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
Though with full DASS, the kill chain on dealing with an incoming SARH threat would involve at first detection on the ESM;
SARH detected by ESM
ECM begins attempting to jam the threat
DASS “Manoeuvre command” directs pilot into notch
Towed Decoy is deployed
Chaff dispensing starts
You would be relying on the MAW as a final resort for terminal manoeuvres this is where something like the longer ranged UV/IR system on Rafale offers a clear advantage as the MAW can begin tracking the threat much earlier. But the rest of the toolkit should be exhausted before we’re only down to the MAW.
6 Likes
I wonder if Amids could measure the cross section and go off from there, and assume missiles higher than a certain size or below certain size must be a radar or IR missile.
That would be problematic for threats like R-27ER (RF) and R-27ET (IR) as they should have an extremly similar RCS, judging form their shape.
1 Like
It depends on how different the (significantly) flatter IR seeker appears to a high frequency radar.
Yes it would be but perhaps surface to air threats are a bigger consideration and still would do the job for every other use case.
Manpads are typically smaller in size while SAM radars are typically larger.
1 Like
It’s likely to be simply poor wording in my opinion, both PVS2000 and AMIDS are linked into “DAS” systems on Harrier II and Eurofighter Typhoon respectively.
Harrier GR7;
Yeah well, the IRIS-T SLM (IR) missile has around the same size as a NASAMS (RF) missile. So that will also be problematic ^^
You would need to generate a very high resolution (I)SAR image of the missile with <1 cm resolution at >10 km to be able to differentiate between missile types and have enough time for countermeasures.
As I understand the brochure, PVS2000 could be integrated into the ECM system as seen on harrier, but could be offered as a standalone system on other platforms if it was necessary, so the question is how it would operate if it was installed as a standalone system on a vehicle and not integrated with the ECM system.
1 Like