The way to go when putting up a solid argument is to find authoritative sources and evidence to support opinions and "feels", especially when contradicting others. In this case, Raytheon themselves serve:
Raytheon's Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared pod delivers pinpoint accuracy and reliability for air-to-air and air-to-ground mission support.
In defence of @Daniel F, he was merely questioning an earlier claim propounded by @Alphadunk that the ATFLIR system is designed solely for A/G and for which the latter, in fact, failed to present any evidence. Instead of inviting the latter to present evidence for his erroneous claim, you took it upon yourself to 'educate' a newbie to present his for questioning this erroneous claim.
I do hope this doesn't distract from the main discussion (especially since you have also contributed with many valuable arguments @Mendel). But a let-me-teach-you-ignorant-newbie approach, and rushing to highlight faults before acknowledging strong points first, is perhaps not the most constructive way to welcome new interlocutors. Especially ones that clearly had a valid point in questioning a veteran interlocutor.
Generally, in a constructive dialogue, it's better to start with validating the good points made by our counterparts before rushing to criticize and teach them. This is obviously coming from someone who readily admits he's very much a working progress himself, despite no spring chicken by now.