Why radar see better than IR???

Why radar see better than IR??? Can't we just slap some neural model on top of IR or whatever spectrum detector and use it to passively detect morons? I mean we probably have been doing it for decades already, but why is it still worse than radar?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    to put it into acomparison
    radar is a big fricking chink LED flashlight which doesnt really care for clouds. while irst is just a fancy light detector

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      radar also detects light (electromagnetic waves)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no, it doesn't detect light. it detects radio waves. which act differently.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          radar waves are just lower frequency light.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IR can't see through clouds. IRST is already a thing, and the F-35s DAS does what you're talking about.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Basically because air absorbs infrared but doesn't absorb radio, so you can't use infrared at long range.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    First, IRST is a passive system so you can't just turn up the power until you see something. You're limited by the heat output of the target.

    Second, IR as a wavelength tends to get absorbed more by water and air. That's just physics.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >but why is it still worse than radar?
    >light is a particle and also a wave
    >radar is a wave
    >why can't see particle long distance????
    how about you google how they both work, you fricking moron
    light gets absorbed by water vapor and other shit in the atmosphere
    both light and radar obey the inverse square law but radar doesn't get absorbed by atmospheric contaminants, thus all things being equal, certain bands of radar will ALWAYS be superior to infrared within the atmosphere, and for conventional detection
    long-wave radar also can go OTH
    the latency and lock quality is theoretically better with IR which is why sensor fusion and handoff like you see in the F-35's EOTS is such a force multiplier - the ability to detect using radar passively or from a long distance, then handing off to IR once in range so that you're maintaining EMCON

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      both infrared and radar are photon particles. both get absorbed by atmosphere.

      You've been thoroughly trashed by everyone else in the thread, but I'll also pile on by saying that IRST has no capabilities to detect target range, so you have no way to tell if a target is within engagement envelope. You also have no data on the targets velocity vector either. You are just moronic while simultaneously thinking you are smarter than every modern aerospace engineer and I think that's a neat contrast.

      radar wont do you much good in the age of radar stealth planes. meanwhile a jet engine will always drag a plume of hot gas behind its ass.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > both get absorbed by atmosphere.
        But infrared gets absorbed more easily.
        Which is why IR seekers are inherently shorter ranged than radar seekers. You can’t fight physics.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >a jet engine will always drag a plume of hot gas behind its ass.

        Radar wake detection is a thing, no you won't really find anything online about it besides academic papers and spooky references to 'the wake RCS guys'

        t. knower

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You've been thoroughly trashed by everyone else in the thread, but I'll also pile on by saying that IRST has no capabilities to detect target range, so you have no way to tell if a target is within engagement envelope. You also have no data on the targets velocity vector either. You are just moronic while simultaneously thinking you are smarter than every modern aerospace engineer and I think that's a neat contrast.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >IRST has no capabilities to detect target range
      thats false. it can measure distance to the target and speed.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Real life is not DCS where devs put magic features in their POCCNR planes because madar raccia stronk

        IRL those things have a laser range finder coupled with the IRST, but guess what ?
        It's got even worse range.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >IRL those things have a laser range finder coupled with the IRST,
          no they have not and they dont need to. irsts can measure altitude, distance, speed and course of a target completely without a laser range finder. how would that even work? a laser has shorter range than the irst.

          who tells you this bullshit?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            IR background is far noisier than RF background at radar frequencies, SNR is garbage so range is lower. Physically, the only thing that can be done is higher zoom optics and better receiver, antennas have more flexibility with phased arrays

            IRST primary measurement is angle-only

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >IRST primary measurement is angle-only
              so?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Angle-only is not enough to compute range and velocity against a moving target, Russian IRSTs have a laser rangefinder which has a substantially shorter range (less than 20km) than maximum track range on the IRST.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Angle-only is not enough
                lol, ever heard of parallax measurement? thats literally how we know how far away stars are.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                NTA but that requires two points of measurement. The F-35's DAS can do it because it's got multiple sensors all over the hull but for longer range you want two planes with networked sensors. The further apart those planes are the more accurate the measurement. This kind of networking and processing has only been available for aircraft for a few decades and even then by only the best air forces.

                Truly, you have been spoiled by American air dominance and technological wizardry.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >two points of measurement.
                the sensor is on a fast moving airplane... so you make your measurement at measure point1 and after a few seconds of flying you have arrived at measurement point 2. you only need to know how far the aircraft has moved between measurepoint1 and measurepoint2 to calculate the distance to the target.

                thats literally how we know how far away stars are. you dont need 2 dudes with telescopes who "network". you only need 1 guy with 1 telescope, who measures the angle to a star, then lets earth fly a little further and then makes the same measurement again. no fancy mathematical mumbojumbo processing power necessary.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This would work if your target was static

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                stars arent static either...

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why don't you grab a piece of paper, a ruler, and a protractor and try to work out by yourself if the situation might be a bit different between two fighter jets and between the earth and any random star?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                a plane 50 miles away in the sky will appear to be basically static. when you repeatedly measure the distance that way and its always the same then logic dictates that the targeted plane moves parallel to you. if the measured distance increases, even though you didnt change course, logic dictates the target plane moved away. the delta in the change of distance tells you the speed.

                pure logic.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And pray tell, how do you measure distance again?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                parallax

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                parallax

                This is a trig problem with one angle and one side given. That's not enough to solve.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                irst moves 500m. measurement A is taken at 0m, measurement B is taken at 500m. the target has moved 6 degrees.

                set up a right triangle at the halfwaypoint between point of measurement A and measurement B = 250m, thats our baseline, then we have the right angle to the target and half of the 6 degree the target has moved is our second angle, that would be 3 degrees.

                so we have the lenght of the baseline and 2 angles

                distance to target = baseline : tangens of 3 degree = the target plane would be 5000m away.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Doesn't work with moving targets, pic related

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                irst moves 500m. measurement A is taken at 0m, measurement B is taken at 500m. the target has moved 6 degrees.

                set up a right triangle at the halfwaypoint between point of measurement A and measurement B = 250m, thats our baseline, then we have the right angle to the target and half of the 6 degree the target has moved is our second angle, that would be 3 degrees.

                so we have the lenght of the baseline and 2 angles

                distance to target = baseline : tangens of 3 degree = the target plane would be 5000m away.

                >set up a right triangle at the halfwaypoint between point of measurement A and measurement B = 250m
                And you fail because you don't know that the target has moved 500m. You only know the target has moved 6 degrees and depending on the distance that could be anywhere from 50 to 5000 meters.

                What if they are also networking with a satellite constellation that is able to provide data from a plan view? Or even just other aircraft? I dont think theres ever a scenario where one lone fighter is expected to conquer the world all by itself, there is layer upon layer upon layer of interlocking systems that all operate in tandem.

                >Or even just other aircraft?
                That's all you really need. Just one other aircraft with eyes on the target and the ability to quickly compare notes. The problem is that the kind of datalinking needed for two planes identify the same target, compare headings and relative positions, and use that to compute a firing solution is extremely rare outside of NATO aligned nations. I'm not even sure how many NATO members could pull that off.

                dudes irst systems have been working in 4th grn fighters for over 20 byears now. it obviously works and you acting as if its somehow impossible is hjust ridiculous.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >dudes irst systems have been working in 4th grn fighters for over 20 byears now.
                The first use of an IRST system appears to be the F-101 Voodoo, F-102 Delta Dagger and F-106 Delta Dart interceptors. The F-106 had an early IRST mounting replaced in 1963 with a production retractable mount.[2] The IRST was also incorporated into the Vought F-8 Crusader (F-8E variant) which allowed passive tracking of heat emissions and was similar to the later Texas Instruments AAA-4 installed on early F-4 Phantoms.[3

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I have no idea what your malfunction is, but IRST systems cannot measure range without a laser rangefinder or a radar pulse, nobody is even claiming that they can aside from some anon in this thread.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                With imaging systems you can guestimate using target angular size if you was able to ID target.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Requires you to ID the target correctly and know their relative attitude towards you

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's because IRST was for closing into gun or Heat Seeker range. You didn't shoot at an IR track because you couldn't ID it and you didn't need to know the range to target if all you needed to do was close with it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No one here is saying IRST's are useless. People are saying it's moronic to think you can entirely replace radars and replicate all their functions with IRST's like op is suggesting. Apparently you are just as moronic for not being able to see that.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >set up a right triangle at the halfwaypoint between point of measurement A and measurement B = 250m
                And you fail because you don't know that the target has moved 500m. You only know the target has moved 6 degrees and depending on the distance that could be anywhere from 50 to 5000 meters.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What if they are also networking with a satellite constellation that is able to provide data from a plan view? Or even just other aircraft? I dont think theres ever a scenario where one lone fighter is expected to conquer the world all by itself, there is layer upon layer upon layer of interlocking systems that all operate in tandem.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                All this just to replicate what a single aircraft can do with radar and if it's an aesa radar frequency hopping, then it's almost as undetectable as a passive system.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yep, i wouldnt say it is pointless but it most certainly redundancy. Just another tool in the belt.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Or even just other aircraft?
                That's all you really need. Just one other aircraft with eyes on the target and the ability to quickly compare notes. The problem is that the kind of datalinking needed for two planes identify the same target, compare headings and relative positions, and use that to compute a firing solution is extremely rare outside of NATO aligned nations. I'm not even sure how many NATO members could pull that off.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's a 3 body problem with a lot of guesswork involved. We can tolerate that kind of shlop in astromony because you don't need to actually send a ship there anytime soon. For a possibly hostile plane this is unacceptable.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >contrast

      There's was no need to make puns like this

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        its idiotic. he calls others moronic and duning kruger and talks of aerospace engineers while being totally wrong himself.

        irst systems can detect altitude, distance and speed of targets up to 90 miles away and this isnt even new, that was 20 years ago. back then the biggest problem was filtering out false positives, which given the advance in computing, since then, has probably vastly improved.

        infrared tracking is the hot thing right now and will be the meta for decades to come since radar stealth and radar jamming/decoying are just too good right now and nobody wants to radiate a live radar signal during combat.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          blog

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody wants to radiate a live radar signal during combat.
          Gee I guess those radars aren't being used in Ukraine, or those Awacs.
          Radars are being used and will be used BVR at ranges where AA missiles can't reach before you flee and you will like it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ok i put irst units next to each other now they can rangefinger

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The MiG-29 and Su-27 IRST units have collimated laser rangefinders used for gun ranging

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They don't have the range for any meaningful missile engagements. Also as soon as you emit a laser, you lose the passive benefits that OP was originally claiming was an advantage of IRST. If you will be generating emissions, just use radar.

        >IRL those things have a laser range finder coupled with the IRST,
        no they have not and they dont need to. irsts can measure altitude, distance, speed and course of a target completely without a laser range finder. how would that even work? a laser has shorter range than the irst.

        who tells you this bullshit?

        >no they have not and they dont need to. irsts can measure altitude, distance, speed and course of a target completely without a laser range finder.
        No it can't you absolute moron. The only thing IRST measures is the heat intensity of the target. Humidity, throttle %, the type of engine, vector of flight, and probably a dozen other factors can change the intensity of IR that the engine is putting out and there is 0 way for IRST to tell which factor it is changing the IR intensity.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >No it can't you absolute moron. The only thing IRST measures is the heat intensity of the target. Humidity, throttle %, the type of engine, vector of flight, and probably a dozen other factors can change the intensity of IR that the engine is putting out and there is 0 way for IRST to tell which factor it is changing the IR intensity.
          NTA but if you had access to a network of IRST sensors with at least two able to see the target, the ability to cross reference with weather reports, a library of reference data for various aircraft, and a team of analysts that can estimate the target's throttle % and engine type depending on altitude and speed, you could plausibly get all that information.

          Just...not with a single IRST cam.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Also, your haircut sucks, OP

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'd be very surprised if they're not putting a lot of research into ai rn.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why radar see better than IR???
    It doesn't. If it did, IR would be completely useless. It sees further than IR because it's a lower frequency.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ir has lots o noise, radar is mostly quiet

    Outside of atmo youd use ir more than radar

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So can we theoretically eventually build a passive sensor that will beat radar in atmosphere or is the noise so much no amount of resolution and algorithms will let us see past it?

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IR can only see as big as your camera. The big IR cameras in space are the size of fricking cars, but they can see pretty far because of it. Issue is, I want more than just a fricking IR camera on my plane, and radar is much smaller, doesn't give a shit about clouds, and works just fine. Also the way that radar waves reflect back can just get you way more information on what the frick you're looking at than a camera that someone's going to have to look and do some math, or a computer who will have to look at it, run it through an AI model to guess, then pass that info to the human, who just has to hope that it's correct.

    Meanwhile radar can just off the reflection get a vague size and distance, the second scan can get you velocity, and after that you're just tracking it on each scan because you know vaguely what you're looking for and where it should be, and can just use the radar to adjust your aim. It's like playing marco polo except the enemy has to respond damn near instantly, and show you a picture of themselves each time you call out.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Radar just works. They are able to sweep in a scrambled manner so that it looks like just random backround radiation, and the scrambled returns gets sorted by an algorithm to piece together the picture. Meaning they can find a target, lock on, and knock them out of the sky without the victim ever knowing they were being hunted in the first place. This has been around for a decade or two even, so who knows what the latest tech even is now.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *