It’s an image of the IRST MFD screen (in an official marketing presentation from EADS), which shows a scan width of +/-70° selected. What is “incoherent and vague” about that?
Yeah I can’t see why those wouldn’t be accepted. Has the report been outright rejected or just not actioned yet?
Outright rejected.
It doesn’t explicitly define +/-70° as the azimuth limits. A separate excerpt from the same EADS presentation indicates the azimuth limits are in fact much smaller:
Get a protractor, measure the “semi-scan width” and you will get 140°.
Yes it is indeed possible to select a smaller scan pattern for the IRST (the datasheet says it can scan “the whole field of regard or in a selectable volume”). That page also shows the radar scanning a smaller volume than it’s maximum scan width.
That seems odd.
Well, since my comment got removed (I thought I would be safe), I will cite a separate source - Hayne’s “RAF TYPHOON Owner’s Workshop Manual”. Anyway, back to the excerpt:
PPI is the “Plan Position Indicator” and presents all data not just the IRST. I will send you the relevant page on Discord then hopefully we can continue the discussion here.
Heard from what…Typhoons PIRATE is barely performing.
No 70 mile detection range
No ability to guide ARHM
Cant detect ground targets…
Sure sounds like it’s overperforming
PIRATE’s field of search (FOS) is certainly over-performing. At best it should have a FOS of 120° x 45° as opposed to the 140° x 80° it has been erroneously given:
PIRATE should also have significantly degraded performance in tropical conditions since it only operates in the LWIR band. This is from Sofradir which should be considered the most authoritative source concerning infrared technology:
For comparison, Rafale’s OSF is currently missing its very wide FOS:
It also operates in both the MWIR and LWIR spectral bands, and should therefore have greater performance over a more diverse range of weather conditions.
PIRATE is quite out-dated technology. It’s rather funny that a consortium of three of some of Europe’s most technologically proficient nations still produced an inferior IRST to France alone.
Please don’t start
Well if this is true then all he can do is buff it.
More like 150°x60° and 3-5µm and 8-11µm (MWIR and LWIR)
anyway that was with a short research gn8
Hello
The developers rejected this report as it provides no values and the drawings themselves present on many of these documents may simply be visual illustrations and not accurate or representative (to scale) limits. As such, no action can be taken with just these sources alone.
Regarding the separate matter of the EFT IRST, not every source used to reach the concluded outcome in game may be presented on the closure of a report. Sadly this is not always possible or practical. So some sources used (whatever may be most relevant) can sometimes be presented with the response.
Should more sources become available for the Rafale’s IRST limits, then new reports can be passed again for further consideration by the devs.
Two separate documents (primary) were used. Developers have no problem using the same method to figure out radar gimbal limits in other reports, so there’s an inconsistency in that aspect.
So “OSF field of view” doesn’t actually mean “OSF field of view” and the DGA is not a reliable source as they somehow wouldn’t have access to such information?
And they say a picture speaks a thousand words…
Would you be able to please show us the other sources used for PIRATE’s field of search then?
Sadly we can only relay on the conclusion reached by the developers. As I mentioned above, should new sources become available that provide more tangible limits, then new reports can be passed for further consideration.
Unfortunately no changes will be made based on these current sources alone.
Hello. While I agree with some points you made, I still believe it’s unreasonable to completely discard the values proposed in primary sources diagrams and still use place holder values coming from the Mig23, a decades old technology compared to the rafale.
It’s be like comparing the performances of early Cold War tech to the M1 Abrams. It would seem afar more logical to give some credibility to primary sources documents(or at least give parity with the EFT using similar and (partially) French sourced technology) instead of using place holder tech from an outdated vehicle that has nothing in common
Hello
The prospect of changing the limits has not been discarded entirely, as the devs mentioned in the response, they are open to further reconsideration should other sources be located that provide more tangible values. Sadly however, the current diagrams are not sufficient for the devs to make any changes from.
Oh yes becauses the game models electronic/avionic systems on temperature conditions.
Cool you ignored the range limitiations 70km+ in game barely 20!
The ability to detect ground targets
The missing ability to guide ARHM
😂
And how can this be used as a source, then?
There is nothing explicitly pointing to +/-70° being the azimuth limits. In fact, if you knew what “PPI” and “B-Scope” actually shows, you would realise that the IRST azimuth limits aren’t being shown here at all.
I think they should at least be sufficient to prove that the IRST of the rafale should be cabale of of than 180º gimbal, since the diagrams clearly show it (even if we should not get exact and precise values form diagrams, the 180º limit is easy to confirm). However in game the total gimbal is still far underestimated.
Even if the exact values of the report can not be accepted, i still believe a 180º values should at the very least be considered
To be honest, it feels as though the developers are trying to avoid a large technological disparity between the Eurofighter and Rafale even if it was inevitable lol
