The UK has just ordered fifty new build Apache-E and Brimstone integration is going along swimmingly well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX0hrj9sboM
http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-releases/mbda-demonstrates-brimstone-missile-live-firing-from-apache-helicopter/
http://www.boeing.co.uk/news-media-room/news-releases/2016/july/boeing-to-boost-british-army-capability.page?
Awww yis
>>30627778
>tfw Brits are going to have better Apaches than Americans
>I didn't have the talent to fly a helicopter gunship
Life is suffering sometimes
Soon.
Spear is also on track.
http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-releases/mbda-showcases-the-spear-precision-strike-missile-for-the-f-35/
>>30627847
The Americans are getting JAGM too, eventually.
>>30627778
Wait, are we sure these are new build, and not rebuilds of the existing WAH-64s?
Most US Es will be rebuilds of Ds and were actually As when built. Likewise, I'd be surprised if the Brits willingly gave up their larger engines.
>>30628900
Yes, new build. Fresh off Boeing's production lines.
The Rolls Royce engines were more powerful than the Ds, but the E engines are more powerful than the RRs.
>>30627778
Oh damn did they use Arma 3 to make this video?
>>30628949
No.
>>30628900
They're new builds. The plan was for the exist fleet to be rebuild, but Boeing offer the newer airframes at dirt cheap. Only a few things with be moved across to the newer builds though, like the radar.
>>30627847
The Army is going to have a hell of a lot more of them than the UK ever will.
>>30627778
>it dropped the missile pylon on its left side, lowered into the tree line slightly, came back up with left side of pylon missiles back
>>30629111
>not having eldar god tier battlefield resupply.
>>30629111
>not having jettionsable missiles that repair and rearm themselves and come back to you
But in seriousness, it's a new helicopter that popped up from the tree-line after being handled the fire solution by the helicopter that's had been shot.
The caption even says so, and you'd noticed CRV-7 rocket pods on the outer pylons.
>>30627778
>Wishful thinking: the helo and missile
>>30629155
China, please.
You still have to rely on Russian enginers for everything.
>>30629155
They are both already in service. That's the opposite of wishful thinking.
>>30627892
Not with that attitude, Tom.
>>30627778
>that video
Where were you when Enemy Engaged became real?
We've got Hellfire and Brimstone.
What would you name JAGM?
>>30627778
If this was Russian video, /k/ would be shiting on it soo hard
>>30629967
If it was Russian the helicopter would make an emergency landing in the middle of a parade and be towed away.
>>30629967
Because it would be nothing but a concept video.
Whilst Brimstone is an actual, in service thing.
>>30627847
Gonna buy some before Brexit will kill UK's economy.
>>30627847
>Implying this wasn´t always the case
Im not an expert so correct me if Im wrong but didnt the americans have to take half of their radar off their apaches in Afghanistan justs so they could fly them in mountains?
>Advanced Apache avionics
>Advanced payload
Russian helicopters can't even compare, desu senpai
>>30629841
Caldera?
Cinder?
Magma?
Pumice?
>>30627892
His sac got mushy!
>>30629841
Brimfire
>>30630369
>>30630255
Punisher
>>30629841
Krakatoa
>>30627778
>Active Seeker pulses are ignored by Tor's search radar.
>Missile itself is ignored by optical sensors around the Kamov.
The Apaches could have just waltz in within 50 m and opened up with 30 mm cannons on those two targets; won't make a difference since apparently scenario editor cut out their programmed responses.
>But wait- a fucking BTR knows where to look at and ambush an Apache that's just climbing the horizon.
>>30630509
>Active Seeker pulses are ignored by Tor's search radar.
You might be thinking RWR? Not that a 9M338 is going to be much use against a Brimstone.
That said, its a promotional video. Don't think too hard about it.
Love.
>>30630509
>Russian sensors
>detecting anything
>>30630533
>Not that a 9M338 is going to be much use against a Brimstone.
Brimstone missiles don't do evasive maneuvers in anticipation of incoming interceptors, nor do they jam the engaging platform, so no. It won't be that much of an issue, especially for the new 9M338 missiles that are especially made for no-selling PGMs.
>>30630911
Apologize like your head roach, mehmet.
>>30631081
9M338 has a minimum engagement distance of ~2,000m
If its launching over a hill queued by the drone as in the video, chances are it could do jack shit even if it knew the missile was coming.
>>30631081
>getting this asshurt
Shitposting wont bring them back, anon.
Block IIIs are pretty good, started flying them back in 2012. We're also fielding APKWS
>>30628293
Is MBDA the best missile developer in the world right now ?
Everything in their line up is top of its class. From Meteor to Brimstone II
>>30631081
>he doesn't know what ECCM are
>>30631160
Are you saying we as America, or we as in you're an Apache pilot?
>>30631128
>9M338 has a minimum engagement distance of ~2,000m
1 km, actually. Brimstone probably has similar to Hellfire's min. range of 500 m and when the difference is a measly 500 m and is highly dependent on very specific obstructive terrain I doubt this would manifest itself that much.
>>30631244
>Hellfire
That video wasn't about Hellfires.
Russia BTFO
>>30631244
Assuming you meant Brimstone, considering that video doesn't involve Hellfires, it doesn't matter what they're engagement distance is.
Its a pop-up attack over a hill. If that hill is within minimum engagement distance or is 2-3 seconds to getting within minimum engagement distance, TOR can't do anything.
But the Apache can be 10km behind that hill.
That said, its okay. TOR wasn't really designed for that kind of attack and you'd have to have fucked up badly to put your air defence in a valley with Apaches on the other sides of hills.
>>30631141
>crashing erdo's Neo-Ottoman Middle Eastern designs... with no survivors.
>>30631170
If you are employing ECCM you would have jets- and if you have those why not just sling the Brimstone from those. Increase effective range as well. Except we can't have that since the promotional is shilling the Apache.
>>30627847
We already did. Ours were naval capable as well with better engines in general. Maybe the gun systems were a bit old but Britain tends to run shit down to obsolete standards before replacing.
Look at the Scorpion's family. Been using them for years and they aren't even 12.7mm proof.
.
>>30631242
That's my pic.
>>30631281
>That video wasn't about Hellfires.
>>30631318
>Assuming you meant Brimstone, considering that video doesn't involve Hellfires,
>Brimstone probably has similar to Hellfire's min. range of 500 m
Nevermind. I actually had a brainfart since there is nothing stopping the Apache from launching further away than the immediate crest of the hill.
>>30631318
>Its a pop-up attack over a hill. If that hill is within minimum engagement distance or is 2-3 seconds to getting within minimum engagement distance
Ehem. You are forgetting Tors are deployed in batteries of 4 TELARs. In especially hilly terrain where threat of pop-ups abound you could look at at least 1 unit covering another just slightly within his minimum engagement distance. With an average powered speed of 850 m/s, 2-3 seconds of warning time is enough. And yes there is an auto-engagement robotic mode for when reaction time is at the very minimum, just not used very much.
>>30631459
Thats what I mean, that TOR in the video was fucked but its unlikely that you would actually deploy them like that unless you were retarded.
>implying the Apache was designed to fight ADA
>>30631475
>but its unlikely that you would actually deploy them like that unless you were retarded.
Ehh, AA assets have been bounced, historically.
They are actually at their most vulnerable when they are on the move, and they do move alot.
>>30631485
The first aircraft involved in the Gulf War air campaign were Apaches destroying radar.
>>30631244
Another issue is the TOR's minimum altitutde.
Helicopters can get below its 33 feet minimum and fire off rockets before fucking off.
They could launch at max range and the TOR system would not be able to effectively engage the incoming vampire.
Ground clutter is a bitch.
>>30631571
I wonder if thats 33feet from the ground/trees at the target or 33feet relative to the launch system
>>30631571
Minimum altitude is 0,01 km exactly for that reason.
BTW it is highly unlikely recon platforms like the Reaper would be operating willy-nilly over the airspace like that. Since we are talking army systems, the next tier to engage high flyers like the Reaper (15 km alt) would be the Buk-M2/3.
>>30631655
Well yeah. Is that target altitude or launcher altitude?
Either way, a heli can come in fast and very low and wreck some AA assets.
>>30628703
JAGM isn't a fully Brimstone comparitive though. It does the MAIN thing Brimstone does, which is that independant guidance and extreme accuracy, but it lacks things like the convoy attack mode or (I think) missile networking system with the target database recognition. It's also got a much shoter range.
It's essentially US looked at the big thing about Brimstone (Its targeting ease and extremely low collateral accuracy on moving targets) and wanted that part, rather than the entire thing.
Which is perfectly fair, thats the most commonly used element. JAGM is gonna be fucking awesome, and is a real upgrade to do some of what Brimstone does, but when it's a nation like the US using it, thats a massive boost for everyone.
>>30631160
Isn't flying a helicopter shit?
Like it must be so boring and quite scary since you have no ejection seats.
>>30631678
The minimum altitude the missile can achieve through command guidance, and effectively the minimum alt. for interception of targets as well.
>Either way, a heli can come in fast and very low and wreck some AA assets.
Going low basically gimps the ranges of your sensors, and opens you up to all sorts of fire ranging from small arms to terrifyingl "airliner downer" Buk missiles. Plus, since the Russians even integrate MANPADS into the whole IADS BMS sight picture they remedy their problem of lack of reaction time and are now practically death sentences in waiting.
>>30631831
>Going low basically gimps the ranges of your sensors
Depends on the terrain. Flying nap of the earth opens you up to lots of options.
Even in open terrain, the brimstone can be fired from 12 km out. Relying on your meatbags to spot a helicopter 12 kilometers away is sub optimal, imo.
In closed terrain, the apache can just troll face, pop over a hill, ripple fire brimstones, and then just go right back to cover.
>>30631819
Can't autorotate a jet
>>30631819
Nah maverick can't hover
Well, at least the Brits are not shooting at EU targets in their new video. That's what I kind of expected when I clicked the link.
>>30631819
>blowing shit up from 500ft must be boring compared to dropping a JDAM at 15,000ft
>>30627778
So why hasn't there been any interest in developing a coaxial-rotor attack helicopter?
>>30632096
I guess mechanical complexity?
>>30632096
There is. Look up the Sikorsky skyraider. IIRC the 58F was supposed to be coax
>>30632141
Well not the 58F but it was a bell jetranger
>>30632141
We're getting closer to GDI Orcas every day
>>30631393
Neat, assuming this isn't some ruse.
>>30632162
No ruse bud.
>>30632129
>mechanical complexity
A co-axial rotor actually eliminates mechanical complexity by allowing the helicopter to omit the tail rotor. It can also fly higher than a typical helicopter, and has better range because less fuel is consumed (because there is no tail rotor to feed).
Can someone explain how Brimstone is so much better than Hellfire?
>>30630395
Isn't that the XM25's unofficial name?
>suplhur
>perdition
>hades
>hellstone
>crucible
>firestorm
>burninator
>>30630911
Which sensor on a Su-24 was supposed to detect AIM-9X, dimwit?
>>30632312
>Cerberus
>>30632430
>cerebral bore
>>30632272
More modes of guidance, including a millimetre radar that enable it to launch independantly. More accurate seekers against moving vehicles (Capability includes hitting 70mph moving targets perpendicular to launch platform, while firing off bore).
It also has a much longer range (40km from Helos). The "big daddy mode" of it is the convoy attack mode, though. You can ripple fire them in networked 24 missile swarms that require no input from the aircraft as such. You target an "area", unleash hell with 24 missiles from a few helos and they will streak off to the area and automatically catagorise targets based on an onboard recognition database that will prioritise targets such as anti-air or MBTs over trucks, recognise convoy direction and then target front and back to jam it while the rest of the missiles impact 1-2 seconds apart from one another. The reason for the tiny delay is that the missile will retarget surviving vehicles or change target if its original was taken out.
In effect, you don't launch individual missiles at multiple targets, you launch a connected convoy killing swarm that targets by itself in all weather with no further input and can disengage immediately after the last missile fires, from 40km away.
It's also got a datalink, so they can self detonate if a wrong target is called or self guide around obstacles to strike obscured targets that move out of LoS.
As for its general accuracy, I'll Boeing speak:
"Dan Girardin, Boeing Flight Test Engineer, Mesa AZ: said: ‘The mmW autonomous shot from a moving and banking platform against an off-axis target with the missile hitting the MBT turret ring was the most aggressive shot I have seen in my 30 years of the Apache programme.’"
And of course, you can mount it on fast jets too. It gets to 60km on them.
>>30632543
Cool beans. Someone said something about depleted uranium in the liner for the warhead, but that sounds like complete bullshit, considering uranium's pyrophoricity and hardness.
>>30632724
Yeah, bullshit. Not like it needs it.
>>30632355
Superior technology L-082 MAK-UL.
My loins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoGKPMmdGDk
Hide you tanks, guys.
>>30636971
Here.
>>30634661
That is aimed upwards, while the missile was shot from below.
>>30636971
Poland is ready
>>30637366
>poland
>ADAPTIV
Sweden is ready you mean.
>>30637335
..No it isn't.
Its mounted below to detect mainly MANPADs.
>>30638008
Yes it is. Read your own pic's filename, dimwit.
>inb4 Lies, it has two!
No.
>>30638181
>>30638175
Clearly different aircraft.
>>30628703
Is that fucking Jerusalem? top kek
>>30638224
What different aircraft, dimwit?
>>30638321
Obscured by stores.
This could be after they were upgraded to have the belly detector.
>>30629841
Tartarus
>>30631761
Brimstones range numbers come from high altitude lobs by Tornadoes.
>>30638337
It is the same aircraft, dimwit. 07 white, RF-92020.
http://russianplanes.net/regs/RF-92020
>This could be after they were upgraded to have the belly detector.
Never happened, dimwit. Original Su-24 didn't have upwards aimed IR MAWS, it was installed in 1976 on Su-24M. It never had one installed on its belly, in any modification, ever. Stop embarrassing yourself.
>>30638518
How can you know I'm not fucking with you at this point
>>30632272
Pretty much all the special features of Brimestone exist on Hellfire missiles, you just have to not compare it to older versions.
>>30638554
Poe's law.
>>30638554
>I was merely pretending
>>30631761
so, what, are we just being cheap asses and not buying brimstone and going with a not as good missile system for the sake of money?
>>30632724
A KE projectile needs a much more powerful booster and it will be committed to a single target and just taht. You can't redirect.
>>30633118
Hits on the frontal aspect of most tanks would still be resisted except for weakspots.
And APS would still be bloody effective against Brimstones. Shaped charge warheads aren't exactly that effective when a hardkill interceptor detonates in very close proximity, and the radar pulses kinda betray its arrival and the 1-2 second delay for the next incoming is still a lot for an APS.
>>30629045
Are you just trying to wave your dick about, or do you have a point? I don't know if you realise this, but we're only a small island off the coast of Northern Europe. So of course your Army will have more Apaches than we do, your Army is larger than our entire armed forces.
Seems that Brimstone 2 is also good to go on Tornadoes.
http://www.janes.com/article/62277/farnborough-2016-brimstone-2-enters-service-begins-apache-trials
>>30638452
Off fixed wing it can do 60km. The 40km is off rotary.
Remember this is MBDA, small missiles with absurd ranges is sort of their shtick. Meteor's outrageous range, the tiny CAMM reaching 60km. They are very very good at enhancing weapon reach.
>>30639219
>Hits on the frontal aspect of most tanks would still be resisted except for weakspots.
Except Brimstone strikes from pretty much all angles, most commonly from directly above.
>And APS would still be bloody effective against Brimstones.
APS would be shit against Brimstone. Sure if you're LUCKY you might hit ONE coming from a vertical direction (And almost no APS has that kind of abiliity), but the other 23? And the follow up swarm of the remaining 18 missiles all hitting pretty much one after the other? Yeah, good luck with that.
>>30642133
>most commonly from directly above.
No missile hits it target from directly above, unless released as such. Top attack missiles like the Javelin come down at about 45 deg.
>>30642133
>APS would be shit against Brimstone.
Missiles with their fragile construction are easy enough for hardkill interceptors to chew upon.
>Sure if you're LUCKY you might hit ONE coming from a vertical direction
Again, there is no such thing. Barring being released directly from above, any trajectory that places the missile on an approach into a direct descent means the missile loses sight of the target- a no no. And most APS we see are inclined sufficiently to cover that expanded envelope.
>but the other 23?
Tanks in most cases don't explode immediately after penetration, Syrian TOW vids notwithstanding which are cherry picked to present the best outcomes anyway. They don't even get crippled right away speaking in majority of cases, so to ensure it gets disabled let alone killed you fire more and more at precise weakspots until it goes boom.
>And the follow up swarm of the remaining 18 missiles all hitting pretty much one after the other?
The problem with only a radar for guidance is that it only sees the silhouette or the shape of the target. If the silhouette remains intact, as that Abrams that got subjected by a Maverick missile and DU projectiles can attest, the other Brimstones don't know for sure if the target is really dead or alive- they have no way of identifying other clear visual clues like fire and smoke and noise that indicate a dead tank.
This means against hard targets like tanks Brimstones likely don't use their retargeting capability that much - that is just an easy way to waste missiles on the same beaten target.
>>30642538
>No missile hits it target from directly above, unless released as such. Top attack missiles like the Javelin come down at about 45 deg.
Why are you talking about things you know fuck all about?
here's a TOW in top attack
https://youtu.be/E1VWPOpYbQI?t=9
Here's a Javelin in top attack
https://youtu.be/_XZTZmzM-Kw?t=22
Neither are "45 degrees".
>>30642614
>here's a TOW in top attack
Which flew right past above the target, which is not that same as a missile descending vertically.
>Here's a Javelin in top attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin#/media/File:1-27_Top_attack_flight_path..PNG
>>30642538
>Missiles with their fragile construction are easy enough for hardkill interceptors to chew upon.
If they can even hit it. APS are predominantly focused on attacks coming into it from a level, not from much higher air strike angles. Brimstones dive on the taret, much like top attack munitions.
>There is no such thing as top attack
Now you're just being stupid.
>Here's a Javelin in top attack
Yes, clearly your vague wikipedia diagram showing a general route is better proof than >>30642614 with his actual video content of it.
>Tanks in most cases don't explode immediately after penetration, Syrian TOW vids notwithstanding which are cherry picked to present the best outcomes anyway. They don't even get crippled right away speaking in majority of cases, so to ensure it gets disabled let alone killed you fire more and more at precise weakspots until it goes boom.
They're networked missiles. They KNOW if they properly detonated or not. How do you think it even works as an idea if they didn't?
>This means against hard targets like tanks Brimstones likely don't use their retargeting capability that much - that is just an easy way to waste missiles on the same beaten target.
Show me a single confirmed instance of multiple Brimstones striking the same target after it being killed then.
>so to ensure it gets disabled let alone killed you fire more and more at precise weakspots until it goes boom.
I think you're vastly overestimating the defensive capabilities of tanks against modern air-launched missiles from the top arc. And you seem to have it in mind that an air-launched platform is going to all launch at the frontal arcs of everything anyway, which is just hilariously naive.
>>30642668
>Which flew right past above the target, which is not that same as a missile descending vertically.
Should've made myself clearer. There are 2 subclass of top attack missiles; the first is the diving top attack which dives itself on to the target like a regular missile would and the other being the overflight top attack that has its warheads pointing downwards to engage the target as it flies past.
>>30642668
A missile doesn't have to impact a tank to hit it directly from above. I assumed you were talking about the important part; the warhead. Not an inert missile.
>>30642742
>If they can even hit it. APS are predominantly focused on attacks coming into it from a level, not from much higher air strike angles.
And there is nothing stopping designers from sticking a few more interceptors and sensors scanning topside...
>Now you're just being stupid.
Look at the seeker on the brimstone. Do you think the seeker can even orient itself for extreme >90 degree off boresight? It would be blocked by the walls even if it could traverse its head that much.
>Yes, clearly your vague wikipedia diagram showing a general route is better proof than >>30642614 with his actual video content of it.
The angle of the shot makes it look like the missile came in steeper than it did. And the diagram came from the US FM that came about it.
>They're networked missiles. They KNOW if they properly detonated or not. How do you think it even works as an idea if they didn't?
Networking has no bearing on the fact that they can't identify if a tank is dead if it didn't blew itself apart immediately after penetration and a husk remained in its place that is then identifiable by the MMW radar as a kill.
>Show me a single confirmed instance of multiple Brimstones striking the same target after it being killed then.
No I'm just using what we know about radar guidance.
>I think you're vastly overestimating the defensive capabilities of tanks against modern air-launched missiles from the top arc.
I could say the same about you wrt the Brimstone.
>And you seem to have it in mind that an air-launched platform is going to all launch at the frontal arcs of everything anyway, which is just hilariously naive.
Your strawman is even more hilarious.
>>30642866
>And there is nothing stopping designers from sticking a few more interceptors and sensors scanning topside...
So you're admitting they aren't around then, glad we agree.
>Look at the seeker on the brimstone. Do you think the seeker can even orient itself for extreme >90 degree off boresight? It would be blocked by the walls even if it could traverse its head that much.
And now you're trying to change the subject. Boeing's own test engineers report the Brimstone's offbore ability is "the most aggressive shot" they've ever seen. It comes down on the tank, striking downwards, it doesn't come level with the tank and then fly straight, which is what APS and even tank armor itself is designed to stop.
>The angle of the shot makes it look like the missile came in steeper than it did. And the diagram came from the US FM that came about it.
It's just a rough diagram, it's not a precision document of angles, you're just trying to imply it is. Do you really think that rough b/w image is a precisiuon engineered layout of attack angles? Like I said, you're very naive if you think so.
Meanwhile, the other guy had video evidence. You're clasping at straws here.
>Networking has no bearing on the fact that they can't identify if a tank is dead if it didn't blew itself apart immediately after penetration and a husk remained in its place that is then identifiable by the MMW radar as a kill.
Because if an ATGM like that hits a vehicle from the top angle and correctly detonates, it's pretty certain that vehicle is going to be out of action for a while, even if it doesn't catastrophically detonate.
>No I'm just using what we know about radar guidance.
So you can't back up your claim then. Good to know.
>I could say the same about you wrt the Brimstone.
Show me a single tank thats survived impact from one then.
>Your strawman is even more hilarious.
"H-he pointe dout a fatal flaw in my arguement! He m-must be strawmaning!"
>>30642133
>Off fixed wing it can do 60km. The 40km is off rotary.
With high altitude/high speed lobs from Tornadoes the Brimstone II can reach 60km, you are quoting wikipedia which applied a maximum range increase quote to other methods of firing.
>>30642614
>>30642742
The Javelin in the video came down at ~45 degrees, the camera is in line with the missiles flight path.
Lrn2 perspective.
>>30630255
Jagma
>>30642913
>So you're admitting they aren't around then, glad we agree.
No I didn't. Aveps is just one off top of my head that has integral top attack engagement envelope.
>And now you're trying to change the subject.
look who's talking. Just inspect a picture of a Brimstone focused on its seeker- which is transparent btw- it can't offer close to 90 degree or more boresight, and the Boeing engineer didn't say otherwise with that statement either.
>It's just a rough diagram, it's not a precision document of angles, you're just trying to imply it is. Do you really think that rough b/w image is a precisiuon engineered layout of attack angles? Like I said, you're very naive if you think so.
Now you are just saying words.
>Meanwhile, the other guy had video evidence. You're clasping at straws here.
That I can only eke out 3 frames wherein the missile is in frame. That is taken from an angle that suggests the trajectory is steeper than it really is.
>Because if an ATGM like that hits a vehicle from the top angle and correctly detonates, it's pretty certain that vehicle is going to be out of action for a while, even if it doesn't catastrophically detonate.
The MMW seeker can't know if its out of action unless it really blows itself up and disturbs its shape.
>So you can't back up your claim then. Good to know.
So you ignore basic facts about radars, good to know as well.
>Show me a single tank thats survived impact from one then.
Show me one Brimstone that has succeeded against APS equipped vehicles.
>"H-he pointe dout a fatal flaw in my arguement! He m-must be strawmaning!"
very funny. are you done?
>>30643995
I gotta love how you had absolutely nothing to back up your claims, have absolutely nothing other than "Y-you're just saying words!" and trying to act calm when you've been comprehensively proven wrong and are increasingly changing your tune again and again while ignoring repeated points by more than one person.
Point was, you claimed that APS would be "bloody effective" against it. It patently would not. There is barely any vehicles in the world fitted with APS against top attack munitions (If any?), so it's entirely a redundant claim.
Then you talk about "targeting precise weakpoints" where it's simply not required as these missiles don't fly parallel to attack the frontal arc from ground level, entirely redundant point.
Then you claim it can't attack from above, when it's been doing so since the start in multiple combat theatres.
Then you claim it can't retarget vehicles that intercepted it in some future scenario where that technology is common, but then refused to provide any source for that claim, despite datalinks making that a common ability for such missiles to retarget as needs be.
Then you ignore burden of proof. APS hasn't shown it can intercept air launched top attack munitions at all yet. So it's on you to prove that it can intercept such munition.
tl;dr - You've not proven a damn thing this entire chat and are trying desperately to re-route this as much as you can, then trying to end it as fast as you can with overconfident "are you done?" posts to avert it.
>Brimstone can't do top attack
Is this anon trying to turn this into another meme statement like "F-35 can't fly in rain"?
Pic related.
And video very related.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gchoTNMsETE
Proof, set and match.
>>30644261
Are you still pretending top attack means a vertical dive?
>>30629841
Predator missile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvHgJs9hDOc
>>30644373
Except I've never once claimed that, thats entirely your strawman thats invented that by trying to misread words in order to try and give yourself something to cling onto and keep your head above water when you're constantly being proven wrong. You were trying to argue that Javelin etc approach at far shallower angles than videos have proven form above from others, but at no point did people say it's "vertically diving".
Point is, even at normal top attack modes such as Javelin, APS isn't configured for it in service yet. And as >>30644344 proves, thats very much what it does, if not moreso, especially with a crapload of missiles able to follow up the attack. The volley has a good 30-40 seconds from first strike to last strike in a full launch, in computing terms thats a lifetime to identify active target and re-engage.
Anti-top attack APS is not in service, or is in extremely limited service.
Brimstone can do top attack.
Therefore - APS is not a "bloody effective" defense against Brimstone, or Javelin, or Spike, or JAGM, or any other missile which approaches from a high arc.
bump because i need to read later
>>30644438
>Except I've never once claimed that
Your insistence that APS cannot counter top attacks insinuates that Brimstone comes down at a near vertical dive which is what would be required for APS like Trophy that can elevate to at least 60 degrees.
>volley firing 24 missiles to kill 1 tank
>volley firing $6,000,000+ to kill 1 tank
>>30646019
not our fault there's a tank shortage
We're only a few years from free electron lasers being placed on top of vehicles
Whats your brimstone going to do against that?
>>30646694
Nothing because lasers are a meme
>>30646694
KE missiles.
>>30646019
It's a convoy attack. They attack more than one.
In Libya they did a 22 missile salvo from Tornados at a convoy of 22 vehicles and wiped them out in a single pass.
>>30646694
Nothing, because they don't exist.
>>30645992
Even if it did manage to get an angle on one of them, it isn't exactly going to help much. One is intercepted, the second hits a second later anyway. Trophy isn't known for its rapid fire capability to go BANGBANGBANG at multiple vectors from the same side.
And Trophy is still only on a handful of vehicles worldwide anyway (And on a nation that almost certainly won't be opposing this missile).
>>30627892
That man's not very good at boxing.
>>30646890
>In Libya they did a 22 missile salvo from Tornados at a convoy of 22 vehicles and wiped them out in a single pass.
$6,000,000+ to blow up $100,000 worth of Toyota's is not something you do against a peer adversary and expect to win a war.
>Even if it did manage to get an angle on one of them, it isn't exactly going to help much.
Aside protecting the vehicle being fired upon.
>One is intercepted, the second hits a second later anyway.
Depending on their vector a single MEFP from Trophy could catch multiple missiles.
>Trophy isn't known for its rapid fire capability to go BANGBANGBANG at multiple vectors from the same side.
But Iron Fist, Quick Kill, ADS, Afghanit etc etc are.
>And Trophy is still only on a handful of vehicles worldwide anyway (And on a nation that almost certainly won't be opposing this missile).
I am pleased to see you have abandoned the claim that APS cannot intercept Brimstone.
