Yeah overall I’d say it might end up as more of a buff than anything. right now you can’t ripple the IR variant, so it takes valuable time to get several going (and you want several bombs to be fired when panthers can shot them down extremely;y easily), so the plane needs to be in a dangerous situation when firing them (with panthers, and I guess in June more advanced SAM as wel) in the area. Recently I have been having a better time dealing with them by bringing only SAL AASM and rippling several in gps mode towards their location, and the IR variant would be even better at doing this. If it gets changed to this mode of guidance, bringing 3 SAL and 3 IR would be a META. IR for first SAM denial, and the 3 SAL for other ground targets destruction
The bomb is a 250kg bomb with time to impact from last correction of 2-3 seconds. That’s more that enough against all target bar fast moving MBTs in game
You will still get some kills sure, but you will get alot of near misses. If my Paveway IV doesn’t hit within about 5m, it normally only damages the target and doesn’t outright kill it.
Yeah. Anything else? Anything high quality? Anything that’s not slung under an aircraft while in flight?
If the answer is “no” then there’s nothing of use.
I see. Yeah this image is not good enough tho. However with this image showing an in service AASM and a primary source/brochure from an Indian source which specify the bomb, it should be enough evidence
It should be noted that two sets of images are taken, not 2 images only. I’d imagine a set of images for the first acquisition and a set of images for the second acquisition.
By the way, AASM IR did destroy mobile targets in Libya. This was before the introduction of AASM-Laser. Further, sources indicate AASM-IR can destroy targets traveling under 70km/h.
Theres also the chance that if a target is moving during the first aquisition, the new coordinates do not coincide with the target location dueing second aquisition and it either completely loses the target, or doesnt have enoigh pull to try to course correct on second aquisition.
First aquisition is for course correction, second aquisition is for sub-meter accuracy, not trying to find the target again…
“Mobile time sensitive systems” means targets that can reposition, not targets that are moving. They’re time sensitive cuz they can get out of danger by moving away to hide.
Also, not sure where you got the 70km/h number from that source, seeing as it literally never once actually mentions hitting moving targets. It actually states that most AASM launches were the GPS/INS only variants, and that the IR variant was used vs a military building requiring a certain level of accuracy to acheive an actual militatily significant result.
Mobile target does not mean moving target, tho some ppl do incorrectly use the terms interchangeably. It doesnt seem like this article makes that mistake though.
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 since we need to wait for you to actually provide the source of your claim if you ever actually do so.
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:
AASM-IR has a 1.5km lock range (rather it turns on at that set distance above the target)
AASM-IR cannot lock onto tanks
AASM-IR can only provide course correction up to 80m
AASM-IR will lock onto corpses
AASM-IR only takes 2 pictures
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?
