Well to follow the analogy. No, you’d have a hard time seeing a flashlight at range in the day, but you’d probably still be able to see a floodlight.
Isn’t an IRST (or IR seeker) fundamentally just an infrared contrast seeker that looks for ‘bright’ areas (of a given wavelength)? Certainly at range it won’t be able to make out that contrast as the infrared light dissipates, but the more light there is the further away it should be able to detect a contrast.
Like I thought before, wouldn’t be harder to find a ‘dim’ target relative to the warm, emissive ground than a comparably ‘dim’ target relative to the (not as?) emissive empty sky?
Even so, unless a target is flying into or away from an emissive point, like the sun, moon, ground, etc, would it matter?
Unless that ‘floodlight’ is directly in my field of view, I can still see the flashlights. Granted, some scattered light might make it a bit harder, but IRSTs have much smaller fields of view than the human eye.
Spoiler
(Granted, its thermal infared here but its the same idea)
Looking into the sun, or at the ground, trees, etc, you might have a hard time finding the ‘flashlight’ but contrasting it with relatively cold, dim sky would be easier, no?
Matra as an example goes as far as to say that the Magic 2 is “not sensitive to solar radiation”. The Magic 1 before it was “resistant to solar radiation”. This was in the early 80s, I’m sure America and Russia both could have come up with solutions for doing infrared search and track without interference from the sun before this.
If you look at the sun, then yes, it catches.But most often the plane flies at some angle to the sun and in IRST all infrared signatures are perfectly visible img[/img]
yeah, it does and does not. However, keep in mind that regardless of flying away from an emissive point, everything in the known universe and on planet earth that has a temperature above absolute zero emits infrared.
Regarding the sun.
It is reflecting against the surface of the earth constantly. Off of waters and even the snow atop mountains becomes an emissive point. Clouds with water vapor emit IR signatures themselves and are reflected from the sun.
No matter where you look. You are being bombarded by infrared. The computer screen we look at and a glass of water emit infrared.
That is way too much distortion at long ranges. Though we are looking for a jet engine in the sky at many miles.
Keep in mind that just because a pilot can see an AB target with his own eyes using IRST does not mean the IRST’s logic can as well. Just like cameras can pick up things not visible to the human eye and vice versa. When a pilot says they are able to see and differentiate targets at great distances does not mean the IRST will compute it as a target and be able to translate that to the fire control and engage it.
Radar is superior. Not many things on earth emit radio/microwaves naturally and man can manipulate radio waves to diffract around obstacles and follow along the earth’s surface. We can even bounce radio waves off the ionosphere back down over the horizon.
Yes, the sun emits everything including radio/microwaves, but we are predominately shielded by those solar and cosmic radiations by earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere.
The fact of the matter is that the pilot does not see her through her eyes.Heat is also electromagnetic radiation
IRST does just that. Transmits the angular coordinates of the target to the computer of the weapon system
Yes, but IRST looks for a type of electromagnetic radiation that is common amongst all objects on earth. Every object and living organism on planet earth emits infrared.
What makes you think the computer in the Mig 29 is powerful enough to differentiate through all the distortion to pick a tiny object out in the vast ocean of infrared light? What makes you think the camera is good enough as well?
They cannot calibrate the camera to be too sensitive that is why it is ineffective at targeting at long ranges. Can it see something out there? Yes, but targeting is a whole different story.
Additionally, you cannot tell the camera to look for a specific electromagnetic radiation but at the same time tell it not to see that same exact electromagnetic source that is literally everywhere in the universe and world around us, even air molecules right in front of it. That is called distortion. It is more prevalent the farther a perceived target is.
Discussion of emissions is cool, it still seems implied to me that you think the sun hampers IRST performance sufficiently to be the primary reason it limits their range… I disagree. The sun is only blinding in a very small wavelength and all missiles in the game that are IR guided should be mostly resistant or immune to it when in the presence of an afterburner iirc. If not all of them, certainly anything following the magic 2 aside the AIM-9M technologically.
And especially the MiG-29s IRST.
While some clouds irl would have sufficient water droplets and density to scatter the IR emissions, an afterburning jet flying through the cloud should still be giving off significant enough IR emissions to be tracked. If you have a cloud fully blocking view of a target flying in the distance on the other side, I can understand it blocking the IRST.
I agree to a certain extent but talking about it should lead to reports. Because the IRST is overperforming at range and nerfed where it should not.
The IRST should be hyper powerful at close range at least up to 10km, through clouds as well. It is more powerful than the IR seeker on any missile. That capability should be an ace in the sleeve of the SMT. But it should degrade further out.
