So you’re telling me, you were operating under the impression that it was IR, with no evidence, you where then corrected and yet still managed to again think it was using IR? Isn’t that a bit embarrassing?
22 Likes
Yes, you proved that, but there is a slight issue. As can be seen by the data sheet, and by the targets, IR is used against bigger, static targets
Does it do the same against smaller, moving targets like tanks. Sources I have suggest no, but maybe you have something else
3 Likes
Now show all the videos of Brimstones not hitting their targets… oh wait, they’d never be publicly released!
To be fair, Brimstones would be significantly better if they did have an IR seeker. I was being optimistic :)
Thats some very backwards logic on your part there
Little awkward
They have deteriorated effectiveness against a moving target, yes. The IR seeker is unable to make the necessary fine adjustments against a fast moving target - here the SAL version is preferable (and was actually later derived from the IR version).
Nice video in an open field with no obscurants lol.
So if the target is moving IR becomes less effective and you need a SAL seeker? Maybe AASM would benefit from MMW for moving targets and then combine that into a single seeker with SAL so it can also hit moving targets, we could call it some like Brimstone.
8 Likes
I still find the whole thing ridiculous.
RAFALE, SU-30, F-15 and so on already all do that only to a slightly lesser degree with like 6 missles. Its just as bad.
There is plenty solutions.
Add multispectral smokes with chaff.
Limit the number of mmw brimstones to 6.
Integrate mmw like IR, leave out the LOAL.
Its all just cheap excuses by gajin.
Ither aircrafts are allowed to kill half a team with one pass but the euro gets crippled
1 Like
Id rather all standoff F&F missiles be relegated to air battles only but that would make too much sense for gaijin to do.
Maybe ill make the suggestion anyways, see what the community at large thinks…
Except a Brimstone’s ATR algorithm isn’t even useful in an actual battlefield per the source I have attached above. The French would prefer their weapons to at least have some degree of precision, maybe the same cannot be said of the British? Perhaps they prefer their instruments to be as blunt as their industry obviously is?
Show me where it says that the AASM seeker can identify individual types of armoured vehicles.
4 Likes
Ukraine seems to rate it, they have used them to attack Russian SAMs from the sea and tanks/artilery/positions.
Brimstone 3 was seen as a real competitor to the US JAGM missile for AH-64E procurement. It’s cost per unit and availability/interoperability were the deciding factors likely some politicising in the background.
US AGM 179 JAGM uses Dual mode and MMW guidance they obviosuly felt as an AGM-114 and AGM 65 replacement these guidance systems are more than capable for todays battelfield.
This your goal post?
6 Likes
But its single mode on each weapon right? That’s pretty old thinking when the world has shifted to multimode seekers.
Brimstone DMS/2/3 (MMW+SAL+IOG)
SPEAR 3 (MMW+SAL+IOG+GPS)
GBU-53/B Storm breaker (IR+MMW+SAL+IOG+GPS)
AGM-179 JAGM (MMW+SAL+IOG)
Just off the top of my head.
Why have French industries not caught up to multimode seekers like the rest of the world?
15 Likes
Btw nicely showing of again u dont understand the english language and are constantly misinterpreting stuff.
Honestly might wanna stay with your native language sources. You clearly aren able to work with sources that u need to translate
It’s not like AASMs don’t all have IOG and GPS…
Besides, the only thing worth mentioning here is the Storm Breaker. It’s already been established how pathetic MMW ATR algorithms are and you are yet to refute that lol
Is there actually any proof it can track moving tanks then?
2 Likes
But they only have IR or SAL right?
SAL+IOG+GPS
or
IR+IOG+GPS
No combined seekers, you’d think since that tech is available in the USA and UK that the advanced French industries could easily solve this problem?
7 Likes