The document claims they’re MTEs.
The seeker head is angled downward on both of them.
This is certainly the closest we’ve seen that seeker on an aircraft.
I have no opinion on this matter at this time.
And despite that, it’s seen both are angled downward.
Do not dismiss the evidence.
There is a reason my only opinions posted here are “Let’s wait for evidence.” and “Let’s correct the seekers of Hammer and Kh-38MT to be more accurate to how they should be.” Two opinions based on evidence.
I said that earlier, the one the right seems to be pointing downwards (more so than the one on the left). I’m not dismissing it at all. The lowres aspect is just there because, well, it is lol.
that is a case of persepctive at work
considering any military budget that’s foolish.
having a high res camera on your PGM is valuable for accurate target identification, tracking and overall guidance but we need to be realistic that there is a point of diminishing results, which you are seeing with a seeker with better resolution than ASRAAMs do
imo i dont really care if this image is real or not, mock ups and test rigs get put on planes all the time for testing and advertising. No AIM-152 variant was actually built and tested yet we have these pictures:
also was the criteria it has to have been test fired? I dont think gaijin accept mock ups that were just attached to the plane (otherwise we would have a LOT of stuff in game that never got past mock ups)
afaik for weapons yes it needs to have been test fired and for vehicles parts should have been produced at least.
It’s nice to see some hard data, but it makes things almost certain that the Seeker is improperly implemented, based on these numbers.
The “Self Homing Head Sensitivity” assmed to be noise equivalent temperature difference (NE∆T) of 270 Milli-Kelvin (mK) is ridiculously high for a “third generation” system, let alone requiring a 4 kelvin difference to provide sufficient contrast for a track to be maintained, needing “16 units” of contrast Is not great, especially for a brochure means that they’re not using a Histogram or other contrast stretching techniques to improve performance the same way the IIR/ CCD Maverick or many other Electro-Optical systems do.
claims that NE∆T values of 25~35 mK can be expected of an Cooled InSb Focal plane Array (AMBER Radiance I)
In short surfaces that are within a a quarter of a degree of one another have the same return(and depending on what is actually displayed it may be far worse), which is a magnitude worse than commercial gear from the late 90’s.
Sure with limits as above you will assuredly get passable contrast within a scene, but in no way shape or form will you retain details, and everything will be blown out and blobby.
So after 6780 posts what’s the general consensus on this thing?
we found data on the seeker
what where
the brochure from earlier
The Kh-38MTE may have been hung off a plane at some point as of Zhuhai 2025, though it is hard to tell if it’s not just an Kh-38MLE with a bad angle.
oh yeah right the sensitivity and stuff
but there isnt zoom or thermal resolution
also compatibility is probably su-34 exclusive
Zhuhai 2024
and it has to be before that because how could they hand out a brochure otherwise
not really you can see that the seeker is angeled downwards especially on the right one
It being an export or not doesn’t matter one bit.
The thin ring around the seeker also doesn’t align with 38ML’s looks.
Same way
References the A-4 even though one isn’t seen in the companion video, or otherwise referenced anywhere else.
and again don’t forget;
there is just one slight difference the 38mt is already in the game
So is the GPU-5/A? It’s the 30mm Gunpod the F-5E, F-20 & A-7 have access to.
and how has that anything to do with the kh-38mt?
