brimstones just yet.
Guys, what are you talking about? It seems you’ve forgotten about KH-38MT like it’s not even real or something…
Oh wait…
Well, we know it is real; and we know the way it locks target in-game is over-performing compared to what it’s supposed to do… and so is Hammer IR.
is this another yak141 irst case?
No, cause the Yak-141 isn’t a production vehicle.
it seems to me that gaijin is yet again giving aircraft equipment which it didn’t have or equipment which does not even exist
False equivalence fallacy.
Yak-141, Kikka, etc are not production aircraft.
There has been evidence posted that the missile systems do exist, tho full production may not have been determined for us.
There has been evidence posted across the forums of Kh-38s on Su-34s and Su-27/30/35 [whether they use different fire control systems I don’t know].
And there is no evidence Kh-38s are restrictive; meaning if an aircraft can fire one they can fire them all with the appropriate supporting equipment [targeting pod for example].
which means gaijin can add the vehicle as it was planned irl, despite what was actually built?
600+ messages in this thread… please give me a link to the proof
edit: typo