My question remains;
It is a double edged sword. Are the BOL flares effective like this against IRST? Yes? So they should be more effective against missiles?
On the flip side, if they aren’t as effective against missiles they also shouldn’t be effective against the modern IRST systems… so what is it that is being said here?
yes and yes theyre quite literally the evolution of the IR countermeasure.
Right so the brits can’t sit here saying Pirate is as good as they say and then subsequently demand buffed BOL countermeasures.
thats not how this thigns work. these things arent binary.
That is quite literally how infrared imaging sensors work whether on a plane or on a missile.
its quite literally not.
It very much depends on the sensor and the (optical) filters that it uses and whatnot …
Just because one particular sensor (allegedly) gets washed out by it doesn’t mean all sensors will.
BOL is said to decoy pretty much any type of IR missile, my comments were partially satire.
F-14A/B missing AIM-54 Phoenix loadout limitations
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/WYE1Ba4rFDYc
Finally found out unclassified documents
Incorrect HPRF minimum range for the F-14 radars.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/3JK0ZQYvVDxA
What does this mean for the radar? Sorry I’m not very well versed in radar stuff.
This is called blind range, a limitation for radar running in both Medium PRF and High PRF (HPRF) mode.
Long story short, by definition of HPRF (operate in 100+ kHz PRF) and the following equation:
Given that PRF>(pulse width+ recovery time+ more time interval)
Rmin<(light speed)/(2*PRF)
The blind range of HPRF mode should be at most 1500m.
Look at the following links if you want to know more.
and
In-game, Russian and NATO radars have a 9 km and 5 km HPRF blind range, respectively. This is most likely because a 1985 MiG-29B technical manual stated that the N019E radar had a design fault that prevented it from detecting multiple targets within 8 km in the HPRF range-searching mode. This issue also gives N019E a 9 km HPRF blind range. On the same page, it also stated that the Soviets already knew how to fix that processor design fault.
By showing that AN/AWG-9 could track while scanning two parallel flying targets in HPRF TWS mode, it proved that AN/AWG-9 didn’t have that N019E processor problem. Therefore, the additional HPRF limitation on N019E should not apply to AN/AWG-9.
Thanks for the great explanation.
Thank you for your swift response, Gaijin.
The same response was used in my two other tickets, “Incorrect HPRF minimum range for AN/APG-63 PSP” and “Incorrect HPRF minimum range for AN/APG-65Q”, where I didn’t do any calculation and provided direct sources with exact data.
Incorrect HPRF minimum range for AN/APG-63 PSP:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/30z8VuAgWyXS
Incorrect HPRF minimum range for AN/APG-65Q:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/NogwTBtaAhRi
Might also want to reference;
Since;
“Техническая подготовка командира взвода ПЗРК 9К38 “Игла””, И. Акулов, В. Байдаков, А. Васильев, 2011.”
Doesn’t exactly seem like a “Western” Source now does it especially considering;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/yUohrEMuQLna
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/LbD7XSmoaAJc
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CrgLh51VkpQZ
Directly contradict the article(s), they themselves have published, and also impact NATO ordnance / vehicles.
That is why I submitted reports for both sides.
Incorrect HPRF minimum range for Russian Radar (N001, N010, kopyo-21, kopyo-25 and every Russian Radar introduced after 1985):
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0moTpQycHb9F
Gaijin moment 💀
Are you sure that wouldnt be a issue for N001? Its basicly upscaled N019
I think so. N001 was introduced in 1985. That hotfix seems to have already been applied before 1985, as the year the manual was published. Page 128 of that manual stated:
"To eliminate this uncertainty, a method can be applied when the slope of the LPM changes in the second measuring cycle. All combinations of filter numbers are analyzed in the BTSVM, and the corresponding distances in two measuring cycles are determined. If the distances calculated using any combination of filter numbers for the first and second measuring intervals differ by more than 8 km, then such combinations are considered false and excluded from further processing.
However, this method has not yet been implemented in the radar complex(N019E), and uncertainty recognition is achieved at the stage of analyzing the trajectories (routes) of targets in the SNP (TWS) mode."
[Для устранения этой неопределенности можно применить способ, когда во втором измерительном такте крутизна ЛЧМ изменяется.Все варианты сочетаний номеров фильтров анализируются в БЦВМ, и определяются соответствующие расстояния в двух измерительных тактах.Если расстояния, вычисленные при каком-либо сочетании номеров фильтров для первого и второго измерительных интервалов, отличаются больше чем на 8 км, то такие сочетания считаются ложными и исключаются из дальнейшей обработки.
Однако данный способ в РЛПК пока не реализован, и распознавание неопределенности достигается на этапе анализа траекторий (трасс) целей в режиме СНП.]
The said manual: