Well then i did not manage to activate fast TWS then i only discovered 140x31 for SRC and TWS nothing else
Well i did not too when i tried to get it too work but it’s the datamine of the first devserver, just in 3 parts :
Spoiler
it says yesterday at 18h11 just after the devstream
Spoiler
And there today at 22h45 with the rafale parts that WreckingAres sended
There is also the k band that has been added from the datamine.
Spoiler
Huge for ground battles.
Basically one the two advantages that EF has/had (The other being higher zoom on the TGP)
1 Like
So i redone the test and rewatched the replay.
So i can confirm 2 things.
If you use the keybind “Activate the target point”, the radar will not override the TV sensor (same as you show in the video)
But in the second case. If you use the map marker (using the map to create a target point), in this case the radar will override the TV sensor (and your map marker). and will make every weaponary with GPS (agm and bomb), to point and target the radar TV sensor marker instead of the Map marker.
Your video is correct, in one case it not override, in other (using the map marker), radar will override.
video:
Yes this exactly as you said. Just it not pratical for an AESA radar use.
Even if you use in manual mode in TWS, the moment you set the radar on one target, radar will follow and prioritize this target.
While i agree for this concept for mechanical radar, it’s seems “outdated” for AESA and PESA radar.
Agree with the solution on the second part of your answer.
Edit: And forget to add
6: This annoying automatically switch between IRST and radar, which lock the launch of Mica EM, even when target is not notching.
3 Likes
Fair enough, I’ll take a look over this, thank you for your input.
1 Like
Ye, they will have to make separate keybinds for moving the scan zone and moving the pipper.
It is indeed very annoying and has killed me a number of times. Welcome to the Soviet Experience Club, lol.
1 Like
Reports made since I last posted some reports.
Rafale missing SPECTRA fusion // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale has incorrect VNe speed // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale’s gun-solution should not have multipath for Radar+TV. // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale’s display should show hostile radar emissions // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale’s SPECTRA RWR should feed data to the radar // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale’s radar should not lose lock with TV sensor // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale HUD incorrect altitude unit // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale HUD incorrect speed unit // Gaijin.net // Issues
Target locked by TV camera should show as a target track // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale’s IRST is missing a 180x40 scan option // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale’s IRST should have active ranging // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale cannot identify Pantsir track radar // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale should get airframe overstress protection // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale RWR compass display // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale is missing missile zones on tactical display // Gaijin.net // Issues
Targets often disappear off the radar // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale’s wrong roll rate // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale missing tactical display feature // Gaijin.net // Issues
10 Likes
You terrify me
1 Like
That’s what you call being efficient
1 Like
180x40 holy man
1 Like
It will be interesting to see how Mica IR is modelled. According to SAT (who manufactured the seeker), it uses a bi-spectral (operates in two IR bands/wavelengths) seeker:
Spoiler
This means it will have an immunity to conventional flares (a separate excerpt from Sofradir):
“A typical modern air countermeasure flare will generate an intense IR output in the shorter wavelengths but be less intense at the longer wavelengths. A missile seeker with sensitivity in two different wavelengths can detect this difference and the missile will not be seduced.”
However, it is unclear how it will perform against spectral flares for now.
But when compared to the AIM-9X, ASRAAM and IRIS-T, Mica IR should have the strongest IRRCM:
- AIM-9X and ASRAAM both use the same Raytheon 128x128 MWIR (only a single IR band) detector
- For IRIS-T I couldn’t find much info about its seeker after a brief look, but I highly doubt the seeker is better than even the Raytheon MWIR seeker due to Germany not being a particularly advanced nation
TL;DR: The Rafale will only get even stronger from here on out:
What would you even consider a “conventional” flare in this context?
It’s known what the performance of the of the generic & MJU-7 &- 8/A (MTV) is;
Excerpts from the referenced patent
As illustrated in , a magnesium/ammonium perchlorate based flare.
FIG. 2 a magnesium/ammonium perchlorate composition that contains 10% anthracene
FIG. 3 is a graph illustrating the intensity of emissions within two specified ranges of wavelengths generated by burning the composition given in Example 1 (MTV Flare)
The issue is that these are what is used in the ALE-29 / -39 / -40 (early) so are 'Nam era designs.
A contemporary flare is something like the MJU-47/A ,-48/A & -51/A ( all '89), and between them runs things like the, MJU-8A (deployed '88), MJU-22 , MJU-27A/A, MJU-52 (BOL-IR, ALE-58 / LAU-138) and others designed to provide access to for advancements made for the various configurations and form factor of the multitude of available dispensers and pods.
All of which provide improved coverage against threats though various means in comparison to the existing generic Flare.
So would be available to the majority of Western counterparts, though the ALE-40 (Late) / -47 & MJU-12, -13 or -17 modular magazines.
1 Like
Flares produce a different spectral signature compared to a plane:
Only a bi-spectral sensor is able to compare, measure and analyse the two detected IR sources.
The caveat here is that a spectral flare is supposed to mimic the spectral signature of a plane, so even a bi-spectral seeker will have trouble making a discernment.
2 Likes
IRIS-T also has a dual-band seeker. It’s seeker is also rather unique in that it only has a 128x2 Array that is scanned by a mirror 80 times/s to produce an effective 128x128 image. That also has the effect of making it much more resistant to DIRCM and easier to cool than traditional seekers.
If it’s better than MICA-IR seeker? Who knows, we’d need some sekrit documents to make that conclusion.
1 Like
What airframe would even be expected to fight a notional Rafale equipt with the MICA-IR that doesn’t have some formulation of advanced flares or straight up access to a towed decoy.
As an aside it is known that at very least the F-35 has an “advanced” multispectral Flare with the MJU-66.
And the AIM-9X is entirely a wonky pile of shit (designed to win via economies of scale and institutional inertia), and is vastly sub par in comparison to basically all contemporary missiles due entirely to sticking with the 5" body diameter Of the Sidewinder, and the subsequent optimization limits.
The US really should have bit the bullet and gone with either the AIM-95 or AIM-132 when they came up as options as it would have provided more internal space for further enhanced performance.
At least there should be a notional Multi-modal AMRAMM / JATM somewhere that could be borrowed.
The page doesn’t specifically state that IRIS-T uses a bi-spectral (or dual colour - whichever term floats your boat) seeker. It’s just broadly speaking about current trends in “sensor technology” at Diehl:
I don’t doubt that a 128x2 linear array can produce comparable image quality to a 128x128 staring array, but the issue is that the linear array requires a scanning mechanism which takes up much more space compared to a staring array (which doesn’t use a scanning mechanism). I would be surprised if two (comparably large) 128x2 detectors could fit in a seeker head which is what would be necessary to sense two wavebands. I hope I explained that right :)
The FIM-92 for example gets around this via the use of prisms(Figure. 7).
One thing to remember is with optics is that this type of split only halves the brightness, not cuts out half the image.
My original point was that in War Thunder, Mica IR should have an immunity to anything short of a spectral flare, and even then should have the best performance against such a decoy when compared to other IIR missiles.
One thing it difinitively has over the MICA-IR seeker are significantly better gimbal limits. MICA -IR gimbal limits are ±60 deg vs the IRIS-T’s ±90 deg.
Its kind of comparing apples to oranges though. The IRIS-T is specifically made to have the absolute maximum maneuverability and intercept accuracy, at the expense of velocity and range when compared to stuff like ASRAAM and MICA, and is routinely stated to be capable of being used kind of like a hard kill APS for the aircraft, intercepting inbound threats. The MICA-IR on the other hand has substantially more range and likely speed. They’re effectively 2 different classes of missiles.
2 Likes