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.
Please try again.
SAR imagery.
Objects are placed on moving platforms and measured in 3D
Anything mentioning SAR target models actually being used in Brimstones, though?
What do you think algorithms are based on
But Mode 3 didn’t even exist then?
Huh?
This is your claim. Not the manufacturer’s.
That source is from 1999. Did Mode 3 even exist then?
Not under the name Mode 3 for sure.
If you’re going to keep arguing in bad faith I will need to summon the FM’s.
Is he genuinely not a native english speaker or has the reading comprehension of middle schoolers actually fallen this much???
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I see the French supremacy everyone else is technologically behind us person is here misunderstanding things again
For what its worth, I didnt bother flagging your low effort insult xD
I would suggest the topic switches back to not being a mud slinging contest and back to matters of fact.
@Mulatu_Astatke dispute this with a like for like primary source material.
From Sagem:
3D target models developed within the framework of air-to-ground for “complex outdoor scenes”.
“valid and non-valid targets”… so like whether it’s a tree or a tank?
But what is their use. The brochure STATES IN BOLD FONT that the algorythm is used for facilities.
Those models might as well be used as example of thing the missile is no supposed to target, or if concentration of look alike targets is hight, there is a chance said facility is its target.
