Currently derby er only burn for 4 seconds then the sustainer only activates depending on certain factors
So its not a true dual pulse
Actually, disregard that, the Gunslinger might not have a dual pulse motor as it appears that only SM-6 Block 1B has a dual-pulse motor.
how a “true” dual pulse should behave?
Dual pulse at least for the derby er it should be a boost sustainer for about 6 seconds like the regular derby then the second pulse is a separate section and will only burn depending on certain conditions like we currently have in the
dev
Now the question is how long the burn time is on the second pulse
afaik mica NG should behave like that too, normal MICA boost + sustainer and then the separate 2nd pulse, but from what i tested you currently can’t have more than 2 thrust settings
FINALLY. my brother is going to be very happy
So, I’ve been thinking, about stuff like IRST datalink updates and such. And why they’re not in the game and how they could be.
So, firstly, the engine does actually support IRST datalink updates, via forced constant designation updates (which can also allows for TGP, or other types of DL updates). In fact the FB-10A in game (an IR firing SAM), actually has functional IRST provided datalinks.
So, this brings us to why its not in game. While I have no proof of this, I likely believe it to be due to balancing. Having it so that way you both need to flare and chaff a missile is quite a step up in difficulty. Hence why the only thing in game with IRST updates is an IR guided missile.
Now, the reason this would be effective in the first place, inertial drift in warthunder is not modeled properly. IRL, INS drift is a drift in the perceived location of the missile, however, in warthunder, INS drift is a drift in the perceived location of the target.
This is a convenient implementation, it makes it so when you lock a target it self corrects automatically. But, it has one large issue. It makes datalink updates perfectly accurate. This is due to how datalink works in game. Its basically constantly applying updated target locations provided by the aircraft. However, this update resets inertial drift, as its drift of the target’s location.
So, what does this mean? This means that datalink provides perfect accuracy for the location of the target, regardless of range. This means that, in scenerios where the seeker is defeated, you would still be able to hit targets. IE IRST would make ARHs overly effective in certain scenerios, (additionally; Is likely part of why TWS/IRST updates aren’t available for SARHs, as it would allow them to connect with perfect accuracy, with no RWR warning at all.)
However, of INS drift were properly modeled, this would not be an issue. If the missile’s location itself drifted, than the longer the launch is, the less accurate DL would become. To the point where past maybe a dozen KM at most, the missile would basically be guaranteed to miss its target. This would allow for much more things to provide DL updates, as they properly should, without breaking the game with borderline unavoidable missiles.
Sure, there would need to be a bit more to it, like having the system properly update on its own seeker lock. Aas modern ARHs should by cross referencing positions; although on older SARHs I dunno if they would update their INS DL location. But it would be nice to see.
3 Likes
while this makes sense it has a big problem
DL updates IRL are most likely in the form of target location relative to the missile rather than just target location, because the planes radar and computer system has access to both data points, and giving DL updates in this form would drastically reduce the computing power needed within the missile
Isn’t that just on 2-way datalink systems? I know its theoretically possible, but tracking launched missiles and keeping them ID’d properly seems very technically challenging. Also that still relies on the missile accurately knowing its own location if it were to be implemented locally without 2-way datalink, no? Which is where the drift comes into play.
Also issue is that its not every aircraft that has IRST intergraded or the targeting pod can be used as IRST datalink
not really?
tracking your own launched missiles isnt particularly challenging, because unlike a normal radar contact you know what its flight behavior is
and that wouldnt rely on the missile knowing its own location, because information is being given to it in reference to itself
That is true, but imo, if it were to be implemented with realistic enough accuracy, it wouldn’t be a sufficient increase in lethality to where that would be an issue.
ARHs still give warnings, and IRSTs in game don’t actually have sufficient range to where this would be overly effective at keeping pressure on notching targets, as when you’re close enough for IRST to be effective in game, the terminal seeker will about be active anyways.
There was a brief period in time were you could fire AMRAAM with PIRATE with DL and it was glorious.
3 Likes
I dunno, I know that they use angular refrences, but I dont think i’ve ever read anything that says its done via tracking. Although im mostly coming from generalizes papers on missile guidance. If you have anything saying a specific system does that it would be greatly appreciated.
That actually was just inertial, no DL updates.
It had the DL symbol on the tracks no?
Well the rafale and gripen e irst is probably the only ones that can track targets at long range properly as long as there’s no clouds blocking the view
Then the j10c
Followed by the su 30s
Idk how far the rest can track
Irl basically all modern IRSTs should be looking at 140km+ range (some even getting up around 200) against a side aspect afterburning twin engine jet. Meanwhile in game we have only a bit over 1/10th that performance, with the many of best systems maxing out at a hardcap of 30km.
I assume its a balancing thing, but i really hope with IRST pods becoming a thing in game, and NATO thus getying more access to IRSTs, this range will be buffed to be more realistic
Bring this back🙏🏻
Couldn’t experience this on my sad german euro back then…
1 Like