The entire excuse of why it couldn’t attack tanks was because the ir bands were different and the background clutter was different. The doc disproves both whether or not it mentions the GCS-1. The IR bands are identical and the decluttering is identical. The basic principles don’t magically change for the GCS.
2 Likes
You’ve already gotten the answer to this in previous forums, please find some new material instead of just parroting the same thing here.
All these environments provide different design challenges, and as a result different weapon systems. Without knowing the specifics of each weapon system, you can’t simply assume that because Y happened to work in environment X once, that Z also works in environment X.
We did find those docs providing that the IR bands and decluttering methods are identical after you made your unfounded claims. The same thing happened with the XGCS-2 where you claimed with no evidence that it was a dummy separation test because of some random Korean test, but we have docs showing they did drop tests with guidance and warhead tests. The same thing that happened with ARH on the Type 81. Your only evidence is that the GCS-1 is called an anti-ship bomb the same way it’s impossible for Kaga to operate F-35s because it’s a helicopter destroyer. You’re the one coping with no actual documented evidence.
3 Likes
I’ve already seen the material you’re talking about, and others have reviewed it as well, and the bottom line is, it’s garbage.
It only mentions that ships and ground vehicles have the same heat signature, it doesn’t mention at all that seeker can work in different environments. This is not the kind of material a developer wants.
Are you taking that video I brought up as an example of armament testing and calling it Korean-style testing? That was an example.
All armaments are subjected to separation tests to certify that they can be used on the aircraft and it has nothing to do with whether they can use the equipment at all. They are not connected to the weapon system of the aircraft at all, they are simply testing that after separation, the weapon separates properly from the aircraft and what aerodynamic characteristics it has.
This is done in every country. And Japan does it in ADTW, the picture of EJ Kai’s XGSC-2 shows it, and you suddenly start claiming that you can use it.
What more do I have to say here when I have already brought you multiple publications and you refuse to acknowledge them multiple times? It’s so funny that you don’t even think about how you annoy me with your rather 0 sources.
1 Like
The whole document is talking about decluttering IR background noise in different environments and specifically shows a small diesel engine crane in both a maritime and land environment to show the decluttering.
Ok so the source is you made it up because nothing about the caption in the photo mentioned it being a dummy bomb and we have the docs showing that the bombs were live tested, so why are you even arguing about it.
Again, your only argument is “it’s called anti-ship bomb” The only thing that matters is the IR band of the seeker and target, and any relevant decluttering methods which are proven to both be identical.
4 Likes
It’s just a single, completely unrelated pdf file with no evidence whatsoever that the technology was ever applied to the GCS-1.
What are you talking about? As pointed out in previous forums, the XGCS-2 mounted on the F-4EJ Kai is painted in a color that indicates that it is a dummy round, not a live round.
Also, the meaning of the color is that it is painted in several parts with high visibility so that the sensor can better see the dropped weapon during separation test.
Even the book explaining how GCS-1 works says it is not for ground targets, so what am I supposed to take that from?
Even they wrote that part by referring to the official JDA outline, which is the primary source. You have already seen this part, but you keep repeating the same thing.
Y’know, it’s almost like the XGCS-2 tests weren’t just separation tests but were also most importantly, compatibility tests as well, probably to ensure compatibility with the test aircraft. The warhead was also tested in safety tests, and it also succeeded in detecting targets at the optimal positions.
5 Likes
That’s the purpose of the separation test, the photos don’t show any live ammunition being loaded onto the F-4EJ Kai.
If have additional photos or information, it would be consider it, but the information we have at the moment are not sufficient.
I fail to see the reasoning behind this. Both targets are at similar temperatures and both much hotter than their surroundings.
And we already have enough sources to show that the GCS-1’s seeker is perfectly capable of distinguishing targets on land or sea.
A GBU-10 isn’t made to shoot down helicopters, but it can still do it anyway.
4 Likes
It’s a completely different environment and a completely different target, developers have already answered.
Not at all, nothing has been proven. All previously claimed evidence is indirect and does not indicate that they apply to GCS-1.
That is claiming based on something completely different thing. the GBU series uses laser guidance and has already proven itself to be quite usable against moving targets, and it is already a famous case that an F-15E shot down a helicopter with an LGB in the 1991.
If there is nothing to prove about GCS-1, then the argument based on a weapon with a completely different guidance method is not appropriate.
This pointless discussion is meaningless if you don’t bring any useful material here.
1 Like
Warm target on cold background
You can find more info on the GCS-1 suggestion thread, but given that it is using an Imaging IR seeker, coastal waters and ground generally are at close enough temperatures (and the sea is FAR MORE reflective) there is no reason why it wouldn’t work.
According to you, that warm car should be basically indistinguishable from the ground. Different environments after all.
Forgive me if I don’t value what they say much when we have absolute gems such as this where one basically goes “if igla can’t do it, neither can anything else”.
Would you rather someone posted classified documents instead? Of course not. Everything about modern systems is conjecture, pieced together with what little available information we have.
Not that having actual primary sources helps much since gaijin is also known to reject those in favor of whatever they want a vehicle to be or do. See M41A1 turret traverse nerf.
4 Likes
Completely incorrect comparison, they are not the same, the sea surface shows a more uniform image compared to the land surface, and the larger size of the ship compared to the ground vehicle ensures a more stable acquisition.
Spoiler
You are completely misunderstanding the statement. This is not to say that it is impossible for Stinger and Mistral to have that maneuver simply because Igla cannot.
They all maneuver in the same way, so it’s impossible for Stinger and Mistral to suddenly become overwhelmingly maneuverable.
And aerodynamically they don’t make sense, therefore their maneuverability was questioned by the developers and no one has proven in what way they are overwhelmingly maneuverable, hence the current implementation. You are twisting all the points just to blame the developers.
That’s why they allow us to report based on secondary sources, no one asked us to leak confidential material.
M41A1? In this case, there was a primary source, a manual, and a secondary source, a book, and the developers decided to give precedence to the primary source, the manual.
This has always been the case, and in the instance of a conflict between a primary and secondary source, the primary source takes precedence. In addition to this, the developer always has the right to choose which source to use.
1 Like
There is nothing on the ground that gets anywhere close to the car’s engine bay heat. This is even less of a factor for a tank, which has a much bigger engine and produces more heat. The background will be filtered anyways.
All it will affect is at what range the seeker will detect it, as simply getting closer will make that car’s engine bay appear as big (or bigger) than the ship.
Even something as crude as an AIM-9B can lock onto a plane from the front if it gets close enough, and the GCS-1 is also capable of engaging much smaller landing crafts which are much closer to a tank’s size.
How convenient that this picture isn’t from a top down perspective which is what the GCS-1 would see, and that these vehicles are clearly rear engined. Cooling vents in AFVs are almost always on the top side as well.
Has nobody considered that perhaps it is the Igla that is simply lacking? Do you have any evidence that the Igla is maneuvering to the limit of its aerodynamics and not just limiting itself to a lower load factor to conserve speed? Do you really think a notable manufacturer producing a piece of equipment in service by many countries would be lying and overstating a missile’s maximum load factor by ~3x?
In which the bug reporting manager responsible took the MAXIMUM time (=slowest) an M41A1 could take to turn the turret, which is about as fast as the base M41 (A1 upgrade specifically improved turret drive to reduce time to engage a target):
And made THAT the fastest turret traverse rate.
The bug report outlines this precisely and adds more sources that actually specify the FASTEST turret traverse speed for the M41A1:
Which of course, as I mentioned, was rejected. Gaijin does as gaijin wants.
So no, you’re simply wrong. This last matter isn’t even debatable.
7 Likes
You’re entering this conversation without knowing how seekers in GCS-1 work. They lock on to targets in the following ways:
It captures the infrared radiation emitted by the target and performs homing guidance by locking onto objects where the product of the sea surface temperature difference and the area exceeds a certain threshold.
This means that GCS-1 cannot lock on to small targets where does not exceed a predetermined threshold value.
And this is further maximized by the temperature difference between ground and sea level, as you can see in the image I uploaded above, sea level shows a more stable surface compared to ground level, which means that even lower performance seekers can effectively hit their targets.
This is just an example to show that the land surface is not simply the same as the water surface as you say. They have a more complex background clutter image, which means that just because a seeker works at sea doesn’t mean it will necessarily work on land.
Here you are making a simple assertion without proving anything about what the developers have pointed out, and unless you have something to back it up, they are not going to change it.
The extreme difference in maneuverability of missiles with similar aerodynamic surfaces and the same control method means either something is wrong with one or there is a difference in some way.
But if no one can prove this and just shout Russian bias, then the developers will never listen to it.
I have explained to you why the value was chosen and you are already not listening, the developer’s answer is that the data from the manual, which is the primary source, takes precedence. I understand your dissatisfaction, but as I said above, they have the right to choose the data.
I’ve already uploaded it above.
That’s just an assumption, that’s why the developers have explained several times in previous forums that they won’t implement it without additional material.
And even in the book that mentions seeker they explain that it is not for ground attack, they quote the primary source, the JDA official outline, to explain GCS-1, so there is no better source than them to date.
Since we are not discussing the maneuverability of the MANPADS, let’s keep this brief: without any additional data on the overwhelming maneuverability of missiles with the same design and similar aerodynamic surfaces, they will not change anything.
Do you have any evidence that the Igla is maneuvering to the limit of its aerodynamics and not just limiting itself to a lower load factor to conserve speed?
This has already been explained in a previous dev blog:
Therefore, the average resulting force over half a rotation period for a missile with a single-channel control system in relay mode will be 63.66% compared to the same non-rotating missile performing a maneuver in the plane of the control surfaces. The ratio is also the same for the average available overload to the peak one when the rudders are in the maneuver plane.
Because of this feature, when analyzing the maneuvering capabilities of MANPADS missiles, we rely not only on the maximum overload indicated in the documents, but also on the weapon engagement zones and conduct a comparative analysis of missiles by mass and area of aerodynamic surfaces. For MANPADS missiles, we reliably know the maneuvering capabilities of the 9M39 with available overload of 10.2G, which is confirmed not only by the overload in technical documentation, but also by the size of the engagement and kill zones of maneuvering targets.
Yes, the developers already know that Igla maneuvers at the maximum aerodynamic limit.
I understand your frustration, but the developers have already provided the necessary answers, and this will not be reconsidered without additional material.
I have no dog in this race, but I did want to say that even if GCS tracked ground targets, there’s the issue of no IFF and hitting friendly targets (and wrecks) right? Which is also why brimstone isn’t FnF. With no ability to laser guide like the brimstone, it’s kinda rip.
2 Likes
soooooo, will the ir guided mk82’s come or nah?
AGM-65F uses the same seeker as the AGM-65D and is also mentioned in the manual as being usable against ground targets.
The reason they are referred to as “anti-ship” is because they can be used effectively against ships with larger warheads than previously possible.
GCS-1 seeker operates independently after release from the aircraft, rather than being pre-locked before release the aircraft like the AGM-65, and has a completely different acquiring method. AGM-65 is not an appropriate example of this.
See the developers answer that just because X can be used in Z environment, it doesn’t mean Y can be used in Z.
1 Like
This does not say what you think it does. The Igla uses a pretty crude guidance method where it spins quickly in order for its two control fins to be able to engage a maneuvering target. Mistral and Stinger have 4 controls fins and don’t do this, on top of the Stinger in particular having much larger control fins.
They’re just comparing weight and control surface area. Which doesn’t seem to mean much since the larger and heavier TY-90 with relatively smaller fins is doing 20G.
So that’s a yes, both you and the devs are saying that MBDA are just straight up lying about the Mistral’s capabilities then. Interesting take.
From the same country that can’t have attackers so instead they called them “support fighters” (despite said “fighters” being hopelessly outdated) and can’t have aircraft carriers so they named them “helicopter destroyers” (with F-35s in them).
You seem to forget that politics plays a very big role in military procurement, especially in a country where anything considered ‘offensive’ is very much looked down upon, and wording is bent accordingly.
Wrecks are filtered out since they are too hot. Friendly targets are an issue but this can be avoided with some care as to where you drop.
We have IR guided bombs already, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to require the GCS-1 to require lock before dropping if we’re that afraid of an unpowered, non-glide bomb.
3 Likes
Then please write a bug report with that point and prove it, I won’t stop you from doing anything about it
I rather think the TY-90 odd by the same standards, they are the only missiles that have deviated from the current implementation despite having a similar design.
I don’t think either of them is lying, I’m just explaining the point developers are thinking.
You are taking everything in quite a twisted way here.
It’s not a problem of name, it’s a problem of method, and several sources have already said that the reason GCS-1 didn’t use the well-known laser guidance method was to avoid political problems abut ground attack capability.
So if you want to prove something, it’s better to bring one piece of data that states that GCS-1 can do ground attack than to bring dozens of unrelated pieces of data. That’s what the developers want.
I have answered this question sufficiently here and there is nothing new here. If you find something new, please report it on the bug report site. Here I will leave this circular argument.
1 Like