So basically its an issue with interaction between the IIR lock & the low altitude of the terrain following profile of the Mid-Course Cruise.
And that it doesn’t fallback to a GPS/INS guidance properly when the track is lost in the terminal phase.
Also it is possible to extract range from angular rates from a seeker head to update GPS coordinates
To me they absolutely do. Representing strike aircraft with 2+ IRCCM missiles at or below 11.7 with one of them having HMD(yes yes ik the 10C is very much a subsonic)
The Jaguar IS is a great jet m8, magic 2’s at 11.3, shit ton of chaff and enough flares to last you the whole game.
I stand by my BR suggestions and comparisons, they’re more than reasonable.
The Jaguar IS is absolutely a great jet, but it’s also not comparable to the Tornado Gr.4 in the slightest lol.
It’s true that in game IR missiles with « GNSS » absolutely never use GPS in any situation. I don’t really see the point of adding them as « IR + GNSS + IOG » if the GNSS and IOG part is strictly deactivated.
The current implementation is also already detrimental for the AASM as, due to its loft, if launch in point mode at medium-high altitude it will fly away instead of guiding towards the ground.
That’s because the bomb always necessitate line of sight of the target its tracking (even the ground in POINT mode), but due to the high loft and limited seeker off bore sight, it looses the ground and doesn’t default to GNSS/IOG, and thus continues in a straight trajectory.
Comparable enough as reference to highlight the point I’m driving home about the insanity for the BR differences with the current MM m8.
You clearly see that I didnt say make the GR4 11.3 bro.
again, I stand by my suggestions made.