why the hell so many flagged posts XD did people post sikrit dokuments or smth?
they were talking about head tracking for sim
Looks like the usual EFT team on the Rafale thread
7 Likes
Nice assumption, anything to back up that claim?
It is not like Airbus or Bae can’t get the technology for the IR MAWS as Germany and France are working to gether on a stealth fighter (forgot the project name) and technology transfers are very much a thing.
Instead of assuming it has to be bad, because it is on the EF consider the following:
More sensors are better for data fusion, aren’t they?
Iam also pretty sure you would glaze a hybrid MAWs if it were on the Rafale instead of the EF, because it would improve data fusion.
1 Like
Is it just the perspective or are the canards larger than they usually are?
Can’t you see the numerous warning signs above?
Canards are not small from start, i think the perspective don’t help
1 Like
CAPTOR-E Mk.1 and Mk.2 both use GaN, not GaAs.
Also, what the hell happened here?
2 Likes
I’m aware they’re not small, but they looked unusually long in that picture. They look normal in yours tho, so probably just perspective i guess
That’s some black magic right there
6 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No because radar MAWS has been outdated since the 1990s.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
10 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.
2 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.
1 Like
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