So the link talks about how recent advances in image recognition are opening up avenue for IR based MAWS, it talks about how new 'stealth' propellants are harder to detect. This brings up two questions in my mind:The main advantage of IR based MAW sensors is greater range, however, identification of missile exhaust plumes against background IR clutter has been a problem with developing IR based MAWS. UV based MAWS don't have that problem, but they suffer from very short range (a few km) and interference from solar derived UV radiation, depending on the aspect angle of the missile engagement. Recent advances in software and IR sensors has allowed the development of IR based MAWS. Early production versions of the J-10C did not have the IR based MAW system, presumably because it was still under development, but later production models include both forward and rear aspect IR MAWS. The same system has been integrated on the JF-17 Block III.
The IR MAWS are seen in this later production J-10C, located at the top of the fin ECM fairing and air intake, in a similar manner as those on the Block-III
View attachment 667991
The research paper in the link below describes some background on IR vs UV based MAWS.
https://publications.tno.nl/publication/34618678/TP7xRE/neele-2005-two.pdf
1. Most operational BVR missiles being single burn, i.e. the rocket burns only for first 4-10 secs of flight, are these not detectable by MAWS since by the time they get within range of MAWS (max 5 nm) they are only gliding by that time.
2. Does that mean newer dual-pulse BVRs are at a disadvantage (detection wise, not kinematics wise) since they have a terminal stage burn (allegedly)? Im sure the 2nd stage burn ignition could be optimized against MAWS range. Also of significance would be pitbull mechanics (range of missile radar and its stealthiness) since this is when the RWR would give away a missile approach.