Weren’t there discussions in this thread a while back establishing pirate can give “good enough” positional information? Radar generally lacks the limitations to my understanding, but pirate can perform adequately under some circumstances from what I remember reading?
It is entirely possibly I’m misremembering though, I usually only peruse this thread when I’m mostly asleep. Makes dealing with certain individuals easier.
Since it’s IR (iirc), I don’t think Pirate can see through clouds or any weather really. A clear day is probably the circumstances it’s talking about
It depends on your definition of “good enough”. According to the UK’s Defence Research Agency, the kinematic ranging algorithm only guarantees an accuracy within 20% for ranges up to 100km.
Thales themselves also state that a laser rangefinder is necessary for accurate ranging:
Right, seems remembering “Good enough” is a bit of a stretch
You could miss a nuke with accuracy within 20% at 100km lol
PIRATE is capable of accurately tracking targets, and being commanded to do so by external sensors such as the radar or datalink:
You mean like this?
PIRATE can provide target bearing, sure. Not accurate target tracking.
The Eurofighter cannot compare and combine seperate target tracks like on the Rafale.
One of the sources you cite is literally from the same source I have cited above which states a laser rangefinder is necessary for accurate ranging.
If there is any adverse weather or fogs/clouds does this completely stop PIRATE from detection of stuff past them?
@Mulatu_Astatke can Rafale IRST see through weather or is it just a hard limit on all IRST?
Interesting are you able to share the relevant section of that document?
That document is from 2003, PIRATE wasn’t even ready for IOC until 2008, and received a number of improvements after introduction to service. Passive ranging was one of the later functions to be fully developed.
What do you mean by this?
Performance would become limited for any infrared sensor. But different wavebands perform better or worse in different conditions.
PIRATE only uses the LWIR band which when used alone is disadvantageous for air-to-air operations.
Rafale uses both MWIR and LWIR which performs better across more difficult and diverse conditions.
Passive ranging algorithm was developed in the early 1990s, since then none of the hardware changed substantially.
Besides, how do you suppose passive ranging accurately measures the range? Kinematic ranging is just a fancy term for ‘stadiametric rangefinding’. I don’t think any modern day sensor except maybe a space telescope fitted to a plane could provide accurate tracking at a distance of ~100km due to the required resolution.
Well, I say IRST but it would be more accurate to say ‘TV channel + laser rangefinder’ - the terms are generally used interchangeably for OSF.
In sim, auto MAWS looks like it work a lot more better
When selecting a coordinate on the map, the cross that previously displayed correctly on the radar MFD is no longer showing properly.
Solid report, the only thing that bugged me about the Rafale’s acceleration is it had really fast take-off, then mid/okay-ish medium speed acceleration, but then back to really fast acceleration at supersonic. Hopefully with this report it’ll be more consistent throughout the whole range of speed in terms of acceleration.
I wish Gaijin would allow vague reports like this to buff/correct the Typhoon.
Acceleration report, when you dont know the fuel load.
Ambient temperature.
Keep it scientific…
“Sämtliche Sensoren der Maschine sind miteinander verbunden.”
“All sensors of the aircraft are interconnected.”
“Durch die Zusammenarbeit der Sensoren ist zudem ein noch effizienteres Aufspüren und Verfolgen von Zielen möglich.”
“The collaboration of the sensors also enables even more efficient detection and tracking of targets.”
“Sämtliche Systeme: das Radar, IRST, Helmvisier, DASS und der Datenlink sind miteinander gekoppelt und tauschen untereinander Informationen aus.”
“All systems – radar, IRST, helmet-mounted display, DASS, and the data link – are interconnected and exchange information with each other.”
All three of these are more accurate translations than what you provided, and they do not omit the part that gives clear, undeniable confirmation of sensor fusion, with data being shared between sensors.
Where does it say this exactly? Nothing after “auch Abweichungen werden ausgeschlossen.” refers to “ruling out deviations”. Trying to then apply this side note to the rest of the claims as proof that the sensors do not actually communicate is completely unjustified. There are two rather obvious examples, and a sentence that could not be more literal about the Eurofighter’s sensors sharing data.
Sensorfusion:
Ein wichtiges und entscheidendes Merkmal des Eurofighter Typhoon’s ist die so genannte Sensorfusion. Sämtliche Sensoren der Maschine sind miteinander verbunden. Das Angriffsidentifikationssystem AIS (Attack Identification System) wertet die gesammelten Daten aller Sensoren aus und erstellt ein taktisches Lagebild, das standardmässig auf dem mittleren MHDD dargestellt wird. Der Vorteil besteht darin, dass der Pilot nicht mehr einzelne Anzeigen miteinander vergleichen muss, auch Abweichungen werden ausgeschlossen. Damit wird zugleich auch eine höhere Genauigkeit erzielt. Durch die Zusammenarbeit der Sensoren ist zudem ein noch effizienteres Aufspüren und Verfolgen von Zielen möglich. Sämtliche Systeme: das Radar, IRST, Helmvisier, DASS und der Datenlink sind miteinander gekoppelt und tauschen untereinander Informationen aus. So können z.B. das Radar und der IRST Sensor über das Helmvisier auf Ziele ausgerichtet werden usw… Alles in allem wird der Pilot entlastet und maximale Ausnutzung der Sensoren geboten, was nicht unerheblich zur Kampfkraft des Eurojägers beiträgt.
If you want some more ways to translate the quotes:
Literal:
Alternative phrasing:
Source: (from here)
Typhoon is still a great aircraft, many of these reports will just bring it more in line with the Typhoon I would wager.
The Radar is much better :)
Just need to get used to the turning ability
It’s almost like I don’t speak German…
Besides, I still maintain that the Eurofighter doesn’t possess sensor fusion - at least not to the same extent as the Rafale.
The source above does not prove me wrong in any way. Sensor fusion on the Eurofighter can only filter out deviations in collected data meanwhile Rafale can improve the precision of collected data via sensor fusion.
There are plenty of free tools that provided a more accurate translation; Google Translate, DeepL, and ChatGPT 4.0 all did a better job. It was your choice to omit further information, not a fault of the translation itself.
“Der Vorteil besteht darin, dass der Pilot nicht mehr einzelne Anzeigen miteinander vergleichen muss, auch Abweichungen werden ausgeschlossen.”
“The advantage is that the pilot no longer has to compare individual displays with each other, and discrepancies are also eliminated.”
The part you are referring to comes from the sentence above, and grammatically, it cannot refer to other sentences or to sensor fusion as a whole. In this context, it refers to discrepancies in the pilot’s ability to compare multiple information displays with each other, not a fundamental limitation of sensor fusion. No part of that sentence refers to the capabilities of sensor fusion.
It also seems you overlooked this part: “All systems – radar, IRST, helmet sight, DASS, and the data link – are linked to each other and exchange information among themselves.” and “This also simultaneously achieves higher accuracy.”
Nowhere in the entire paragraph is “filter out deviations” linked to the Eurofighter’s sensor fusion. That is a conclusion you arrived at yourself while interpreting the source, not something the text actually states.
If you are unwilling to accept sources or choose to dismiss them arbitrarily, then I don’t see much point in continuing this discussion.
I used Google translate originally.
Probably refers to the fact that all those sensors are able to display all the information to the helmet sight more than anything. Nothing confirms that the sensors are combined to improve precision in any way.
The text is moot.
From Yandex:
From Google translate:
Can you point to the part which specifically states “higher accuracy,” I only see improved efficiency which has a different meaning.
