Again this says nothing. I’ve actually provided useful information that AASMs can target specific and unique targets even amongst cluttered environments.
At best, the Brimstone likely uses a combination of radar and IR to discriminate a vehicle from a tree. Which is - as I said - nothing special. Classification could simply refer to differentiating between two separate classes of ‘land vehicle’ and ‘false alarm’.
There is no evidence that Brimstones use 3D target models in their ATR algorithms like the AASM does. Rather, sources actually indicate that radar ATR is little better than ‘useless’ for an actual battlefield:
Why do you keep talking about IR in relation to Brimstone? I’d figure since you’ve clearly spent time looking at this, the most basic level of research would’ve told you there has never been any Brimstone variant with an IR seeker.
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?
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).
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.
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
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?
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.
