Personally, I think airburst is overrated.
Most of the time you'd use it against infantrymen in a building room. There would likely only be two enemy infantrymen in the room, and the room would typically be fairly small (not a big hall).
Airburst allows to shoot through the window (requires that the PD/PDSQ fuse can be deactivated) and explode about one metre behind. HEDP is no good for frag in forward 120° or so - that zone would be affected by blast more than frags.
Now look at the alternative; a PDSQ fuze on a rocket that's being shot through the window AFTER the window was opened (shot to pieces) by bullets. The rocket would explode on the rear wall. It would frag the rear of the room, and affect infantrymen right next to the window by blast (and frags of the disintegrated solid fuel rocket, but no predictable frag pattern).
Instead of airburst you can simply change the HEDP warhead such that it has some more frag effect rearwards, which may add 200-300 grams (judging by the weight of hand grenades with 5-10 m lethal radius depending on standard used). The HEDP would not have dedicated frags in the rear 45-60° cone to minimise the minimum safe distance for the shooter. The size of the explosive charge should provide satisfactory blast effect inside a room in that area, though.
Moreover, you can rarely lase the distance to a trench accurately. Trenches should have some above-ground background that minimises contrast (such as bushes), but that doesn't need to be directly behind; 2-5 m behind makes accurate distance-setting very hard.
The airburst scenario of hostiles in trenches or hostiles taking cover behind above-ground cover looks relatively unimportant to me by comparison. Most such cover would enable them to pop up, shoot, disappear, pop up someplace else, shoot, disappear, rinse and repeat.
I suppose we can and should limit airburst to weapons that should have a good FCS anyway; portable infantry guns such as Carl Gustaf (one per platoon), AFVs with guns 40 mm or bigger,