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
1 Like
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?
its receiver is not so sensitive to see jerboas in the desert at night. These are modern IRSTs that can do this
1 Like
EXACTLY.
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.
We’ve stayed from the original topic quite a bit.
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.
Afik the IRST was upgraded as well on the SMT?
I really don’t agree that it’s overperforming at range. The detection range of larger and hotter targets is already pitiful even in clear conditions imo.
We can address that later then.
But the IRST should at least be able to see through clouds further than any IR missile can.
Can IRST guide the R27Ts and ETs once launched the seeker takes over average IR seeker? Does anyone know?
The sun is a giant obstacle, but everything on planet earth emits infrared as well. Additionally, the suns light reflecting on objects compounds the distortion at long ranges. Weather is specifically an issue and mentioned on IRST wiki too. There is way too many obstacles & variables that distort the ability to see specific IR signatures at range.
But it is hyper clear at closer ranges. Angular resolution is greater than even radar.
Last note on the overperforming aspect. I can barely find targets on the actual search and track function, but I can immediately lock ab targets up to 25km in head ons in ACM with the helmet mounted sight??
I do not even use the search and track function ever. I use the HMS to detect and prosecute targets.
My helmet mounted sight is the best at detection and targeting over the radar search modes and IRST search and track. It is a little silly.
2 Likes
Agreed. Compared to the DCS version of the MiG-29, IRST we have in MiG-29 is really underpowered. it should be able to detect aircraft at higher altitues without cloud cover up to 10 miles, in War Thunder you are lucky if you can detect someone 3-4 miles away from you.
3 Likes
I personally think the actual search and track function should have better range as you mentioned, and the helmet sight should maintain the 10km, but be far more potent within the 10km range and easily see through most cloud formations depending how close the target is. The closer the target is, the more the IRST can see the light source.
1 Like
I think the function should remain the same. Search and track / HMS modes are using the same sensor. There should be no limitation in the HMS mode for target acquisition range as there is not one in the manual.
Yes, we know that. However, HMS is nothing but a crosshair on a piece of glass attached to these rudimentary helmets. Why is it better than the actual search at track of the mig29? It completely defeats the purpose of using the radar and the IRST system. Its overperforming.
Ever since this exploit came along with the release of the SMT I have never used the actual radar unless to guide the R27R and ER. Why? when I can just lock a target with my magical glass sight at 25km totally undetected and only switch to radar HMS when they get into a favorable position with little to no chance to defeat the R27ER.
How is this legitimate?
The fact that we already know where target’s exact position in the sky and their exact distance and closure rate simply because a friendly “spotted” them is exacerbating the issue. “Crew sighting” is really taking away from the realism of Realistic Battles. IRST HMS exploits the game mechanic.
But you are not in favor of lowering or removing crew sight on enemies last time I checked. GJ slowly reduced crew sights in the last 4 updates and that was something you were not happy with. Has your positioned changed since?
Removing crew sights would be a better solution to this IRST exploit without touching the IRST of the mig29 itself. It will also force players to actually rely on their radars and IRST to find targets beyond visual range. Making WT a more realistic game at top tier overall.
I think that in air RB the detection ranges of fighters is bugged, it has been reported multiple times in the past and never properly fixed. You’ll have a target shooting an R-73 at you from 0.5 miles and doesn’t show up on the minimap and doesn’t have a visible name / tag on your screen. The worst part is that when this happens it also almost always is associated with a similar bug (likely a server related issue)… where the missile they launch doesn’t appear (is completely invisible) until it’s 0.001m from your aircraft and already exploding. No markers.
Aside from those issues, I think the HMS with the IRST and the range it offers is a fantastic benefit of the aircraft. There’s no reason to change that. Rather they should buff the detection and tracking ranges to a realistic figure. The in-game IRST using HMS doesn’t allow you to maintain a radar lock outside 10km anyway when you switch… which as far as I’m aware… it should allow you to. In real life you’d simply lock what the radar was pointing at / tracking with the IRST… it’s a feature.
and that’s why the OLS Su-27 and Su-35 sees a target at a distance of 100km
Its a “benefit” no doubt that renders the radar and its other modes useless.
Some Mig29 fans are pushing the notion that the Mig29 IRST is now infinite which is scientifically false and simply explained even on Wikipedia. But sure, let’s run with that.
You love talking about the F16 so much on the mig29 thread, can I get your opinion on why they lowered the ACM of the most advanced F16s to 9km distance when the oldest F16s retain their 19km range?
Why is the F-16C and Barak II ACM nerfed to 9km? The radar can technically and very successfully detect and target opponents at 148km regardless of weather conditions. It’s an absolute unfounded nerf.
Does the F16 need a little magical glass sight on the pilot’s helmet to target opponents further than 9km? Is that what it is?