If you want to pick up german I would recommend Duolingo :D /s
So the translation would be:
“…deviations are also excluded. This also simultaneously achieves higher accuracy”
Therefore, the ‘increase in accuracy’ isn’t achieved by comparing and combining data for separate sensors, but only by filtering out deviations.
For example, the Rafale uses data fusion to improve threat localisation:
Eurofighter can only use sensor fusion to eliminate any deviations in collected data, e.g. PIRATE mistakenly detects a cloud as an IR target but through ‘sensor fusion with the radar,’ such a false alarm would be eliminated. The case of the Eurofighter is not so special.
If you are going to completely ignore German grammar rules and make conclusions of your own, sure. If you want to follow German grammar rules and try to actually correctly interpret what was said, then no, that’s not what it said. But seeing as I can’t force you to interpret it correctly, I’ll let you make stuff up.
I’ve told you “deviations are also excluded” does not refer to anything outside of its own sentence due to how German grammar works, yet you explicitly try to apply it to outside sentences and attach external meaning to this “subordinate clause”.
If you’re going to argue the meaning of a German sentence, at least follow German grammar properly instead of bending it to fit a predetermined idea you have in your head. But this conversation seems to have run its course and no longer provides any benefit. :P
Just scroll up if you need any more help :)
3 Likes
Honestly, I hope your not employed as a translator because that was painful and I give up.
nobody ever said that it is only doing that, you need to look at the context of the whole sentence
“Der Vorteil besteht darin, dass der Pilot nicht mehr einzelne Anzeigen miteinander vergleichen muss, auch Abweichungen werden ausgeschlossen.”
- “The advantege (of sensorfusion) is, that the Pilot dosent need to compare the seperate displays, as well that deviations are excluded”
It lists the exclusion of deviations as one of the advanteges and never says that it is only doing that.
…next scentece:
“Damit wird zugleich auch eine höhere Genauigkeit erzielt.”
- “With that you achive a higher accuarcy.”
This relates to Sensorfusion as a whole, because the Article first explained what Sensorfuison is and now it is listing its advantages.
…next scentece:
“Durch die Zusammenarbeit der Sensoren ist zudem ein noch effizienteres Aufspüren und Verfolgen von Zielen möglich.”
- “With the Sensors working together, the finding and tracking of targets is more efficient”
…next scentece:
"Sämtliche Systeme: das Radar, IRST, DASS und der Datenlink sind miteinander gekoppelt und tauschen untereinander Informationen aus.
- “All Systems: the Radar, IRST, DASS and the Datalink are conected with each other and exchange Information.”
we all know that you don’t like the EF but don’t translate it how you want just so that the EF looks bad
iam sure you wouldnt want me to translate french documents about the rafale with google translate, just to get alot of BS
and here the Translation from chatgpt as well
3 Likes
I mean, its the least I can do when discussing the topic?
I would not be suprised if that portion of it got shot-down tbh. The actual explanation in the video does not state passive ranging of missiles, and and sources using artist renditions of something have gotten shot down before. I dont actually see anything that explicitly states any passive ranging capabilities on official spec sheets. For example, theres a vid from BAE iirc showing an artist rendition of AMRAAM’s on a twin pylon on the EFT, Gunjob shot that down pretty quickly (as he should’ve). Its also a single secondary source at best, which technically doesnt reach the benchmark required for a bug report.
Your other sources also state some stuff that could be taken ambiguously, and some info that arguably contradicts the ability to passively range non-emitting missiles. Source 1 for example, which mentions “high precision direction of arrival and passive ranging” explicitly states interferometry being used, which is how an RWR aquires passive ranging, but afaik not how an IIR system would.
Could be a situation where the DDM-NG can passively range, but I’m not sure how it would do so, seeing as it would probably need to know what the actual size of the missile coming at it was to do so, and even then, gaijins not allowing passive ranging on something like PIRATE, which is explicitly stated to have said capability, so I’m not sure how they’d go about justifying adding it for DDM-NG but not for PIRATE (they could just tell the EFT crowd to stfu and go back to ignoring them again like they did in the past tho)
Could argue that radars distributed around the aircraft for jamming or whatever could passively range the missiles, but at that point you’d fall into your own hole of wanting radar MAWS emissions from the Rafale, cuz thats essentially what you’d be saying is what the Rafale is using for MAWS.
Not to say I dont believe it can do passive ranging of non-emitting missiles, its a possibility, I just dont see anything that I think gaijin would consider conclusive evidence.
Couldnt be triangulation unless multiple aircrafts have the missile in LOS. There are only 2 DDM-NG cameras on the jet and they cover FOV’s that are entirely seperate from eachother, seeing as they are on opposite sides of the tail.
Also likely couldnt be stadiametric ranging id think, seeing as it would need to know the explicit size of the exact missile fired at it.
1 Like
Speaking of which, someone should see if Rafales can datalink all this stuff so if 2 or more Rafale have the same thing in FOV of the DDM-NG they get ranging for it
There is a precedent for this too, so I wouldn’t be very surprised if they could
Id be surprised if it couldnt, tho seeing as gaijin currently pretends there are no TDL’s in-game, I’m not sure how you’d talk them into adding something that would explicitly require a TDL to function. We’d also be getting in the territory of potential game engine limitations.
1 Like
I mean the game is able to model the range of the MAWS, and then any missiles in a spot where the 2 MAWS ranges overlap would get ranging info on MAWS screen from “triangulation”.
But I think they should add TDL soon, it’s a very important part of modern jet combat
These two sentences likely aren’t mutually exclusive is my point.
The former sentence makes the latter true: “The advantage [of sensor fusion] is… that deviations are exluded. With that you achieve a higher accuracy.”
Unless there’s any definitive evidence, I stand by my original statement.
No, I just think it depends on outdated technology when viable, more modern and effective solutions exist. This is true.
Reposting @Zayf report since it got drowned out by discussions and I think it deserves more attention.
Rafale wrong medium speed acceleration // Gaijin.net // Issues
8 Likes
So you’re just wilfully ignoring the stuff I posted yesterday about how Eurofighter can fuse IRST & radar data to produce more accurate target locations?
And yes there are other sources but that is just what I have to hand at this moment in time.
1 Like
I believe he did comment on that already stating that PIRATE has range-error issues due to lack of LRF, and thus the data supplied by the IRST to the radar would not be as useful. That is my understanding of the conversation.
In that text it is mentioned that all sensors are connected to each other explicitly calling it sensor fusion…
The AIS system is gathering information from all sensors and is analysing them to create a tactical overview of the situation.
The pilot does not need to compare single notifications/gauges anymore. The part about exluded deviations is an aside.
It is also mentioned that all systems: Radar, IRST, DASS, Helmet sight and Datalink are interconnected and exchanging information. The effects regarding target acquisician are mentioned as an example.
It concludes that all in all the pilot is being relieved, all sensors are being utilised to the maximum, which contributes significantly to Eurofighters combat power.
There really is no reason to doubt that sensor fusion is a integral component of Eurofighters avionics suite.
It is true that passive ranging will not be as accurate as active ranging. Which is basically what he said previously.
However, his most recent statement is that:
the Rafale uses data fusion to improve threat localisation
While the:
Eurofighter can only use sensor fusion to eliminate any deviations in collected data, e.g. PIRATE mistakenly detects a cloud as an IR target but through ‘sensor fusion with the radar,’ such a false alarm would be eliminated.
So he is essentially saying that the Eurofighter, cannot combine data from multiple sensors to improve the accuracy of the target’s location. That is contradictory to the source which states:
When the two sets of data are fused, a more accurate location of the target is formed.
1 Like
Interestingly, this source confirms that not only is radar used to merge data with the IRST/TV, but the RWR can also provide better tracking to the IRST even if the target is outside of LRF range.
Except fuel load (and aircraft total weight) is known for the test I did.
This is merely plotting a point on a map through range and bearing. Not any sort of improved 3D target localisation which is found on the Rafale and which is the Eurofighter is incapable of.
Sure, Eurofighter has sensor fusion, it’s just nowhere near as capable or extensive as the Rafale’s. Which brings me back to my original point:
Is there any source on the accuracy of the RWR? I wonder if the Rafale could achieve sufficient weapons lock without the use of radar or laser rangefinder. But that seems unlikely.