Simviation Forum - Commercial Anti-Missile Laser on Fed-Ex Jets

Reply #15 - Jan 21^st, 2007 at 1:00pm

elite marksman Offline
Colonel
Please upload all images
to Simv!

Gender:
Posts: 855

Chris, would a laser operating in IR frequencies not be able to deliver a pulse or continuous beam strong enough to overload the camera in the seeker head of the missile, much in the same way that a flashbang works on people? I know people and cameras are different, but if you point a camera at a target with sufficient ambient light, the image is washed out, I would think that this would work similarly on an IR camera.

As for the melting thing; so long as the lens could withstand the heat of the laser, a directed beam with minimal diffusion could well be powerful enough to either overload the sensor, or outright melt some of its more delicate parts, either should be enough to disable the missile. I, however, have no idea how powerful a laser you would need for this, and weather or not satisfactory materials exist or could be produced in a timely fashion.

The other problem is the power source. The 747 modified to carry the military experimental anti-missile laser system needs the majority of its cargo hold to be filled with large, specialized, liquid chemical tanks for the electrochemical reaction of the magnitude needed.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Jan 21^st, 2007 at 3:35pm

Chris_F Offline
Colonel
Insert message here

Posts: 1364

elite marksman wrote on Jan 21^st, 2007 at 1:00pm:

Chris, would a laser operating in IR frequencies not be able to deliver a pulse or continuous beam strong enough to overload the camera in the seeker head of the missile, much in the same way that a flashbang works on people? I know people and cameras are different, but if you point a camera at a target with sufficient ambient light, the image is washed out, I would think that this would work similarly on an IR camera.

As for the melting thing; so long as the lens could withstand the heat of the laser, a directed beam with minimal diffusion could well be powerful enough to either overload the sensor, or outright melt some of its more delicate parts, either should be enough to disable the missile. I, however, have no idea how powerful a laser you would need for this, and weather or not satisfactory materials exist or could be produced in a timely fashion.

The other problem is the power source. The 747 modified to carry the military experimental anti-missile laser system needs the majority of its cargo hold to be filled with large, specialized, liquid chemical tanks for the electrochemical reaction of the magnitude needed.

I don't know if the IR cameras used in something like a Penguin or Maveric would "wash out". IR lasers, like most lasers, are single frequency. If the camera used doesn't "look" at this frequency then it wouldn't wash out. Plus, it probably depends a lot on the physics of the lenses and charged couple devices used. IR cameras tend to be cooled so a laser designed to "wash out' the camera is working against the cooling system of the focal plane. My guess is the cooling system will win out.

The types of IR laser (and simple strobe) devices used actually are rather low power. Nothing is going to get melted or damaged from the heat itself. All it's doing is trying to provide a stronger "pulse" than the pulse of the IR image it's protecting. If you consider how much the hot exhaust of an airplane heats the focal plane of a missile a mile away it's a very low quantity. The laser is just trying to do a little more "heating" so to speak. In other words very, very, very little heat is transferred.

When I referred to melting I meant a simple strobe type IR jammer: an IR light bulb with a shutter in front of it. These send IR energy out in every direction. Since they're non-directional they waste a huge quantity of IR to the environment. Not a big deal except that because of this they have to produce a huge quantity of IR and thus a huge quantity of heat. They either need to be really, really big, or they melt themselves. The IR strobe jammers used on helocopters are about the size of a bag of flour. The 747 sized model was about the size of a trash can.

The Star Wars laser designed to destroy ICBMs in boost phase is the one you're talking about with the chemical powered laser on the 747. That's a whole 'nuther ball 'o wax. And it's over budget and doesn't really work so it's just vapor-ware at this point. The mechanics there are entirely different. It's not trying to confuse an IR seeker, it's trying to melt the missile.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Jan 21^st, 2007 at 6:24pm

elite marksman Offline
Colonel
Please upload all images
to Simv!

Gender:
Posts: 855

So there really aren't many effective counters to the current generation of IR missiles short of simply blasting them out of the sky with an AEGIS ship or Phalanx CIWS? Thank god our primary enemies have older versions that aren't as sophisticated.

Radar guided missiles seem to be much easier to counter as our current countermeasures are frequency-agile to deal with different bands of RF. Using a jammer opens a whole can o' worms if he happens to have a few ARMs lying around, specifically the AGM-88 HARM, since it remembers the transmitters last location should it be shut off.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Jan 22^nd, 2007 at 6:26am

Ivan Offline
Colonel
No, I'm NOT Russian, I
only like Russian aircraft
The netherlands

Gender:
Posts: 6058

elite marksman wrote on Jan 21^st, 2007 at 6:24pm:

So there really aren't many effective counters to the current generation of IR missiles short of simply blasting them out of the sky with an AEGIS ship or Phalanx CIWS? Thank god our primary enemies have older versions that aren't as sophisticated.

Igla's are easy to get hold of... $80K each, and there are reports that these are being used in Iraq already. And if they have the luck to get a 2nd generation one, flares are close to useless.

Russian planes: IL-76 (all standard length ones), Tu-154 and Il-62, Tu-134 and An-24RV&&&&AI flightplans and repaints can be found here

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Jan 22^nd, 2007 at 7:35am

Chris_F Offline
Colonel
Insert message here

Posts: 1364

elite marksman wrote on Jan 21^st, 2007 at 6:24pm:

So there really aren't many effective counters to the current generation of IR missiles short of simply blasting them out of the sky with an AEGIS ship or Phalanx CIWS? Thank god our primary enemies have older versions that aren't as sophisticated.

Radar guided missiles seem to be much easier to counter as our current countermeasures are frequency-agile to deal with different bands of RF. Using a jammer opens a whole can o' worms if he happens to have a few ARMs lying around, specifically the AGM-88 HARM, since it remembers the transmitters last location should it be shut off.

It depends on the platform you're trying to protect. A Maveric or Penguin isn't going to be used to shoot down a plane and a shoulder fired SAM isn't going to be used against a ship. The best defense against a IR camera style Air-Ground missle is killing the airplane before it can fire on you. That's the defense that tank columns and ships rely on. Phalanx is for when the s- hits the fan and things have gone very wrong. It's a last ditch defense.

Also, most RF missiles are used against air platforms. Some SAMS have Home-On-Jam technologies that attempt to home on jammers, however towed jammers are starting to be fielded (one is being feilded by my company for use on the F-18, and our competitor makes one for the F-16 I believe). Anything that homes on those will just hit the towed decoy. But there's no way a HARM is going to be used on an airplane. It's an Air-Ground missile, entirely useless against air targets (what use is a location memory feature on a fast moving air target anyway?).

Short range air-Ground RF guided missiles (like the Longbow Hellfire) are similar to the IR guided Air-Ground missles in the defensive strategy sense: the best option is to kill the platform before it fires. Once that missile is in the air the fate of the target is pretty much written. That's an advantage an airborne platform has: it can maneuvere fast enough to prevent a missle shot from becoming a foregone conclusion.

Long range missiles of any homing type are treated just like any other air threat: try shooting them down with aircraft flying CAP and SAMs at long range. Naval targets can use chaffe somewhat effectively. Then Phalanx type stuff when things have gone horribly wrong.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Jan 22^nd, 2007 at 8:24am

Ivan Offline
Colonel
No, I'm NOT Russian, I
only like Russian aircraft
The netherlands

Gender:
Posts: 6058

Only airborne target that provides enough juice to get a HARM to lock in is an AWACS.
Towed Decoys are useless against most largert SAMs (like Patriot and S-300, which have around 100kg of explosives onboard), and after the thing gets blown up you end up just as defenseless as you were if you didnt load it up at all.

And how much use is a towed decoy against the infamous 'double shot' (IR and radar together) that has been the standard 'russian book' interceptor rule for ages...

Russian planes: IL-76 (all standard length ones), Tu-154 and Il-62, Tu-134 and An-24RV&&&&AI flightplans and repaints can be found here

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Jan 22^nd, 2007 at 3:12pm

Chris_F Offline
Colonel
Insert message here

Posts: 1364

Ivan wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2007 at 8:24am:

and after the thing gets blown up you end up just as defenseless as you were if you didnt load it up at all.

And how much use is a towed decoy against the infamous 'double shot' (IR and radar together) that has been the standard 'russian book' interceptor rule for ages...

I'd rather be defenseless with a blown up decoy than blown up with no decoy. I'm not saying towed decoys make one invincible, but they do improve the odds. If a particularly big SAM takes out a decoy with a center punch shot it may indeed take down the plane as well. But one that isn't such a good hit may just put the airplane outside the kill radius. Just like flares and chaffe still improve the odds even against modern (very formitable) missiles. If you're a pilot and there's a missile headed your way you're probably happy for every little 1% of help.

Actually I don't even know if towed decoys have seen deployment against air defenses. Perhaps during the most recent Iraq engagement? Although I don't know if Sadam had any RF threat left after Gulf War 1, and I don't know if decoys were fielded (our system is still in development on the F-18).

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: