I mean… depends. This post has a statement that Soviets get OP CAS option, therefore, Swedes can get one via ASMs that have capabilities of being used against ground targets.
The nature of talks about ASMs’ capabilities being regarded primarily from ground attack aspect is understandable as most of the people (and I’d say I am part of these people) don’t care about ASM usage in naval specificaly.
It is even more evident when countries cannot offer dedicated counterparts of weapon systems present in others (e.g. Japan mains want ASM-2s to be added alongside F-2 for A2G capability as Japanese themselves have no dedicated guided A2G ordnance like Soviets/Americans/British/French have: AGM-65s / Kh-29Ts / AS-30 / Brimstone etc.).
It is pretty much the case with Swedes as well: its either AGM-65As or AGM-65Gs which are not competetive in current economy due to their relatively low quantity (2-4 per airframe) and quality (Kh-29Ts kind of outperform AGM-65s while being in same number on certain airframes).
Unfortunately only ASB has naval targets so for a majority of the community A2N weapons would serve no purpose. If they can double as A2G weapons in GRB they would hold value. Which is probably why so many ASMs haven’t been added yet and why the ones we have are kinda useless Vs naval targets
This is where I tend to disagree or at least get uncomfortable: Yes, CAS was brought up, but in my view is a completely different topic. That some countries may have a superiority in one field/role should not be the basis to forcefully bend characteristics and capabilities of (specialized) weapons so they could answer such a discrepancy.
In all those discussions, be that Kormoran, Martel or Penguin , I’ve so far never seen really conclusive data that would proof that those anti ship missiles would be used and reliably work against small point targets as tanks or other CAS relevant targets.
Sure, you could fire a Martel against a building, and Kormoran against larger structures could work as well, little argument there. But hitting a CAS relevant target? That’s something completely different.
At best I’d expect the Penguin to be the closest to being capable of doing so, but then the situations where that would work could also be very well covered by a Maverick…
There’s a reason a radar guided Brimstone was fielded 2005, and not already 40 years earlier like the Rb-04: Using radar to engage a large block of metal on a quite flat, smoot surface is quite a lot easier than picking up a small object among many other small objects on a surface that reflects and scatters radar energy easily, no?
Again, for large land targets, be that a large factory or so, ok.
… but forcefully bend realism so such weapons fit into a different role?!?
I guess what you stated about map and game design limited usefulness of those weapons is the main reason why they’re still a novelty in WT than a real, regularly seen thing.
Iirc, they could, or might have been used for that because they are not EO guided like they are in game but remote controlled by the co-pilot and so the limitation on what can be hit is largely the skill of the co-pilot. I’d guess targeting static SPAA was entirely doable. You also had the ARM version used by France on the Jaguar and maybe the Super Eterndard?
Yeah, it’s not necessary to make an ASM into an ATGM for the sake of making an additional loadout option for GRB, but I do understand the desire. Like the Typhoon at the moment having no FnF weapons, 6x Marte-ER ASMs would be quite useful if theyd double as ATGMs
I’m already quite miffed that incediary bombs are a multitude more powerful at destroying bases than regular bombs, but then are of limited use against massed ground troops…
Ahhh, NOW we’re talking! I think a variety of bases with different properties, or better even modular bases would really be one exceptionally good thing for WT in general and Sim in particular!
I fully agree: A factory complex where I have several large, possibly fortified buildings should require a completely different approach and weapons than a tent camp…
The paragraph clearly states that the RB04 is restricted to targeting landing ships, transport vessels, and escort groups—collections of ships of varying sizes.
Since it flies just 10–15 meters above the surface, it would likely struggle to hit ground targets smaller or more mobile than a small mansion.
I made some more digging, RB-04 E had better guidance system and improved monopulse radar. Also the RB-04 C variant ( the initial product) could be manually guided using joystick and radar by second pilot / radar operator in A32A. still missile would flew wery close to ground, so in theory, it would act like bullpup?
