That’s some black magic right there
8 Likes
There is virtually zero benefit which radar MAWS has over IR MAWS. To combine both would be extremely redundant. The only reason you’d still be using radar MAWS was if you couldn’t develop a sufficient IR MAWS.
Why would France provide the Eurofighter consortium with cutting edge technology when the consortium has nothing to offer in return?
No because radar MAWS has been outdated since the 1990s.
You are wrong about that one.
A few off the top of my head:
- Ability to accurately measure range and closing velocity of missiles
- Superior ability to detect burnt out missiles (for example the DDM-NG datasheet explicitly states it relies on detecting the burning engine of the missile)
- Superior ability to detect missiles in clouds / fog / bad weather
5 Likes
11 Likes
Missiles that can keep tracking in clouds/fog/bad weather would just be radar missiles no? Seeing as IR missiles cannot keep track in those inclement weathers. At that point RWR can serve its purpose.
DDM-NG is supposed to detect burning missiles at 27km with burnt-out missiles at 16km. Not sure what range Eurofighter maws is supposed to detect missiles outright, but doesn’t seem to be bad for the Rafale’s DDM-NG compared to the current in-game implementation of around 20km for burnt-out missiles on Eurofighter.
3 Likes
Interestingly, TTI can be calculated for IR maws it seems. IR can derive TTI with its own method, UV can derive TTI with its own method. DDM for instance uses both IR/UV.
2 Likes
IR MAWS are able to at least track the trajectory of the missile which is sufficient for reacting to a threat.
It specifically states the ability to detect the burning engines of MANPADS which is important for detecting such a threat as soon as possible. Nothing more. A burnt out longer range missile will still have a skin temperature of at least 250°C making it an easily discernable target from the front.
No, an effective IR MAWS will still have overall better range than radar MAWS even with unfavourable atmospheric conditions.
To be honest, how can you even make that claim? It’s not like you actually have any sources for the detection range of DASS outside of a Wikipedia page which in itself is just assumptions and napkin maths.
3 Likes
Not necessarily. Accounts from the Falklands of 9Ls tracking a target and scoring a hit after it dived into thick clouds. have to assume more modern iir seekers could probably track some targets reasonably well through cloud
Well in any case, any situation where IR missiles can track targets through inclement weather, the IR maws can also keep track of missiles through inclement weather. DDM uses IR/UV compared to AIM-9L which is simply just IR for example.
Sounds like user error to me
27km even for burnt out missiles. Under unfavourable atmospheric conditions it would still be >14km. Still far exceeding any radar MAWS which is at best <5km at least for the time period of DASS.
1 Like
Semi-related new Suggestion
5 Likes
Ah okay, consider me corrected.
2 Likes
To me it seems I know what to do in SU-27.
Are you the designer of the universe itself?
Where are you getting these claims from?
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.