IR MAWS are able to at least track the trajectory of the missile which is sufficient for reacting to a threat.
It specifically states the ability to detect the burning engines of MANPADS which is important for detecting such a threat as soon as possible. Nothing more. A burnt out longer range missile will still have a skin temperature of at least 250°C making it an easily discernable target from the front.
No, an effective IR MAWS will still have overall better range than radar MAWS even with unfavourable atmospheric conditions.
To be honest, how can you even make that claim? It’s not like you actually have any sources for the detection range of DASS outside of a Wikipedia page which in itself is just assumptions and napkin maths.
Not necessarily. Accounts from the Falklands of 9Ls tracking a target and scoring a hit after it dived into thick clouds. have to assume more modern iir seekers could probably track some targets reasonably well through cloud
Well in any case, any situation where IR missiles can track targets through inclement weather, the IR maws can also keep track of missiles through inclement weather. DDM uses IR/UV compared to AIM-9L which is simply just IR for example.
27km even for burnt out missiles. Under unfavourable atmospheric conditions it would still be >14km. Still far exceeding any radar MAWS which is at best <5km at least for the time period of DASS.
Becaue what you wrote seems physically impossible. Otherwise aircraft would not use radars but IRST systems as the primary sensor suite by now.
All I ever read about IRST compared to rardars points in the other direction regarding to your comment. And physically I do not see that being different for MAW systems.
An IRST intended for missile detection and tracking would typically detect a missile at a greater distance than a plane because of a higher skin temperature:
Though the detection range of a missile would eventually drop off due to still being a small target, whilst a plane could possibly be detected at a longer distance since it is a larger target (and with the necessary resolution) - but IRST for missile detection and tracking aren’t intended as much for planes and instead prioritise field of view for situational awareness.
Usually I would go into more depth but I half expect this thread to get nuked every two seconds.
All good and well but those are very general, I repeat, underscore and highlight very general and random bits of information scrambled together for a unreliable conclusion.
In general the only thing granting IRST, no matter if radar or MAWS as far as I’m aware, a advantage in target acquisition range are stealth features working to hinder a radars effectiveness. Such features additionally exist against spotting via IRST as well heat signatures can be reduced.
Of course missiles are rather hot, especially while they burn and not designed for stealth characteristics but no missile defense I have ever heard of is using IRST as it’s primary sensor.
Bad weather or cloud cover are further points to consider.
Very large and powerful infrared cameras are also used in ICBM early warning satellites. It’s an extremely proven concept.
Which can be significantly offset by an IR MAWS operating in more than one IR band. Even still, an IR MAWS would still perform better than a radar MAWS under adverse weather conditions since the latter is only short range.
Different scale I’d say. They are more respoonsible for detecting a launch as far as I know. They can also suffer from false positives just like a MAW system on aircraft.
Did you know that MAW systems can be triggered by a car roof reflecting light?
“Radar MAWS” also work in different bands.
Why would the radar be of shorter range?
Especially since none of us is likely to be an electronical angineer specialised in this field.
Googling for study papers etc. is one thing.
Actually being able to compare such systems and the practical advantages and disadvantages over looking at theoretical spects based on assumption is of course quite different.
Even Wikipedia does a good job of outlining the advantages and disadvantages of Ir/UV and RF based missile detection.
You clearly lean into the positives of IR underlining them while minimising it’s short comings.
Perhaps I am doing the same for RF based missile detection.
Neither of us has a way of knowing the quality of the implemented systems especially in comparison to each other.
