So where in the word “identification” is used it is specific types of vehicle such as “T-72” or “MiG-29”
and per the Brimstone DMS brochure it does “identification”;
This is in contrast to Brimstone-1 which only has Classification of target;
Also this claim which comes later on from the Brimstone-1 presentation;
Where the ID type was upgraded to “Recognition”.
This not only demonstrates the seeker was improved with each version but also likely confirms your claims of poor identification which are likely linked to the original Brimstone-1 seeker and non of the improved versions.
Seems that’s in disagreement with the modern primary claim the IR seeker is for large targets such as building. How are you dealing with that conflict with those two sources? Is the brochure wrong or that book?
Seems like a good timeline. IR version had troubles hitting moving targets, so they designer a laser version used for moving, tank sized targets, and designed a algorithm that changed IR to a pure anti facility usage.
Makes sense.
So it initially uses laser guidance to lock onto a target and then uses the MMW seeker to capture an image of the target to lock onto in Mode 3? Else, why does it hand over guidance to the MMW seeker at all?
Or does it use a 3D target model to lock onto a target from the outset? But then SAL guidance would be redundant then, so then why retain it?
Yeah that does not address the claim. The manufacturer claim is large targets such as buildings, you need to substantiate the claim that the manufacturer is wrong. So far you have a single secondary claim. Typically you would need another primary source back your claim the brochure isn’t correct.
