The Kh38 is nearly undebatably and almost a guaranteed kill, where as the rest of the agms isn’t.
You do realize that the IOG on the kh38 is a lot more potent than other agms that has it? IOG is not created equally and is heavily dependent on the speed. If the agm is slow, the drift will a lot greater than if the agm is going fast.
An aim 9m that can go twice as fast and maintain that speed for quite a while (increase in effective range) doesn’t help you case. Do you see how unbalanced that’ll be?
And lets say that was added to F-15E at launch, and it removed. Does that warrant a BR decrease? You seem to dodge that question. It’s a yes or a no.
You’re missing the entire point of my argument and it shows. The Kh38 is under-BR to begin with. It should’ve been added much later. Yes removing the KH38 will reduce a plane’s effectiveness in CAS but it’s effectiveness what leagues ahead of other aircraft.
The Su30 getting a Kh59 (a better Hammer) will be aligned with the Rafael.
The Su34 getting a Kh59 will be aligned with RMV which BTW will do much better than it because it can carry 6 of them , 3000 fab glide bomb and 2ir + 2fox3 .
The SM3 will be aligned with the B+.
Do you disagree with any of comparisons? If so, state them.
IOG drift is also less of an issue on a missile with 152kg TNTe (more than a 500lbs bomb). The Kh-38M series was more than likely intended as an anti-structure/anti-ship missile, with all uses of it recorded being vs structures like bridges.
The only reliable way a Kh-38MT might miss out on a kill is:
If the target gets hard cover between them (hard cuz of the lofting trajectory and speed)
If an SPAA intercepts the missile (rare cuz of the trajectory and speed)
If the target dies before the missile hits (low ToF makes this missile the least likely one in-game to suffer from this out of all F&F munitions)
Firstly I am against Kh-38MT as you can see in many my comments and also in voting. Secondly I discuss about suitable replace for Kh-38MT which wont be so OP but will reduce pretty big disadvantages of Kh-29TE/TD guidance which is almost same as for AGM-65B. We both know that USSR/Russia dont have enough stuff with thermals so I try found another way like MITL. T.220 for Su-30SM is also pretty much questionable and is only matter of time when there will be suggestion to remove it.
Indeed, the entitlement on display in this thread is quite something.
As I said earlier, no nation is entitled to a capability. The british don’t have FnF ground weapons (tank based) in game, so they’re not in the game. You don’t see gaijin just making up a vehicle with spikes on it.
Unfortunately, the thread has been horribly derailed again by people employing weapons grade amounts of whataboutism.
Lets not lose sight of the fact that The KH-38MT doesn’t exist, and should not be in the game. It doesn’t matter about the F-16AJ, or what capability the russians would lose, or whatever peoples pet peeves are. By gaijin’s own standards, the weapon should be removed.
My apologies for assuming your stance on the 38MTs removal.
As for the potential of the T220 pod being removed, i highly doubt it. The trend lately seems to be “rules dont apply” when it comes to weapon/subsytem integration for russian vehicles. I highly doubt gaijin would actually bother removing something they’ve already given to a russian vehicle.
Bug reporting this stuff is also nearly impossible. As is the situation of the Kh-38MT, despite there being no evidence the missile ever made it beyond the mockup stage, and strong evidence it never did in fact, it is impossible to prove a negative without the nation/company explicitly stating the thing was cancelled.
Gaijin treats implemented features as gospel, and require definitive proof for removal or alterations, and even then they may argue if they dont like what the source says, regardless of how strong the source is.
So unless someone finds explicit proof the Su-30SM could not mount the T220, itll get the same treatment as the Kh-38MT and remain in-game.
If gaijin are going to hold submitters of bug reports to get anything changed to exacting standards, to the point where reputable sources aren’t considered good enough, then those standards should apply to gaijin themselves.
Case in point, the HSTV-L. Spookson submitted god knows how many reports about it’s fire rate with manufacturer documentation, but they were denied. It’s only when they introduced the RD/LT premium and he made a video about it pointing out their hypocrisy that it was changed.
The hypocrisy is what annoys me most about this entire debacle.
There are some similar examples for Western vehicles where rules are bent, or intended configurations are not specified, for various reasons.
Take for example the US F-16C arbitrarily having access to AIM-7’s, and SDB simultaneously. they refer to it as a Block 50 but it’s configuration doesn’t match any known service configuration or timeframe for any client nation.
F-5C / F-4E Flares (count), do I need to say more.
F-14B(U) JDAMs require Sparrow-hawk config which is not present.
We reported bug in radar of all MiG-23 which would significantly improve their performance proved by operation manual and also was denied. They just dont read reports as I have been convinced many times before.
I know another ones. German MiG-29G have R-27T/ET/ER even though they never had them.
F-14A IRIAF have R-27R even though radar was not compatible with it.
F-15A never had flares.
It’s literally not, you have ways of defeating IR + IOG missiles.
On the contrary, our current flares simply won’t do anything to the IIR missiles.
It will still help the missile reacquire lock if it gets lost, which is something missiles without IOG can’t really do.
It definitely doesn’t need to be unbalanced, depending how good the platform it’s mounted on is since at the end of the day, it’d be the same old 9M with higher speed, so it’ll get defeated the same way.
27ET is an IR missile with IRCCM that goes more than twice as fast as 9M, but I don’t really see it breaking balance whenever a plane carrying it spawns in.
Much less likely than if you removed 38MT.
F-15E has BVR as it’s selling point while 38MT carriers have exactly that as their selling points.
Try to guess who would get impacted more in the case of removal.
You should ask me an inverse question.
Only thing I agree with is the 30SM.
It would have been part of the MSIP I upgrade program which was called-off(as Shrinkage of the fleet due to retirement made it non-competitive, as options were exercised to purchase an increased number of F-15C/D’s above what was projected when the project was started) after having been integrated into select low flight hour airframes in ANG service.
In its place the MSIP II upgrade was rolled out to the F-15C/D fleet, and then some elements of MSIP II were then backported to the remaining F-15A/B fleet, which are also confusingly referred to as MSIP II airframes, though in effect it brings the F-15A/B & -15C/D to as near a common standard as was practicable.
I realise a great many things, however we can only hold gaijin to the same standards they hold us to and to which they have used to justify vehicle and weapon denials in the past and which they also use to remove vehicles.
It’s about not being a hypocrite and holding them to the same standards.
