Debunking the myth of the Kh-38MT not existing

Debunking mythicpi on war thunder Forum 

The problem is some guy on a forum claiming Kh-38MT that 

It was pure concept 

Never left initial mock up 

Never tested 

Never designed 

Read the original forum. He changed his argument so many times. 

From 

"It was never moved beyond mock up"

To 

"It was never tested"

To 

"It was never produced"

To 

"I can't say it never existed, just there's little evidence"

Parody. 

To claim this missile doesn't exist is insane. The evidence for its existence is just overwhelming and I've went through the whole forum and can safely say the guy is just a cope smoker. 

Photo evidence showing MTs 

"Its an ML" 

Photo evidence showing seeker differences 

"Its an ML" 

State documentation listing stats ?

"Its all hypothetical" 

Photo showing missile being tested on aircraft and specifically listed as MT ? 

"It was a mistake by the brochure" 

Photos showing different missile designations? 

"Its just an ML" 

Like unbelievable levels of copium. The worst is this idiot acts like its everyone's job to prove him wrong when his only counter argument is just "nuh uh" and providing absolutely no evidence. 

Tbh his only cope was just saying they were MLs. That's literally it. He never provided any evidence yet acts like its on others to disprove what he can't prove. 

So first there are currently 3 known models. 

Kh-38ML which uses laser 

Kh-38M which uses IIR 

Kh-38M which uses radar (this proves aswell that the MT can be called M as radar version should be called Kh-38MAE yet its titled Kh-38ME-002 on the side) 

What's with the designations? It may be because of how the russian alphabet is formed. 

Theres a fake model of MT floating around. 

"It never left initial mock up" 

Wrong. 

Initial 2000s mock ups of Kh-38M 

Also have the M version shown at 2010s shows. A mock up but again he said it never progressed from the initial mock up. 

"It was never tested or designed" 

Let's go over all the evidence documentation backing its existence. 

Article from IDR 2013 from interview with shoigu quote 

AOMZ is also designing an imaging infrared (IIR) seeker for another version of the missile Kh-38MT (or MTE for export)

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/article-related-to-some-of-russian-air-launched-missile-programme.22701 

MTs under testing 

The missiles are an exact match to one's seen today. 

BTW he tried to claim these were MLs. Yes he just disregards documentation because he doesn't like it. 

MLs have different seeker domes and missile designations not to mention on documents its called MTE. Regardless we will get into the seeker domes and designations soon. 

Stats and capabilities listed (the idiots on the forum coped and said it was all hypothetical lmao) 

Notice the missiles. 

They look like this 

Not this 

They look like this 

This proves the MT was designed and tested as we have 

● Photos showing missiles on aircraft 

● Stats listed 

● Statements from manufacturer on creation 

Now to prove that they exist and are offered. 

Normal laser on Kh-38ML

New with mesh 

Old no mesh 

Then ones that have an IIR head on Kh-38M (these are actual missiles not mock ups either) 

He tried to claim these were just new MLs. 

No. 

New MLs. 

Completely different seeker dome to M

They also have Different designation 

ML-002 for laser (old model) 

004 for new 

M for modular On the IIR seeker

M-002 for Radar 

M-001 on original mock ups 

This isn't just some "mix up" as some cope smokers have tried to say. See information placards. 

Kh-38ML 

Kh-38M 

Close ups 

Top one CLEARLY says Kh-38MLE whilst bottom one says Kh-38ME. 

They are NOT the same missile. 

Close up differences 

Normal Kh-38ML with SALH seeker 

Kh-38M with IIR optical seeker 

You can see 

Blue = Gimbal (possibly laser)

Orange = zinc sulphide or fluoride glass 

Red = IIR optic 

Why would it have a laser ? Most likely answer is a spot tracker to follow laser designators or could possibly be back up laser targeting system. But it's most likely just part of the Gimbal. 

Mythic pi genuinely tried to claim these were just laser heads. 

See optic below 

That is so obviously an optic. It doesn't even make sense. Why would they make a different laser head ? It's not even answerable because THAT IS OBVIOUSLY an optic. You can also clearly see the zinc sulphide or fluoride glass thats used on IIR glass domes. 

Similarly to OLS-35. 

Which is proven to use TV/IIR 

On other IIR missiles. 

Seeker on M 

This is completely different to ML domes. 

This matches in war thunder aswell 

Kh-38MT 

Kh-38ML

BTW some people tried to claim these were just optical contrast seekers like in Kh-29. No. There is absolutely no evidence in documentation to support this and why would it have tinted glass aswell which is ONLY used on IIR. 

So we have different 

Seekers 

Seeker dome 

Missile designation 

Information displayed 

But yes iTs jUsT aN mL 

The evidence is absolutely overwhelming. 

These are modular Missiles, with the possibility of combining different guidance systems. 

https://missilery.info/missile/x-38 

He GENUINELY just tried to claim that its just an ML. Yet why does it not only have a different missile designation (specifically not ML aswell BTW) but also have a completely different seeker and seeker dome. 

This isn't just a new ML as the new ML with smaller fins is also visible. 

Other arguments were 

"Russia has no IIR missiles so they can't make such missiles" 

Lol no. 

Kh-39

Kh-29TD 

Kh-MD

Kh-MD-001

Kh-59MK2

Kh-69

Kh-58UShKE-TP 

Edr-85 

KAB-50 and KAB-100

So in conclusion the Kh-38MT definitely was designed and at least Prototyped and tested and is offered for export and most probably exists as a system on M models. 

In war thunder there is numerous vehicles like 38MT that probably just existed as Prototypes and systems that never existed like ho ri or E1000. 

So you want to argue against this.

1. Explain the seeker differences 

2. Explain why they have different designations 

3. Explain why it is has full stats listed 

4. Provide a source that states that the seeker was never actually designed or tested 

Until then there is sufficient evidence that a model was 100% tested and likely exists today.