Yeah, with basic sensor fusion with the RWR, the MAW should be able to tell that the missile position corresponds to an ARH missile, so why over complicate things.
That’s somehow typical gaijin: Simulate things where a (dirty) hack would be much better/reliable/reproducable and hack things where a simulation would be better, e.g. IR intensity by thrust instead of temperature and hostspots or the extremly ugly “center of mass” rubbish (or rather center of the object/prop in-engine).
4 Likes
See I would agree as this is a logical conclusion but AMIDS is advertised to be able to handle countermeasures as a standalone system
which wouldn’t be viable if it couldn’t figure out what was coming without an RWR.
1 Like
Question here: What is defined as “complete defensive aids system”? AFAIK there is no modern military plane which comes without a RWR, but not every plane has a DAS (correct me if I’m wronge here). It could also mean that it just dispenses flare and chaff indiscriminately the moment it registers a missile, no matter if it’s IR or RF. It doesn’t state that it discriminates between threats.
Smh
DAS isnt a rwr
DAS is a system that includes the CMs MAWS and RWR
It is not the RWR itself
Like the Eurofighters DASS isn’t the RWR but the whole system
System is the very key word here
DASS on Typhoon comprises of ECM, ESM(RWR), LWR, MAW, Chaff, Flare and Towed Decoy;
In terms of avionics architecture it is a complete system, as can be seen here DASS isn’t broken up into parts when connecting to the Attack Bus;
And as a core component to the Sensor Fusion process;
6 Likes
this isn’t possible if it’s indiscriminate
2 Likes
Thanks for the elaboration, clears some things up :)
The question in the beginning, however, was how the MAW/DAS discriminates between different missiles (passive or active/IR or RF). AFAIK it uses the RWR (and/or LWR) and if that data isn’t available it just dispenses any available countermeasures.
It is, as that just says “range and timing”, which are all values the radar collects for an unknown moving target. It just dispenses any countermeasures, not specific countermeasures. A discrimination isn’t neccesary for that.
Because if a missile is detected(due to high closure speed and low rcs), but the rwr is not detecting an incoming radar signature, it can be assumed to be a passive seeker, thus flares and ecm will be deployed.
3 Likes
Yes I understood that and that was what I’ve written up there, duh ^^
I’m talking about the MAW radar without the RWR, so no sensor fusion, pure MAW radar.
the question is whether the radars themselves are capable of it instead of being reliant on combination with RWR. The AMIDS brochure seems to suggest the MAW is capable of integrating with countermeasures in the absence of other sensors.
1 Like
so this isnt in relation to typhoon?
it is, as having the MAW be able to immediately identify the missile irrelevant of rwr issues would fix like… all of our MAW issues.
1 Like
@Metaltank1990 stated that he assumes that the MAW radar does something akin to NCTR (for example via SAR mapping) on missiles. That’s what the whole talk currently is about to my understanding ^^
1 Like
The MAW and ESM working in tandem, the ESM is able to pin point emissions from a missile or CW Illumination and correlate that with the position of a detected threat within the MAW coverage.
So say you have CW illumination at 12 o’clock, the ESM is tracking that CWI, when in range the MAW will detect a missile on the same baring as the CWI and classify the threat as SARH, the same situation without CWI would result in the missile being identified as an IR missile.
Things get complex in the face of IR+SARH from the same baring though in real life situations the odds of a SARH+IR combo from the same baring is very unlikely.
5 Likes
rightt, i havent seen any evidence that MAW sensors are powerful enought to complete NCTR type visualisation/mapping of targets to differentiation seeker type.
2 Likes
Unfortunately the Russians with their new SU-35 employ a duel long range missile capability of IR and ARH. Infact one of their doctrines is to fire off a few of the IR and ARH variants to better the probability of kill.
So it’s not exactly unlikely for it to see a duel threat of the IR-ARH type.
Launching both IR and SARH from the same angle has been standard in russian/soviet doctrine for a while. I have little doubt the typhoon can account for such a common occurrence strategically speaking.
That would be a major gap in defense if it couldn’t
And that’s what I wrote too. I brought up that the RWR is used as part of sensor-fusion for the MAW to discriminate between different missile(seeker) types. But standalone without RWR/LWR the MAW can’t discriminate between missile types. So a standalone MAW would just drop any countermeasure if it registers an incoming missile as it doesn’t know which missile(seeker) type is closing in.
I would assume, that in this case (when there’s uncertainty about the threat type) it would just do everything at once (chaff, flare, ESM/ECM, notch recommendation, etc.) to ensure the safety of the aircraft even if it’s inefficient…
1 Like