GMTI is ground search radar right?
Anyone here know statistics of the PIRATE IRL? Wondering what would be the best IRST in the game (eventually after the 30km cap gets removed) from what I’ve heard it should be the best irst in the game, but not entirely sure because I don’t have any statistics on it.
For example, ols-35 of the su-35s has these statistics:
Referring to a non afterburning su-30
Head-on: ~50km
Rear aspect: ~90km
±90 azimuth, -15 to +60 elevation
Tws of 4 targets
30 km laser for ground targets
20km laser range finding for air to air targets
Imaging capability
From what Ik rn this is the best irst, anything else is just too classified to really know.
I can see stats in the original suggestion but what is it measuring against?
Yep, also known as Ground Moving Target Indicator or short GMTI
1 Like
This doesn’t seem to be linking to the whole comment I made but the TL:DR is according to Austrian MoD and UK MoD:
Head-on; 80km
Rear aspect; 150km
Photographic identification range; 50km
Azimuth and elevation limits ~150 ° × 60 °
TWS of 500 targets
Ground targeting range; 50km
Passive rangefinding; no limit on range finding distance, but accuracy would drop with range, but its good enough for a launch at max range limits but maybe not enough for a passive 2-Way-Datalink shot without the missile needing to go pitbull.
It’s also immune to flares and IR countermeasures completely.
PIRATE was tested against several targets of opportunity, these included to the extent that I know of Tornado, Mig-29, F-4, other Eurofighters, B-2 bomber, F-22, F-35, various helicopters including Chinook, Merlin, Wildcat, Lynx, numerous airliners and civilian aircraft. PIRATE is normally left in operation and constantly scans in order to update its target recognition list so basically anything a Eurofighter has been within up to 150km of it will be able to recognise and classify.
Should be noted that the system is entirely passive and does provide kinematic ranging, as far as we can tell it does this very well as the Gripen reused the same base design in its SKYWARD-G IRST however it is supposedly worse. Also afaik every other passive IRST has been suggested that for accuracy improvements pairing of multiple sensors, this has never been even suggested for PIRATE.
It’s also not vulnerable to thermal shielding, as according to things like the ADAD report on which PIRATE was based, thermal shielding creates a ‘black hole’ around the aircraft making it easier for PIRATE to detect, classify, track and even identify such targets. The only caveat here would be if an aircraft could match its thermal signature to the background, but to do that you’d need to firstly know where the reference aircraft is from you to see what it would otherwise see, and again, passive system that defeats the purpose, you’d also then have to develop thermal shielding technology that can adapt to a certain temperature. At that point just copy PIRATE but better or make a better radar that makes PIRATE irrelevant.
6 Likes
Can’t use internal FLIR when carrying TGP:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/fGiynsE5YT7T
Assuming this is correct, was this reported for the FLIR?
Since currently the FLIR is limited to ±30 in both azimuth and elevation
What kind of target? With afterburner or without?
There was a report a while back but its hard to phrase that the limitations of the FLIR should be identical to the gimbal limits of the IRST as the IRST sensor provides FLIR or something like that.
Optimal conditions so assuming at least mach and full burner for all. In sub optimal i’ve seen headon as 60km rear aspect as 92km and photo IDENT at 40km.
There is a report in for the FLIR limits to be increased as they don’t match the sensor limits. It’s a bug.
Engine limitation if I remember right.
3 Likes
Reported internally by myself.
3 Likes
As Suggestion?
While the rest of the presentation is excellent, I have some problems with that. It is pretty clear that the Pirate IRST is capable of slaving missiles like the IRIS-T, ASRAAM, and AIM9s, however there has not been proofs that the IRST is capable of giving guidance to fox 3s, 2 way datalink or not.
The system is capable of passive ranging, with a claimed error margin of 20% at 100km (is the error linear with distance or not I don’t know), and works only by doing specific maneuvers with the plane. This makes it unlikely that the plane is capable of reliably guiding the missile unless the pilot does constant ranging maneuvers, and so it’s likely that this capability was never introduced to the IRST
More likely as a bug, since it affects the performance of the aircraft. But IRST reports for modern IRST usually are sitting in limbo
bug, its the same sensor, the field of view will change in FLIR mode, but the gimble limits are identical. So yeah bug.
1 Like
Allright, moved it Up :)
I’m still looking for direct confirmation but we know that data is fed into the attack bus and directed toward the missile and targeting systems, there is no difference between data entry for Fox3s being guided by radar than by PIRATE.
Also I recall that when Mulata mentioned that 20% accuracy at 100km it was heavily disputed and iirc it said less than 20%, that would again allow you to guide it to a vague location and have it go active I think. We will have to continue looking but I understand the scepticism.
It’s also worth noting that that paper was written in the early days of PIRATE development and as gunjob shared the other day, PIRATE is still being updated even as recently as early this year.
1 Like
The direct quotation is : range accuracies of better than 20% can be expected, even at ranges up to 100km, depending on the bearing measurement accuracy. So, realistically, I don’t think we’ll find a number below 15% accuracy at best (15-20% range).
I don’t know how this can be heavily disputed, as it’s a primary sourced accuracy estimation. Saying that the accuracy is actually much better would simply be extrapolating from nothing burger
Even if the data is fed similarly, the launch conditions for a fox 3 will be what dictate the possibility to fire the missile. If the range is not available, or without sufficient precision, the chances that the missile won’t launch or will fail to guide are much bigger.
Even with constant improvements the system remains passive. However modern the system is, it will have to rely on maneuvering to gather data for an estimate range, which comes with inprecisions.
And because you would need to maneuver constantly during the guidance phase of the missile, it looks to me more like an edge case scenario that is not implemented in the system, but that is my personal opinion.
My bet on the use of the kinematic ranging is to give an approximate route of the target for the pilot to take an intercept route and engage the target within visual range/with IR slaved systems.
Edit : as for the upgrades made to the IRST, it seems they are focused on other stuff than this kinematic ranging ability :
The growth plans for the PIRATE system are focussed in two main areas; improved performance against surface targets and long range target identification… The IRST is currently a totally passive system but can be used to slave a laser onto a potential target for ranging. from « PIRATE the IRST for Eurofighter TYPHOON » by
Boyd Cook Technical Director (Eurofirst) Thales Optronics (UK) Ltd
Interestingly this source is also stating that the IRST could be used with a laser range finder, which hints at the limits of pure kinematic ranging and the possible need for a laser range finder * IRST fusion (which might be needed for fox 3 guidance or other systems integration)
At high ranges all IRSTs cannot provide accurate ranging information, even if they have a laser range finder.
A laser is just not able to go out to100km, unless you use a stupidly powerful laser.
Well that’s a given. The OSF on the rafale for exemple has a laser range of 50-60km from the top of my head. The OSF system is also much bigger and thus can fit bigger equipment than Pirate can. The rafale is able to range precisely at that distance and can guide a fox 3. It is however not passive and will trigger LWR equipped planes like the EFT, Rafale and other modern aircrafts.
Edit : PIRATE is 8kg while OSF is ~87kg. It has almost 11 times more weight availability for equipment
Also, the OSF of the rafale F5 requirement will be to have a LRF range of 100km, to the laser power requirement might not be that stupid
I talk about the 100km estimation because that’s the only one we know of as of now, and the best we can do is extrapolate from there. But without more information, it’s hard to say what would be the passive ranging accuracy of such a system at 50km. Is it still 20% ? 10% ? This we don’t know.
And what we (or at least I) don’t know, is whether a fox 3 can correctly be guided towards an aircraft with a 10-20% or whatever accuracy at a certain range (for exemple modern AIM120 loft, so if the range data given to them is incorrect, they could overshoot or undershoot the target without knowing it).
I personally have doubt that any system using passive ranging would have those capabilities, and the kinematic ranging of the PIRATE is mainly for vectoring towards target and general threat assessment.