especially given that there are sources confirming that it was designed to fill a limited air to air and ground to air role
Ok, we’ve got a response to the Proximity fuse for JAGM report.
"The altitude sensor, which measures the distance to the ground, is not a non-contact target sensor capable of detonating the warhead if it misses an air target.
Against ground targets in the game, this type of detonation would be useless. As we do not have infantry in the game against which such a detonation method would be effective.
The method for obtaining altitude above the target is not specified. Given its image, we have no reason to assume that this sensor was capable of responding to an aerial target. Secondly, that it had a circular radiation pattern that would have allowed it to respond to a target while flying past it.
As such, with the current information, this is not considered a bug."
And It’s fairly flimsy, at best. I’ll take it apart in short order. Starting with the low hanging fruit.
Against ground targets in the game, this type of detonation would be useless. As we do not have infantry in the game against which such a detonation method would be effective.
Do I even need to point out that it’s there to increase blast effects, and its only down to how HE and Fragmentation are modeled in game that it has a limited effect(since the refraction wave and Fragmentation are simply modeled or non-existent), it’s not as if Light / unarmored vehicles; such as the M1097 / LAV-AD are unmodeled. And besides it’s only really there to deal with near misses not to make use of the multi-purpose warhead’s Blast-Frag detonation.
The method for obtaining altitude above the target is not specified. Given its image, we have no reason to assume that this sensor was capable of responding to an aerial target.
Did they forget that the JAGM has a MMW seeker, Also @Abyss_Revenant if you have a proper source for the excerpt, it may be useful, in getting this overturned.
[/quote]
Secondly, that it had a circular radiation pattern that would have allowed it to respond to a target while flying past it.
There are many examples of fusing not needing angular resolution due to sidelobes Take for example the AGM-45
The method for obtaining altitude above the target is not specified. Given its image, we have no reason to assume that this sensor was capable of responding to an aerial target.
A radar return, is in fact a radar return it won’t care what it actually is only that the fuse’s actioning requirements be satisfied. Why wouldn’t it be able to it’s not like any of these constraints are modeled for other fuses, why this one in particular be treated differently?
6 Likes
Oh wow that’s nonsense
So, as I said…
Proof that mmW seeker can be proximity if it needed. ERINT-1 (PAC-3)
As we can see JAGM-16K is used also for CUAS. APKWS also with HOB/prox fuze. XM1211 also can be used like HOB and like proximity for CUAS
Article that Apache used JAGMs for UAV interception Army Demonstrates Apache Counter-UAS Capabilities | Article | The United States Army
it really feels like a random mod showed up, said no without explanation
and the rest of the mod team didnt want to do what they should and fix it + ban them so had to bs an explanation
2 Likes
Is this not pretty much the Igla/Stinger thing all over again?
‘We don’t really have a RU equivalent so it must be impossible.’
Nobody tell them about BVs - hot running water and everything - else half the UK Tank Tree will be removed.
1 Like
they do though, vikhr is a similar missile in being designed for both anti armor and limited anti air
I’d similarly point to the AGM-114L-7 & -8A, as it specifically mentions all three elements of; Proximity fuse, a C-UAS role, and MMW seeker.
https://x.com/CENTCOM/status/1840877417591677141
1 Like
Is it worthwhile to make a new bug report with more evidence?
probably, even just proof that it has been tested against air targets should (if gaijin were reasonable) be enough to show that the MMW radar it uses for HOB can detect aircraft, especially because some of the drones it was tested against and intended to target might not be able to set off contact fuses due to their size and construction
1 Like
Probably, I just need to find evidence that contradicts the Dev’s responses.
With how much focus there is right now on marketing it as an anti-drone option, there will likely be a marketing video released within the next few months showing a detonation on a clear miss which is going to be irrefutable by the idiot devs.
Also, as we can see… Yellow head is AGM-114L-7/8A
I also did not see any additional sensors on the AGM-114L-7, which means that the proximity fuze functionality is clearly in the seeker.
Also, we have interview in which we can understand, that L-7/L-8A is more software update.
Also, we have press release from LM
Wring up the report now,
Does anyone actually know the attributable source of this slide? I can only find it as an excerpt with no attribution
no but its pretty old, because its linked here Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program | Page 6 | Secret Projects Forum
posted almost 11 years ago
That literally took 2 minutes.
Apparently the Hellfire is a Kinetic impact only C-UAS system.
The entire point of the report was to respond to the fact that the JAGM has a proximity fuse, which was established in the prior report, it’s obvious they didn’t look at the prior report
I just hate that they close things in short order instead of asking clarifying questions, or leaving the topic open for 24~48 hours to permit a response or clarification to be given.
3 Likes
@Gunjob Any idea? Also as an aside it appears that references [6] & [7] have been lost in their entirety, must have run over the character limit, or they just weren’t addressed by the manger, the files used are still present though.
As to a response to Bug Reporting Manager #1
Pictures from unknown sources are not reliable sources.
Has now been solved, can be attributed to;
“Acquisition Reform In a Rear View Mirror”, Project Manager, Joint Attack Munition Systems
Also, AGM-114L-7 != JAGM
And yet the AGM-114L-7/ -8A has a proximity fuse, without the use of the Height Of Burst sensor(as on the AGM-114R-2), and uses a similar MMW seeker to the JAGM both are in the EHF band. and both are used in the C-UAS role(see sources [1] & [6]).
Thus it is likely that whatever mechanization that is used by the AGM-114L-7 to produced the Proximity effect is similar, Such an implementation is discussed in Source #7, which was the reason for its inclusion.
2: navyrecognition
3rd party websites are not reliable sources.
The source says nothing about proximity fuse.
The point is to build a case that the use of the AGM-114L is used by both Helicopters and the LCS Frigates, and that they share hardware with only a difference in software, so it is unlike the AGM-114R & -114R-2 for example.
Had I been permitted to continue to refine the report, The following would have been attached which additionally contribute similar details anyway.
And a Excerpt Freeze-frame from source 4, clearly showing the yellow aerodynamic cover, and being the -114L-7 / -8A variant.
Which additionally Source 4 reinforces the use in a C-UAS role.
5
The source says nothing about JAGM.
It shouldn’t need to as it is addressing The Dev’s response as provided in the prior report as to its rejection, Which in itself had nothing to do with the JAGM.
The point made for [5] was that, the specific Warhead generates a significant quantity of radial fragments. And thus in the specific scenario would in fact alongside a proximity fuse turn a near miss into a kill, thus not being “useless” as alleged, if modeled properly, especially considering it is no more maneuverable than the existing Hellfire.
[6] supports in writing that JAGM’s Target set includes; Rotary, Slow Fixed-wing and UAS.
[7] was to support that Sufficient evidence has already been presented that the JAGM has some method of implementing a Height of Burst Sensor, does not require an independent annular sector sensor for Proximity fuse functionality all it should need is a software refinement, this is not in doubt.
1 Like
if I recall gaijin refused AGM-114L because MMW weaponry. But then proceeds to add AGM-179 which is effectively 114L but better in every way (so what’s holding gaijin back?)
Found it
https://www.ndiagulfcoast.com/events/archive/42ndSymposium/RearViewWarnick.pdf#page=5
But with the report rejected…
They simply do not want to give JAGM the proxy fuse. So they will use every possible excuse… and if you find explicit proof, they may call it a marketing lie…
If it was a russian missile photo of mockup missile form some exhibition would be enough.
8 Likes