^ Ah, but notice happya$$'s stipulations, on what he saw of the performance.
It's sensitive, no doubt.
And it does well in "head-on" scenarios.
But he was able to elicit the PTs by just panning to weak-points, further away from the heads.
So again, we've got the same considerations that make for "a good jammer" -->
(1)
It's gotta detect well. As we've seen of IRCMUSA's original and then-groundbreaking IR-videos, without being able to "see" the threat, the jammer simply can't respond properly.
Clearly, this is not a problem for the Mimic - nor, say, the ZR4, as demonstrated by Cbr and ELVATO's IR-video.
(2)
It's gotta perform well, not just on-axis, when the LIDAR beam is pointed directly at it, but also when even the most outer edges of the vehicle's profile - and hardpoints - are being probed.
(3)
It's gotta have the proper algorithm to handle the threats that it's going to face.
---
Unless a jammer fits all of these criteria, it's gonna be subject to failure.
Does this mean that the jammer can't perform under real-world circumstances?
No, not necessarily.
I think that, in a way, "good enough," for many, is just that.
However, I do think that any of these risk factors play a HUGE part in the problems that can arise when the encounter scenario becomes less-than-favorable.




Reply With Quote

Bookmarks