3 ms·
That's my impression too. The most basic air force can defend against drones, let alone Russia's. Even this supposedly stealth drone is very obvious, from behin
by eliteraspberrie 13y ago
That's my impression too. The most basic air force can defend against drones, let alone Russia's. Even this supposedly stealth drone is very obvious, from behind. Any IRST system would detect it immediately.
- frankydp 13y agoThere are numerous IRST mitigation systems.
- frankydp 13y agoThere are numerous IRST mitigation systems.
- nether 13y agoIR attenuates rapidly in the atmosphere and is only useful for very short range detection (short range missiles, TV remotes, "laser" tag guns). The artist's concept seems to show the standard flat exhaust intakes (first employed on the F-117) which increase efflux "surface area" (versus a circle) to promote mixing with ambient air. There might be pre-exhaust mixing too.
- greedo 13y agoIRST systems are actually quite long ranged for detection, it's identification that is more problematic. F-14D IRST systems were quite good at long range detection, and those were much older legacy systems with nothing like today's technology.
- nether 13y agoYeah, but still very limited by aspect angle to engine exhaust. Detection is ok, tracking is poor unless very close or with LoS to the tailpipes. Anything ground-based will almost never be able to stare directly at the aft end of an aircraft except during egress (i.e. after it's done its job). What I'm getting at is there are huge limitations to passive tracking of IR emissions, otherwise we'd be using it instead of (active) radar.
- greedo 13y agoAn aircraft moving at near Mach speeds has a significant amount of friction caused by air. It's not necessary for an IR system to be able to see the exhaust of an aircraft. In fact, all aspect IR missiles have been around since at least the AIM9L which was used in the Falklands War in 1982.