Unlike radar-based MAWS, aircrafts in top-tier generally all use radar altimeters, doppler nav radars so there’s no advantage going to any particular nation or particular aircraft if they are or aren’t modeled to be detected.
However, aircrafts with radar-based MAWS are few and far in-between and do not have their disadvantages modeled compared to aircrafts with IR-based MAWS. The disadvantages with radar-based MAWS being that they’re susceptible to signal intercept as well as diminished range from jamming although jamming is not in the game.
If radar-based MAWS are not going to have their disadvantages modeled, will there be a consideration to removing disadvantages of IR-based MAWS? IR-based MAWS have the disadvantages of:
Being susceptible to flares and missiles of false-alarm
Diminished capacity due to inclement weather
Diminished range against burnt-out missiles
Your position would be consistent if the disadvantages of IR-based MAWS are not modeled. Further, if necessary, why not implement a keybind to switch it off in-game? And for the most part, the Praetorian DASS MAWS operates in K-band which most aircrafts cannot detect and this should lessen the issue:
Spoiler
It does not make sense and nor is it fair to have multiple disadvantages of IR-based MAWS intricately modeled in full details while ignoring the biggest disadvantage of radar-based MAWS.
If this gets added, it honestly seems more annoying than anything. I can’t wait to fly my Rafale or EF just to be spammed with random EF MAWS RWR warnings all match (ontop of the usual RWR spam), sounds like just absolute peak gameplay. I don’t see how this would help any plane outside of maybe Sim.
So, I honestly don’t understand why this should even become a feature. As you’ve pointed out, it’s a niche addition requiring extra work for both implementation and research. Your own source describes detection at range as “practically negligible,” so what effective range do you realistically expect RWR to pick up radar-based MAWS emissions? If Gaijin genuinely considers adding this, I’d implore them to use resources on actually meaningful issues instead of this.
In short, it seems like a lot of work for very little return, work that would be better spent fixing existing issues rather than adding new niche features.
For gameplay purposes, your RWR would only pick up the EF MAWS if they were in your near general vicinity, and the EF is one of those aircrafts you’d def want to keep your eyes on if they were in your general vicinity. The detection range of the MAWS would be diminished compared to that of more powerful radars.
Further, if developers can take the time out of their day to do the “extra work” for both implementation and research for the disadvantages of IR-based MAWS, they certainly can do so for radar-based MAWS. In fact, the implementation is already here just instead on fighter aircraft radars.
in sim it would be incredible for the Rafale (especially if they add one day the mechanics of firing the MICAs using the RWR, it would allow firing the Eurofighters regardless of their position around the Rafale)
At the ranges where I’d realistically expect this to even function (~5km), you’d already be close enough to mark an EF anyway. Sure, it’ll alert you that “something is there,” but by that point, the EF pilot is either already locking onto you or close enough to be easily visible. I don’t really see the practical benefit beyond stating the obvious. And if the detection range extends beyond ~10 km, it’ll just clutter your RWR with unnecessary spam. Sure, there might be a middle ground, but I doubt it’ll be genuinely useful either way.
let’s be honest, if the developers genuinely put dedicated effort into MAWS, it wouldn’t have taken an entire major update just to get DASS to ignore flares. We all know they simply copy-pasted existing MAWS (along with all its weaknesses) onto the EF and Rafale, then called it a day. :P
I need to do more testing, but my understanding is that radars emission ranges are further away than their detection ranges for fighter aircrafts. The emissions should moreso be detected around 15km. And because the MAWS is stationed all around the aircraft, even if the EF is facing away from you, its emissions could be picked up making pinpointing its location much easier to do. That is, if it didn’t turn off its MAWS. But then there’s the trade-off that you become susceptible to IR missiles if you turn off your MAWS.
Yes, just tested. The emissions range of radars exceed the detection range of the radars. ADATs is capped to maximum of 30km in search range for fighter aircrafts but is still detected outside of that 30km.
Similarly, the EF MAWS detection range for missiles is around 10km however the range for fighter aircrafts goes up quite a bit. The emissions range for the EF is somewhere around 20km.
I understand that reasoning, but DASS isn’t a typical radar. Due to its design and the nature of how it operates, it doesn’t emit nearly as focused a beam as conventional fighter radars. Take the rear coverage as an example it’s a very large area monitored by a relatively small antenna, meaning it would lose intensity drastically faster over distance. Given this, I highly doubt a 15 km detection range is realistic. Hell if my napkin math is correct, the back antena would be at 0.0044x of its original intesity at 15km.
I would even argue it would make more sense to look at APS radars rather than traditional radars used for SPAA or planes. Seeing as their usecase and numbers would be a lot closer to what DASS does than a normal radar.
Focused beams reduces chances of emission detection, it’s the other way around hence why AESA radars IRL have a lower chance of having their emissions detected.
Im well aware of that, but i still doubt that they are nearly as focused as normal radars. If the entire point of your earlier source was high atmospheric absorption i would doubt the beam is focused the same way traditional radars are. Otherwise i wouldnt understand what they meant with “advantage is that radars at these frequencies cannot be tracked from significant distances”.
