The AASM 'Hammer' - History, Design, Performance & Discussion

[DirectSupport]

@MythicPi

For the life of me, i cannot figure out why you routinely state things without providing sources, or while providing unrelated sources. It makes it a hassle discussing literally any topic with you.

To be fair with you, I am not a hassle to discuss with. If anything, lets go through what has occurred for the past week. I don’t mean to single you out, but you (along with others) have stated the following now disproven claims:

1. AASM-IR has a 1.5km lock range (rather it turns on at that set distance above the target)
2. AASM-IR cannot lock onto tanks
3. AASM-IR can only provide course correction up to 80m
4. AASM-IR will lock onto corpses
5. AASM-IR only takes 2 pictures
6. AASM-IR can’t hit mobile tanks

If anyone is a hassle to deal with, it is people making several unfounded claims that can be readily disproven and some of the claimants are in a venn diagram of those who complain about Mulatu making claims regarding the Brimstone’s seeker. Anyway, why not provide sources for once rather than insisting I provide claims every step of the way?

[MythicPi]

I dont know why you think id feel singled out, the vast majority of thise things I never claimed, and most of what you say are “claims” were actually assumptions based on limited info and being discussed with a goal of getting more information, which is what a discussion thread is for.

But lets just go through those quick;

@DirectSupport

AASM-IR has a 1.5km lock range (rather it turns on at that set distance above the target)

Functionnaly this is 1.5km “lock range”. Its not the actual limit of the range for the seeker, but it is the distance at which the seeker activates above the estimated target. Its not doing 20km+ LOBL irl like it does in-game afaik. The 2x2km search area you posted would be a ~1.8km max range btw, so not exactly that much larger than 1.5km.

@DirectSupport

AASM-IR cannot lock onto tanks

Assumption based on available info, nobody (afaik) argued the point once sources were provided to prove otherwise.

@DirectSupport

AASM-IR can only provide course correction up to 80m

Nobody stated that outright afaik. You provided a source stating an AASM test had hit this deflection, but had not provided any sources claiming more, so the assumption from that point forward was that the 80m offset was the known max. Once you provided more info, the assumption changed.

@DirectSupport

AASM-IR will lock onto corpses

Could theoretically happen I suppose, iirc your source had stated the target had lost its turret before the AASM hit, making it no longer match the intended target. Also was a suggested problem back when we werent even sure if it could identify details.

@DirectSupport

AASM-IR only takes 2 pictures

Im actually curious about the “set of pictures” comment. I wonder if its a set of pictures to make up a 2x2km composite image, or if its taking multiple 2x2km images. The 2x2km being a composite image makes more sense to me, particularly considering the level of details the seeker is stated to have. Was my mistake on the 2 images, was an incorrect assumption based on “2 aquisitions”.

@DirectSupport

AASM-IR can’t hit mobile tanks

You have not provided any sources contradicting that claim. You state you have one, and I’m fully willing to change my view if provided, but the source you originally posted to counter said assumption was misrepresented, which is something that the Rafale gang has a habit of doing.

Also, I think its a pretty fair assumption to have considering all the info provided until this point. It may not be correct, but its not like its some biased guess.

@DirectSupport

If anyone is a hassle to deal with, it is people making several unfounded claims that can be readily disproven

Thats how ppl aquire new information, they discuss an assumption they have based on their currently available info and request further info from those who may have additional info.

@DirectSupport

some of the claimants are in a venn diagram of those who complain about Mulatu making claims regarding the Brimstone’s seeker.

Mulatu made actually unfounded claims, and once provided multiple sources disproving his claims, he categorically refused to accept them or change his opinion in any way. He also is the poster child for the above stated occurence of misrepresented sources, which is why ppl started questionning his reading comprehension skills and ability to understand the english language. The situations are very very different. His presence on the forums will not be missed.

@DirectSupport

Anyway, why not provide sources for once rather than insisting I provide claims every step of the way?

Ive already provided the source and reasoning behind my claim, and as Ive stated, and fully willing to reconsider if you have sources disproving my view. Theres no reason for you to hide your sources everytime someone asks you to support your claim. It wastes everyones time and is just generally annoying.

[vizender]

@MythicPi

not doing 20km+ LOBL

It’s already not doing 20km LOBL. You get track at around 10km for tanks and a bit more for larger targets like Pantsirs

@MythicPi

Assumption based on available info, nobody (afaik) argued the point once sources were provided to prove otherwise

@DirectSupport literally gave multiple sources that mentioned vehicles can be targeted, including tanks

@MythicPi

You have not provided any sources contradicting that claim. You

He has, and you are just refusing to accept them

@MythicPi

which is something that the Rafale gang has a habit of doing.

He says, confidently, like the EFT reports and source sharing wasn’t intentionally represented

@MythicPi

request further info from those who may have additional info.

But when new info is given you refuse to look at it objectively 🤷‍♂️

@MythicPi

Mulatu made actually unfounded claims, and once provided multiple sources disproving his claims, he categorically refused to accept them or change his opinion in any way

You are doing the exact same thing. The starting point of the discussion is the paper with the diagram of the 2 acquisitions, that does not go over vehicle acquisition, and since then a few other sources have been given to explain that said vehicle acquisition was possible, and yet you are still here saying that no proof that tanks can be targeted have been given. If that not mulatu 101 starter pack, I don’t know what it is

[MythicPi]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[DirectSupport]

Let’s all not argue, we should all be pushing for the implementation of correct AASM-IR mechanism. I only regret that I didn’t think of reporting this first. Modern IR AGMs implement long range LOAL capabilities which helps with multi-target long range attacks.

It would be the equivalent of modern fox 3 radar missiles still being stuck with SARH seekers rather than being able to be fired at long distance and having LOAL capabilities. The only thing we should worry about are game bugs and target discrimination.

[FlyingOstridge]

Having the IR seeker turn on 10 seconds before impact. Just move out of the way when you see a Hammer come towards you.

[MademoiselleSXXI]

pretty sure they’re smokeless irl and should be in-game

[DirectSupport]

How do you see it coming from you at very long ranges when the new implementation would allow for launch ranges of up to 80km+?

[FlyingOstridge]

Ground maps are barely 20km and most people when they see a rafale spawn are going to move away. What’s the FOV on Hammer-IR again?

[DirectSupport]

It should be 86 degrees or so, while looking at 2km x 2km view of the battlefield which should be sufficient for warthunder size battlefields

[MBDA_MICA]

Also should be smokeless almost, better to say reduced smoke engine.

[Flame2512]

@DirectSupport

while looking at 2km x 2km view of the battlefield

Where is it confirmed it can see a 2km x 2km area?

[MythicPi]

I think DirectSupport had posted a source/image saying it was, I didnt get a good look at it before the mods removed it though.

My theory atm considering the wording from the other source regarding the acquisition being “several pictures” is that the IR imager takes multiple images and creates a 2x2km composite image, but I can’t say this for certain.

It is also stated in the other doc that the seeker is rather low tech with a wide FOV though, so it might also be that it has the requisite FOV for the 2x2km image when entering the basket, but requires multiple pictures to be taken as each is rather poor?

[MythicPi]

Dassault Rafale - Variants, Characteristics, Armament and Performance

Yes and no, the angle of attack to the target seems to be adjustable but I’m not sure exactly how otherwise I would have reported it. Rafale International Issue 16 [image] AASM Brochure [image]

Replying to this here, but I’m almost certain the AASM IR can’t use adjustable angle of attack due to this specific bit of info in the AASM brochure:

[SP_Sabre]

From another AASM brochure

[MythicPi]

This doesnt specify all AASM’s can modify their AOI, and the AASM brochure is rather clear on the faft the IR one is designed to work with vertical AOI, which makes sense considering how it works.

[SP_Sabre]

The brochure specifically outlines the capabilities of the GPS variant and the IR version. It predates the laser variant’s first qualification test, so it reasons they all have the capability.

[MythicPi]

Why would SAGEM bother stating AASM IR is designed for vertical AOI if it had the same AOI capabilities as all the other AASM variants?

They just enjoy wasting time and ink?

[MademoiselleSXXI]

Yes? Have you never seen how much word padding companies do to fill a brochure’s space with enough cool-sounding info as possible? SP_Sabre looks pretty right here

[MythicPi]

Its beyond rediculous the mental gymnastics y’all go through. Its exasperating 🙄

I guess in theory it could be possible the AASM IR has variable AOI and SAGEM is just trying to fill brochure space, but its easily the stupidest of explanations in this situation, and pretty effectively gets felled by Occam’s razor, with the more likely/simple explanation being that;

1. SAGEM means what they wrote
2. You are so resistant to anything that could be perceived as even the most minute of “nerfs” to any French equipment that you make up dubious explanations to try to justify not adjusting your position on the subject when presented with new information.

Its not even like a vertical only AOI would be a “nerf” either, since that is by far the most dangerous AOI for use in WT, as it mitigates the ground vehicles ability to use cover to hide, a makes SAM intercepts much harder.