Seeing as modern DIRCM simply burns out the seeker with the laser rather than jamming or blinding them… I doubt it.
I was working on a bug report a while ago and got this answer
And I actually never thought of the beam burning the seeker, that’s actually a good observation
2 Likes
Wouldn’t that require a prohibitively large laser to actually project that sort of energy to reasonable ranges? I’m sure the Stryker with 50 Kw laser can destroy optics (it’s already managed to destroy rockets and mortar bombs), but L-370 with emitters vastly smaller?
Seekers are very sensitive, if they get slightly burned they might cause “drifts”. This is half speculations though.
2 Likes
I’m curious, is there a video of missiles heading towards the IR camera? I’ve been curious about seeing what it would look like in a frontal aspect view
3 Likes
Let’s move to the other thread, I’ve replied there.
Which if you read through that, is actually irrelevant to what I am talking about, but its alright, i dont expect any better…
1 Like
It is relevant, you said it was a baseless British theory, I was pointing out that an American manual says the same thing as one of the British excerpts.
IR missiles being able to lock onto the exhaust of other IR missiles is a real thing. Not “a theory the British developed which doesn’t have a single smudge of evidence”. You are correct that flares are a more effective counter, however as has already been explained in this thread the issue is not that missiles lock onto other missiles too easily, rather that missiles lose lock on afterburner plumes too easily.
4 Likes
Such seekers should autogate as well to prevent such damage as well, if anything it might degrade performance, but as stated earlier, you need a LOT of power to burn out a seeker.
Such features exist on most thermal cameras and image intensifiers of the modern age for both system safety but also operator safety.
2 Likes
The wavelength of the IR signature is dpendant on the compositon of the exhaust/material being burned.
The um wavelength of IR seekers is specifically tuned to the emmisions of C02 and H20 exhaust emissions
Intensity is how bright/hot the the emmision is.
The Intensity as shown the FLIR is one extremely bright point of signature many magnitudes greater than an engine exhaust as SRB’s sypically burn at 3000-4000 kelvin, a similar temperature to flares.
The point of the tactics manual is to explain that it it is perfectly possible for an IR guided missile to switch targets to the signature of a fired missile, much in the same way that it would be attracted to a flare, and it clearly indicates that it is not guaranteed, much in the same way that a flare is not guaranteeed to decoy a missile.
It is a very bright signature of the correct wavelengths due to the emissions of an SRB being extremely similar to that of a liquid engine exhaust, which is the wavelength that InSb and PBs detectors are specifcally attuned for the exception being that the SRB produces a lot of solid particulate IR signature which can have an obscuring effect.
Scientifically, it has the exact same effect as a flare, so there stands no reason as to why it couldnt act like one.
The argument of the effectiveness of different types of flares is a moot point and is due to a techncially in the software programming more than any actual percievable difference in specification.
2 Likes
Incorrect.
The F3 manual does not say this whatsoever. It’s a misinterpretation.
The F3 manual says YOUR missile may intercept an oncoming missile if launched at close range.
it DOES NOT say that your Aim9L will magically serve as a flare, the opponents missile magically to decoy away and save your life.
All it says is that your missile may intercept the opponents missile.
You’re defeating your own argument.
A sidewinder motor signature is not big enough nor does it burn long enough to reach intensity of an afterburning turbofan jet engine in after burn.
The motor burns for a mere few seconds. It will never reach the intensity of an after-burning jet engine or flares designed to burn near or even brighter than those emissions.
The opponent’s missile is already tracking. Even the F3 manual says all you can do is hope to fire an aim9L and it may intercept the missile. Not break its track.
2 Likes
Read the following sentence. Does it say any possibility that the opponents missile will stop tracking you. yes or no? In the F3 Manual.
It says specifically what may happen next.
It “may intercept” the opponents missile.
It does not say it may disrupt the tracking of the pursuing missile. This level of stubbornness to be right gets us nowhere.
This unproven British combat theory regarding F3 tactics is quite clear & written in plain English and leaves no room for interpretation.
It states the Aim9L “may just intercept the opponent’s missile”. Nothing more.
Not “may just, & also….”
The only possibility as stated in the F3 tactics manual is the missile “may just intercept the opponent’s missile”.
Read the sentence in its entirety.
Now lets, read the rest of the scenario in its entirety shall we???
Read carefully.
"Attempt to induce a miss off the tail by greater than lethal distance…"
That means whoever wrote this British F3 tactics manual is already well aware that the opponent’s missile will still track you regardless in the event your Aim9L does not intercept it and offers zero possibility or a scenario that the opponent’s missile will magically decide to abandon a well-established signal that is many times larger in Infrared wavelength and frequency than a much smaller, weaker IR Missile traveling much too fast to stay in its fov long enough anyway.
This is a 100% clear cut case of confirmation bias. Because the word “decoy” is in the manual you and many others make the mistake of ignoring the entirety of the manual. No where in the F3 tactics manual (that you shared) offers the possibility that an opponent’s missiles will stop tracking. In fact, it prepares a pilot ONLY for the inevitability that an opponent’s missile continues to track him if his Aim9L fails to intercept it.
1 Like
As I was saying I hope they tune up the innacuracies of the F-14 in the ARH update.
This thread is in fact about the F-14.
1 Like
The manuals are available & acceleration is based on those, not hearsay
Alrighty, figured it was interesting.
I won’t deny it if I’m stupid and incapable of proper research but I can not find the specific parts where these statistics are stated.
And what about the current top speed? Do I need to show you detailed documentation to prove that it’s not correct?
If so where do I get it? Because even though the only F-14 documents I could find are on the A and D, neither of them seem to feature performance metrics so much as “Don’t do this here, don’t do that there.”
Although there are limits imposed on allowed airspeed at certain altitudes with load. Neither the altitudes or the speeds stated can be reached in game, not counting stall climbs for obvious reasons.
I don’t mean to come off as argumentative, but I’m at a loss. I just genuinely want the F-14 to be the most F-14 it can be.
Did something happend to the Phoenix, they don’t track anything and very unreliable