Cool arguing in bad faith then.
12 Likes
Nah, I just haven’t seen any worthwhile sources outside of the NATO dictionary.
Time to bug report hammers only being able to use IR for stationary targets 🤣
1 Like
- “valid and non-valid targets”… so like whether it’s a car or a tank?
- “valid and non-valid targets”… so like whether it’s a T-64 or a Leopard?
Any of those comments could be correct based on the insufficient detail in that paragraph, so don’t got making snarky comments.
Also @Gunjob already gave you the NATO definitions of these terms:
Spoiler
Your example falls under detection (the first step): “separating targets from other objects [i.e. trees]”. From the sources provided Brimstone undeniably has at least target recognition (the third step). So we can drop this rubbish about it only being able to tell tanks apart from trees.
11 Likes
Did the MMW seeker change from Brimstone 1 through 3?
Yes.
- Brimstone 1 - MMW Seeker
- DMS Brimstone 1 - New MMW / SAL seeker
- Brimstone 2 - Improved MMW / SAL seeker
- Brimstone 3 - IIRC there were further seeker improvements but would need to double check.
4 Likes
You were given sources that did backup Gunjob’s point whilst not really providing anything to back your own. Arguing like this simply makes no sense and it sort of falls into being disrespectful, please try to respect the time that Tech Mods willingly put into the forums as they have plenty of things to take care of already.
19 Likes
they would have to do that for every scan pattern, on every radar they gace TWS+
thats the problem, if you hard code it its going to be a pain in the ass to change something about it or even adding new planes/ radars that would get that feature
Proving me right again and again.
Its language issues on your sides not understanding clear sources of the english language. Stay with french sources
Well then gaijin needs to make tws++ with some esa radar code spiced in, i believe gaijin can do it, maybe by christmas.
nah they are working exclusively on TVC for Jets until christmas for the F22
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
so where is your source that states that:
The NATO document literally shows you what type Brimstone uses and explains it in great details.
In the quotation in the message.
That one’s a dud.
Honestly, while I applaud @Gunjob , @DevilO6 and others for the effort- @Mulatu_Astatke didn’t even know Brimstone did not have and IR seeker at the start of this discussion.
If one of his core beliefs is that a missile he doesn’t even understand isn’t capable of ATR, then let him think that, there is no point in arguing with an ideologue.
1 Like
If it had IR we could have FnF Brimstones…Alas it was never implemented
Correct me if I’m wrong, but judging by the fact that it’s a radar… Information it aquires can not be a flat 2d image. It would be a set of gradients variety of which is being determined by distance to the measured point. Which is, inherently, a 3d model. The fact of being a radar should also allow for far more easy and precise filtering by, for example, speed (moving objects) or a set of predetermined patterns, for example a massive clutter cloud (tree).
UPD. Now that I’m researching the topic more - figured out that MMW is incredibly sensitive to metal.
Martel was implemented with a different guidance type to bring it inline with what the devs wanted, there is no reason that the same could not have happened with Brimstone.
It ‘could’ have been given IR capability rather than MMW in WT, it could have been given a MMW LOBL only capability with a boosted seeker range.
The reason Brimstone wasn’t implemented in a way that made it strong was that a dev decided thus, nothing more and nothing less.