Thanks for the long winded reply. I shoudnt have bothered reading most of it. Specially after the "I know what I am talking about". Well you wanna go bragging about what you know. I have a degree in Electronic Engineering. Not a PhD. I currently work at Intels main fab, on probably the most complicated piece of capital machinery made, I know what I am talking about. And it doesnt matter if its guidance, or your X-Box, its still just electronics. Visual, IR, UV, doesnt matter. The only difference is the CCD type used, and the optics material used.
The exact reason you want more data, is so it can be rejected.
If you just have a plain IR tracker, then it is easily jammed. Simple sensor, simple counter-measure. That is a fact.
To a CCD there is no difference between IR, UV or visual. It gets teh same signal, and the noise from CM is rejected the same way.
Patterns are rejected the same way. All it is, is more data, and its useful regardless, if yes, your opinion.
Did you ever think, like I said, that with visual acquisition if the target turned tail and ran, and dumped fuel to block the visual, that you still have IR? =O! So why bother with visual? Oh wait, arent there ways to counter IR, oh yes thats right, there is. Its called a flare. And a flare is easier to reject in a visual picture, than an IR.
You cant reject data, if you dont have it. You are right, the RWR had nothing do with it. Except for the fact that it was an ANALOGY. You say data is bad. i proved a point, that its not.
Just because you are a 1.2 beta tester dont mean your the only opinion that counts around here.
You talk about processing power. The processing isnt demanded by creating the image, its demanded by advanced algorithms to determine false positives.
Anyways, its clear you need to have you way in this conversation, so "yes dear, you are absolutely right".