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.
6 Likes
From Sagem:
3D target models developed within the framework of air-to-ground for “complex outdoor scenes”.
5 Likes
“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.
No as per the brochure and the NATO definition of terms it does “identification”, again we don’t need to be English masters here, the same paper outlines the definition of those terms.
3 Likes
You can see the decoy lacks the red cross marking it as target, and the rests starts getting compared to the database
1 Like
But that paper only mentions target classification…
So IR only for the ships? Interesting
The Japanese GCS IR guidance kits were refused to be added because it couldn’t be proven the IR seeker could track ground targets, do Hammers have a document specifically saying the IR can track ground targets?
1 Like
Right which is then furthered by the manufacturer claiming “identification”.
Let me help you here;
So you see the paper is in discussion of SAR imagery and its development, it is talking in reference to Brimstone (would be wild to mention in a SAR paper when it can’t do it)?
And yes it turns out you can iteratively improve on something.
8 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
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.
18 Likes