I know the exact document this is from:

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~anita/new/papers/militaryHandbook/sig-sort.pdf

obviously caused i take screen shot from it

Triangulation techniques using one aircraft is actually less accurate than interferometric techniques, however it is less complicated, so for more complex AESA signals it may be better.

Tranche 1/2 Typhoon achieves about 1deg bearing accuracy with wing-tip triangulation

are you sure they do triangulation by wing tip ? , it seem that it required significant distance between 2 known point for the triangulation to be successful and accurate , the azimuth , elevation method are also basically triangulation also have weakness that it very inaccurate at low altitude ( mean 2 poin of triangulate closer together

, Rafale achieves 0.5deg with interferometry. This is bearing accuracy so naturally range accuracy is roughly along the same percentages. E.g. at 50km, 0.5deg accuracy equates to a sphere almost 1km wide. Radar, by comparison, gives you a sphere diameter of the order of just tens of metres. So for targeting purposes at distance active targeting is 1-2 orders of magnitude better than passive targeting.

i read but still dont quite understand interferometry , can you give a short definition of it ?

It isn’t with one aircraft doing the sensing. You need at least two to triangulate for distance and speed. Moving your aircraft won’t work, because at either measuring point, you don’t know how far away the other aircraft is and how far it has moved/manoeuvred in the interim. It could be close and slow and further away and fast. If could also change course.

You need to measure from two well separated points simultaneously for triangulation and you’re relying on the enemy remaining active throughout in the case of BVR targeting where mid-course guidance is necessary. Even then RWR has significant bearing inaccuracy compared to radar, so you have to be inside IRST range.

but triangulation isnt accurate enough for targeting

Its just geometrics. There isn’t much more to it.

Old ESM couldn’t do it as they didn’t have the memory to retain enough “historical” data and didn’t have enough processing power to build the track from that.

Taking your diagram, if you do one turn, you can locate a stationary target after x seconds to triangulate.

If you do a second turn, you can plot the track of a moving target* given a further y seconds. [Note that in doing this, the ESM will realise its original estimation for the target location was wrong, but will use the data as a basis for calculating the track. From which comes speed, range and altitude.]

*assuming that the target is on a constant track at a constant speed.

If the target is maneuvering, then it becomes more complex, thus requiring more time… but its still far from impossible.

i dont get it , even at the first turn because the target is constantly moving at significant speed then angle will change constantly how is it even possible to triangulate ?

Of course it is!

Not with a second of tracking data, but given a reasonable time frame and choice manoeuvres from the sensing aircraft it is absolutely 100% possible.

Anyone that thinks otherwise is totally brain-dead and should be utterly ignored forthwith.

can you explain how ? like the principal of the method ..etc because
there are many ESM system that allow aircraft to geolocate and attack ground target such as APR-38 ( F-4G ) , APR-45 ( F-4G ) , ALQ-213 (F-16 C/D ) , ELS ( tornado ECR ) , AN/ASQ-239 ( F-35 ) , Falcon Edge ( F-16 block 60 ) , ALR-94 ( F-22 ) ,ALQ-218 ( EA-18G ) but untill now still none declare that they can allow aircraft to attack enemy aircraft without the help from radar or IRST
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231580[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231581[/ATTACH]
none of that allow one aircraft to calculate range and speed of another aircraft based on ESM alone

Submarines can measure target range and speed using passive sonar, so I seek no reason why the same could not be done using a sufficiently accurate ESM system. But right now I do not have the time to search for evidence that ESM systems are being used in this manner, or if the results would be good enough to target a LOAL missile.

i think you get a little bit of confusion here
there 2 kind of sonar
1 – active sonar ( basically just like radar but it send sound wave rather than electrical wave ) so it can detect range and speed of enemy target
2 – passive sonar doesnot emit but listen to the sound of enemy Submarine or destroyer , however it cannot calculate range to target unless there are many sonar used together using triangulation ( required many sub or Sonobuoy at significant distance from the others , i guess it can still calculate enemy speed due to the sound from propeller ( different ship have different sound )
that not the same as ESM on fighter

Active sonar transducers emit an acoustic signal or pulse of sound into the water. If an object is in the path of the sound pulse, the sound bounces off the object and returns an “echo” to the sonar transducer. If the transducer is equipped with the ability to receive signals, it measures the strength of the signal. By determining the time between the emission of the sound pulse and its reception, the transducer can determine the range and orientation of the object.

. Passive sonar cannot measure the range of an object unless it is used in conjunction with other passive listening devices. Multiple passive sonar devices may allow for triangulation of a sound source.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sonar.html
also sonar range are actually very very short , it can normally detected a Arleigh Burke from about 6-7 km , and another submarine from 3-4 km

You can shoot at any parameters, the better the parameters, the better the Pk,
a rear shot over 10 nm away the missile range is a limiting factor, depending if the target counter or not.
this missile start out with a negative speed that it will spend all its fuel to rectify before it can do any actual intercept

that depend, in a a rear shot enemy aircraft flying at the missiles so it will have to fly less distance compared to a forward shot but enemy aircraft is flying away

In a defesanet article, a brazilian pilot claimed a rearwards passive shot over a Mirage 2000 C (apparently becuase of the code on screenshots “India”, aka RDI radar).
Here is the photo we’re discussing about. (on left side mid screen, btw interesting feature is the little red “rocket like” symbol, meaning highest degree of alert from spectra, lil gift info)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]231570[/ATTACH]

So yes, the range was 7.8 NM at the moment the photo was taken.

I know the pilot, talked to him while i was writing about DDM-NG etc. He did confirm me that the effective range of shot was 20NM.
I posted a copy paste of dialog on FB on IDF, still Lukos denied it with arguments like “even pilots tend ro say porkies” “if you trust FB” etc. Complete denial…
It would be tideous for me to search for it again, but you can find it on MMRCA thread on Indian Defence Forum (or typhoon vs Rafale or Typhoon, can’t remember)

you mean this one ????
http://indiandefence.com/threads/eurofighter-typhoon-v-s-dassault-rafale-analysis.22158/page-949
but they say it 10 nm not 20 nm , also passive sensor here could mean the rafale FSO or DDG-ng rather than spectrA , also the range is too short so may be possible to attack target without knowing exact range because missiles dont have to fly a ballistic course ,just like when pilot using helmet mounter system to lock target and launch aim-9X https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBpzuDRt0A ( btw Picard isnot a pilot , he lying if he said so )

It allows the locking onto of a target by integrating the data fusion, which includes the radar. Data fusion includes information from all sensors active and passive on your plane and friendly fighters. It doesn’t specifically say that it can passively lock a target using just the RWR alone.

CAN YOU POSTED A PICTURE OF the conversation between you and the pilot on FB here ? ( screen shot )

That’s what basically I am trying to say 😉

but how about other missiles that dont have Attitude Control Motors or thrust vectoring ? they will have to rely on fin

IRST doesn’t give range very accurately either, and without range altitude can’t be determined, only bearing (azimuth and elevation angle). The only way you accurate get range and hence altitude is radar or laser.

oh i think i understand now , with target on ground you can you use sin cos tan equation to calculate range to target because you know your aircraft altitude and the bearing of target (like 1 angle and 1 edge of the triangle ) but again enemy fighter you cant do that because all you know is bearing ( only know the angle in the triangle )