Information released by the manufacturers concerning the design and development of various IR systems - among them MAWS.
The figures are baseline values and not entirely indicative of real life, though.
Care to send some of that over?
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:
Spoiler
Skin temperature for a supersonic missile:
And for a plane:
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.
1 Like
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.
I am not convinced.
F-35, Rafale and the F-22 in the future?
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.
1 Like
Source?
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?
A source that Rafale, F-35 and the future F-22 use/will be using IR MAWS?
It’s a 2 second Google search. It’s quicker for you to look it up yourself than for me to post the sources here. But I can if you really want.
If an IR MAWS operates in at least two IR bands, then this wouldn’t occur.
Someone already posted a source above:
I can give you another. But then again, this is going nowhere.
I mean a source that says that a conventional radar on those jets is going to be replaced by a IRST system.
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.
I’ve never implied this? I was responding to this:
Rafale doesn’t use the RBE2 radar for missile defence. It uses DDM NG which is IR.
Well, RBE2 could detect missiles but that’s not exactly the purpose of the system which might just be an important distinction to make.
No, there are sources explicitly stating that radar MAWS are inferior to IR MAWS. But sure, whatever.
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.
Communication issue there. That was about your IRST for ICBM launch spotting. To which one of my responses was that for the actual tracking and targeting I have never heard of a actual missile defense battery employing missiles itself or cannons using IRST as primary sensor.
F-22 is not going to integrate IRST into the airframe as far as I’m aware though I think the integration of a pod was discussed.
better*
MICA-EM max range should be 80km → 50km in game.
Magic-II weren’t on use after the F.2.2 as they were kept for the remainning Mirage 2000D and C5-S2 still in service at that time → no MICA-IR.
speaking of Fox-3 F.3R is Meteor able → no sign of this either.
then, we have to check on the 200+ Bug reports mostly made by DirectSupport and several others bug reporters.
the current rafale is named F.3R but is only a F.2.1 with some lazy features from the F.3R
The reason why radar is better as a main sensor while being worse as MAWS (from what I have heard), is that it’s a lot easier to get a big antenna and all the supporting systems in the nose of a jet than in multiple spots in fuselage/wings. So trade offs have to be made to fit the MAWS antennas in their spots.
While IR sensors don’t have as much of an issue with this, especially the more modern ones
This could be changing very soon.
The AIM-9X-2+ has stealth materials to make external carriage on F-35 safer. Surely, other missiles will follow in this
The concept of a stealthy missile has been around for decades too, until quite recently (with 9x BLK 2+) it has only been cruise missiles like SCALP on the Rafale and JASSM on US stuff
TLDR, this is making radar MAWS even more obsolete. Not even gonna talk about what would happen if the MAWS was getting jammed
This would be snazzy. Though I’ve little hope we’ll see it in a reasonable time frame.
Technically, the use of cruise missiles in the game would be roughly the same as the Gromm2 used by the Russians. The only two differences would be the range, which would be greater, and the terminal guidance (which Gaijin can modify to be GPS only). Other than that, the explosive charge is slightly larger for the SCALP, but is compensated by the larger number of Gromms on the Russian planes.
Well British flight test documents can be misleading compared to rest of the world (in that they always go for conservative figures that emphasize preservation of airframes etc). I can remember at least two (might not be directly comparable to the context of the Rafale though), the Fw-190 rollrate chart that has the data gathered from a sample with damaged aileron/controls and British vs American Canberra flightbook speeds