The problem is those who come here with preconceived notions on the topic aren’t exactly going to listen to reason or evidence which doesn’t support their viewpoint which in general is bad for the overall discussion as it leads to spats which drown out the actual productive stuff.
Scores on the board most of the original arguments against it got thrown out the window when the zhuhai 24 brochure dropped imo, It likely did finish testing at the end of 2017 along side grom 1 per “The Military Balance 2018” and the MAKS mockup of the ME from 2017 is likely what a finished MT would look like but was then shelved like other projects due to lack of funding or interest (as it seems the missile according to zhuhai 24 brochure is more in line with being an AShM or to fill a role similar to IR Kh-59M2) as other munitions can do its job while stockpiles last. If an export customer shows interest we may start seeing them like we have with the T-220 pod when Egypt bought some in 2017.
Unless someone goes to the central archives or gets access to KVRTs archives its likely not going to go further than that.
there has been no information regarding testing and no confirmation there ever was a functional prototype, as such it absolutely should not have been added to the game as it fails to meet gaijins standards
TBF unless the brochure listed when, where, weather conditions, fuel load and armament for that M1.5 supercruise its better to err on the side of caution.
You were ready to believe it didnt exist off two forks of the same website being different, I dont believe any RU source would satisfy you so I looked through Military Balance which is a pretty reliable western source when it comes to evaluating China and RU. So unless you have a silver bullet so to speak that backs up your claim of it not existing just shouting it doesn’t exist aint gonna cut it.
I would direct your attention to morvran, gndm panzer and company. Preconceived notions of russian bias which then leads to spats and dragging the thread off topic into the realm of things like stinger, brimstone and recently kikka. Don’t get me wrong the other side of the coin is just as detrimental to the discussion but they are less likely to appear here than the first group as they have a vested interest in this thread going in their favour.
i mean the pro KH side also loves to bring up stuff like the RY2Y, ostwind 2 and the likes so its not just one side that regularly goes towards examples that push their own preconceptions. And finally preconceived notions dont even matter since every proof should be strong enough to hold up against those anyway
Except the proof they want we know is classified or otherwise inaccessible due to the current geopolitical climate. So if you bring them the next best thing (which so far is the Zhuhai 2024 brochure because why would they list specs and sell/market something that they havent even finished testing) they say it isn’t enough and will then go on to make wild claims and cite the barest speculation off a pretty normal occurrence (Different website forks for different audiences) as definitive proof of it not existing along side the logical fallacy of “i dont see it therefore it not exist” rather than what would actually be definitive proof (cancellation docs from KRTV or an order from RU MoD to stop development and testing) which is equally as out of reach as the definitive proof they require for its existence.
Projected capabilities are marketed all the time. This has been disussed to death.
At this point, both sides are fairly entrenched and I doubt anyone is going to change their opinion. All we do know is that the evidence which is normally required for a weapon to be added to the game is lacking for this one, and that is projected capabilities far outstrip what it is capable of in game.
Mythics most valid point for it not existing was the change to the RU export website which we now know is bunk because of the zhuhai brochure from 2024 marketing that exact missile.
Projected capabilities are generally vague to give wiggle room, so you would get things like operational range, projected warhead options and weight and seeker options etc but not indepth seeker specs like we see with zhuhai 2024.
Is not available on the RU or EN language internet. What ever gaijin payed access for was likely interpreted wrong, which they have done in the past.
Projected capabilities are generally vague to give wiggle room, so you would get things like operational range, projected warhead options and weight and seeker options etc but not indepth seeker specs like we see with zhuhai 2024.
Err, no. Target specifications are often listed. They would be useless otherwise.
Is not available on the RU or EN language internet. What ever gaijin payed access for was likely interpreted wrong, which they have done in the past.
You are assuming that they paid for anything and didn’t just make it up. You’re also veering into “secret documents” territory. I will say again as I said before, gaijin having access to sensitive Russian data which would mean close connections to the Russian military and state would be incredibly problematic for them. I don’t believe it to be the case personally though.
And the same relations with western companies isint? Its no different from approaching lockmart or GD for licensing to use their vehicles in games etc.
Well, no it’s not the same. There is a fundamental difference between putting an (for example) abrams in game as a visual model and having access to detailed specifications.
it would open them up to legal actions up to being sanctioned as a propaganda outlet. That would end their ability to do business in the EU and potentially the US.
Now thats a reach and a half. Its hardly propaganda to do due diligence (even if it ends up being interpreted wrong) to do modeling of a munition for a semi-realistic game.
How do you think they implemented walleyes etc, because I can tell you now it wasnt by just collecting non ITAR restricted docs. (The implication being gaijin sent someone to Lockmart to get archival access and permission to implement it)
You mean when russia updates their site to remove it from sale and has not shown off a single functional example of this missile.
Such as?
so not the MT
The seeker is the ONLY part that differentiates it from the ML. No seeker, no missile.
Part of the issue is that according to this newfound brochure, the 38MT is WILDLY overperforming in terms of its tracking range and possibly speed. The seeker is much worse than it is now and should be incapable of tracking tanks from the distances it does right now.
Even if the MT is proven to exist, its implementation in the game is fictional.
We have pictures of the ML from very close up, like this one recently posted. They are mounted on an aircraft, there is no doubt it’s an ML, and I’d say there’s a 99% chance it is a functional example.
No, it’s not. But access to restricted information would imply one of two things. a) corruption and bribery or b) close ties to the russian state allowing that access. Neither would be good for gaijin’s ability to make money, and boy do they love making money.
How do you think they implemented walleyes etc, because I can tell you now it wasnt by just collecting non ITAR restricted docs. (The implication being gaijin sent someone to Lockmart to get archival access and permission to implement it)
Like everyone else does, by educated guesses and publically available information. You can’t just chuck lockheed a bunch of cash and get detailed specifications of the F-22 (well, you maybe can but someone’s gonna end up in jail). That would be in voilation of more laws than I can count.
You seem to think that a game company can just buy access to restricted and sensitive data and that’s just not the case.
Gaijin have been incredibly careful in even giving the impression that they have access or want access to restricted data, to the point of outright paranoia sometimes because they know the ramifications of access to that data.
As I said before, it would severly impact their ability to make money and as we all know, gaijin’s all about the cold, hard cash.
