To begin with they will be pretty bad, with only 80lb of explosive (I think it uses ?Cyclotol?), and a not great Re factor (TNTe multiplier) of somewhere between 1.3~1.6 (there used to be a list / datamine somewhere which gave the values that WT uses) its only on par with a Mk. 81 which has a 5 meter radius of damage, so for all intents and purposes a worse Kh-25MT(D)[200lb], let alone the Kh-29T[705lb] which is the contemporary system, and with the lack of a complex fragmentation model much of the actual advantage of having a design weighted towards fragmentation and kinetic penetration, instead of explosive mass will be wasted, at least in a direct comparison though there is still the AGM-84E, and other systems which should help close the performance gap in various ways.
But the advantages over the HEAT warhead should be obvious since as a GPHE warhead (its actually far closer to a straight up APHE or SAP calcification, at least based on fill ratio) design, it actually has a chance to gets its secondary damage modeling implemented, instead of it not actually being a bug that it is completely missing, but a design decision, let alone having accurate modeling.
It’s likely to be revised at some point when kinetic penetration is added to bombs. and as per a recent Q&A it is being worked on, so may be included in the revision.
Q. More physics for aircraft bombs? Such as weight to armor penetration ratio?
Yes, kinetic damage is planned for aircraft bombs.
as it has a comparatively low fill ratio at only 80/300 = ~25% and subsequently be actually useful against Ships, their intended target, and potentially some types of static AI targets if they also get their DM overhauled, fragmentation upped massively and the delay fusing allowing for a post penetration blast it will be be a good choice against specific targets vs smaller LGB’s (GPS/INS guidance is likely to only be seen at a much higher BR) as they are F&F and so free up the pilot for further tasking especially if the datalink and other post release control systems are modeled.
For the GR.7, and other airframes which are limited to only being able to carry the LAU-117/A (Single rail adapter) explicitly, against an armored tactical target there is little effective difference between the variants of AGM-65 outside which seeker they are equipt with, and its capabilities, and depending on when things are implemented / revised / planned.
The GPHE warhead should at very least be more consistent, especially in a multi / Clustered target encounter, and in dives if the fragmentation a pattern is modeled properly as the existing lofting mechanism doesn’t have a fixed angle of impact like it should of 15 / 20 degrees.
If the eventual revision to the seeker logic adds proper Correlation tracking modes(added with the -65F/G and later), so a point of aim on larger targets can be specified instead of being stuck with centroid tracking and so not be stuck hitting smokestacks, instead able to be aimed at the waterline / magazines it will become far more deadly especially against more modern ships that have an all or nothing armor schema(let alone those that only have Anti-Fragmentation) as it gains significant penetration capabilities when used in combination with the extended delay fusing option, instead of the superfast(instant) and short delay settings.
