Not that it will make much of a difference in the game, but a 90 deg/s slewing rate doesn’t necessarily mean a 90 deg/s tracking rate …
This is how fast the seeker can be turned by driving the motors at max speed and doesn’t involve any tracking …
cried in leo2a7v chassis having arrowhead lvl protection and acceleration speed of a 2a4
4 Likes
Starstreak still sat at mach 3 all these years later…
3 Likes
Any reason why the Eurofigther cannot use the LJDAM on the dual bomb racks?
Iirc, they probably could IRL, but only the Paveway IV is explicity marketed for them
I wonder if they ever tested an air launched starstreak from a fixed wing jet
1 Like
Would be too hazardous. Between the frangible covers for the launch tube, and the expended kick motor, there’s a high chance that debris will strike the airframe at FJ speeds
1 Like
Technically true, but it is the best indication of tracking rate that we have. Also if the seeker can be slewed at >90°/s by external commands I don’t see any reason it couldn’t be driven at that speed by the tracking system.
1 Like
my rwr is already at 45%
Well, it really isn’t an indication of tracking rate
It only tells how fast the motors can slew the seeker
Of course when it can be slewed at 90 deg/s by external commands it can also be slewed at 90 deg/s by the internal tracking system.
But that’s not the point. The issue at hand is not how fast the motors can rotate the seeker, but rather how fast the tracking system can track targets.
And “tracking” involves a lot more than just sending rotation commands to the motors. Tracking is about finding the target and deducing the direction it’s moving and how fast etc.
It involves the sensor (frame rate) and a lot of processing.
Commanding the motors is the last step, just to keep the target within seeker FoV.
Now it might have a 90 deg/s tracking rate IRL, but I’m just saying you can’t deduce that from how fast the motors can slew the seeker.
What would the limitation be, say the target is aquired, then it will slew at whatever speed it can to keep said target within the seeker fov. Note the processing onboard asraam is one of it’s strengths. I dont forsee it struggling to track a target especially with a staring array as opposed to a tv scan approach abit like IRIS-T.
1 Like
R-27T irl has track rate twice less than slewed by command, so sometimes there is a reason
1 Like
Wow it can…but in the future.Currently they have conept about integrating GBU-54 ,but that’s for Tranche 4/5 plane
Target tracking is done in a loop.
Commanding the motors to move the seeker to keep the target within seeker FoV is just one part of the loop.
You have to get the information/image from the sensor, process it, calculate the necessary commands.
All this is repeated many times a second. The frequency of it and the seeker FoV among other factors (such as how fast the motors can slew the seeker) determine the tracking rate.
We don’t know what bottlenecks/limits the ASRAAM tracking rate.
Is it how fast the motors can slew the seeker? (90 deg/s) or is it the other factors (sensor refresh rate + seeker FoV + processing time)?
One might say: “Why would they make a requirement for the seeker slewing rate to be 90 deg/s if it can’t track at 90 deg/s?”
But note that such slewing rate is useful even if the seeker track rate can’t match it.
For example it reduces the time needed to make off-boresight shots. (The seeker can slew to the angle commanded by plane’s FCS more quickly)
And the reason is: Target tracking involves a lot more than just driving some motors.
You need to actually find where the target is and where it’s going …
And a combination of the refresh rate of your sensor, seeker FoV and processing time determines that.
(And of course the mechanical slewing rate as well, but we are discussing whether the rest of the loop can match or exceed the 90 deg/s mechanical slewing rate limit)
im not to familiar with EFT trialled weapon systems but I assume there arent any options for a FnF AGM or bomb that isnt MMV
Sure there was a picture of a PGM next to one…
2, albeit from different angles. I’ll ask if that can be bug reported, which I doubt, but it’s worth a shot
hmm I mean better then nothing I guess lol
There is one
1 Like
The issue is, Brimstone was and is it’s intended AGM, for dealing with tanks and other vehicles, without the current limitations set by Gaijin it’s pretty clear why. Brimstone 2s at full strength would be the strongest A2G weapon by far. Let alone brimstone 3 and now spear 3
Then PW4s were mostly used for CAS in places like Libya
There just has never really been much need for a weapon system like AGM-65 or another IR guided weapon
I guess our only hope is that the Devs have a single grain of pity for us and give us 2-4 pgm-500s.
After that, maybe Germany could get the glide bomb linked above
That having been said…
If Gaijin decides the KH-38MT is fine despite only being a mockup because the KH-38ML exists and the Su-34/Su-30 require the KH-38MT for a “competitive” FnF AGM. Then the Eurofighter could get the “Typhoon AGM”. As that is a sub-variant of the ASRAAM and the EFT has no alternative FnF AGM at this time
4 Likes