If the IRST can locate a target precise enough to initially launch an ARH missile, why shouldn’t it be able to give mid-course updates? It’s not like the IRST stops seeing the target after launch. It should even get more precise the longer it looks at the target as more data can be extrapolated from the movement vectors. The target even has to be only rougly located so the ARH seeker knows in which area to look for the target even if the precision is off by >100 m (this can be problematic in airspaces where other aircarft could be present you don’t want to attack).
1 Like
I feel that not including an LRF in the IRST of Pirate doesn’t affect it negatively in most A2A engagements, LRF in air is limited anyway , OLS-35 LRF works for up to 20km for air targets at which range the ARH seeker head of the missile would lock anyway, Rafale apparently has 40km laser range (idk if on ground or air targets) so that’s better but still a niche function.
Launching ARH missiles at long ranges using IRST only will always be worse because your track data will be incomplete (missing concrete range data) and at the ranges where there is range data the lost energy is low enough it won’t matter unless the target does some crazy maneuvers.
Still wish Pirate had Laser designator+LRF like F-35 or smth to have brims without TGP
Though… once we get actual Brimstones… Wont need it either
Let me posit another question to you, if the RWR of the Eurofighter/Rafale/F-35 is precise enough to initially launch an ARH missile, why shouldn’t it be able to provide mid-course updates so long as the hostile radar is still emitting?
Who says it doesn’t?
I can only confidently talk about the Rafale but documentation states that the Rafale is able to fire from IRST, TV+Laser, RWR, datalink, and radar but verbiage from multitude of documentations assure that TV+Laser and radar are able to provide continuous guidance but the language does not provide that same assurance for IRST and RWR.
Similarly, there’s lack of documentation (I’m assuming) providing that same assurance for IRST and RWR for the EFT and F-35 (ignoring its laser) so it’s reasonable to conclude that isn’t a feature these things have.
It would make exactly no sense for them to not be able to deliver mid-course updates due to sensor fusion. A “track” in the system should be delivered via DL to the ARH missiles in flight, no matter which sensor (or multiple sensors) registered and follow it.
Im fairly certain there are sources for Germany firing IRIS-T via RWR (I dont have them at hand) to intercept missiles and the overall sensor fusion on the EFT i believe is more than capable of guiding weapons towards an RWR contact. Im fairly certain this is usually done in the context of SEAD though.
As for PIRATE guiding weapons, there is a source for it and a report already submitted. Gaijin, as always, believes its a marketing lie
I don’t deny that sensor fusion can lead to sensors compensating for each other
But we’re talking a scenario where only one sensor like an RWR or IRST is able to obtain information
I don’t see the problem? If the RWR or the IRST are precise enough to locate a threat or target continously, a “track” is created in the system (even if the “track quality” is “low” because only one sensor registered it). If you fire an ARH missile on this “low quality track” the missile will still be supplied with target data collected by that one sensor during flight. A track in the system is a track in the system, no matter the quality. If the pilot chooses to fire at such a “low quality track” the system will follow.
Wasn’t it maws? And doesn’t EFT maws basically continuously track missiles?
DASS is so intergrated that its impossible to know for certain but its probably either
and yes, they are AESA radars
Everything. You can fire an IRIS-T via MAWS, RWR or a combination. Using the RWR it can be used as a hardkill system against incoming ARH missiles. Using the MAWS it can be used against incoming IR missiles. Both in tandem get the best results but is not strictly nessecary. I think even targets received via datalink from other planes sensors is sufficient to launch a missile.
Even if it’s fired by RWR, the angular precision is probably good enough to fire an IRIS-T in LOAL, and could be compensated by maws as well.
I mean, theory is theory. Something can be theoretically possible but for reasons we may not know, is not possible. If documentation states what sensors is able to continuously guide and omits other sensors, I don’t think it’s fair to assume it’s possible for the omitted sensors to guide when it was explicitly omitted.
Especially when said omission is repeated across several modern aircraft.
Well, the IRST and the RWR update target tracks in realtime (would be strange if the just update the target every few seconds or slower as it would make them quite useless). You have to disconnect the sensors from the missiles. The missile doesn’t know which sensor registered the target, it only receives the target data (coordinates, vectors, etc.) → the “track” in the system. If there’s a track, a missile can be fired and as long as at least one sensor sees the “track” it receives track data from the system. It can even, for example, dissapear from the RWR due to evasive maneuvers but appear on the IRST as said maneuver exposes the hot engine exhaust. As the IRST and RWR update tracks in realtime, there is no difference between a target registered by RWR, Radar, IRST or any other sensor (except for precision), so it doesn’t concern the missile.
The main problem of this discussion is: Technically everything is more than sound and it wouldn’t make sense not to do it that way. But there is no explicit statement that it was done this way.
Relying on IOG for intermediate guidance is useless in WT’s case. imagined this if you using ARH non DL .
Firing at BVR ranges of ~50km provided the target is closing would result in the target entering seeker range pretty quickly and IOG is perfectly suited for this. Against a manoeuvring target at those ranges you’d lack the kinematics for any meaningful pK anyway.
3 Likes
Is that IIR Seeker really that powerful? I can’t believe it because I’m ignorant☠️
We have one claim of around ~25km without target conditions. So we assume a headon engagement for BVR, from launch to the target being in range of the seeker isn’t a huge amount of time.
5 Likes