It all depends on the quality of the seeker’s image, the difference in temperature between the surroundings, and how little the temperature of the aircraft changes in flight. I’m not saying that in the optimal scenario for the MANPAD/close-range missile it won’t ever hit, but in non-optimal conditions I doubt the design of the aircraft would do little against the missile.
There’s a lot of stuff on this bug report, where from what I can tell the LAV-AD can at the very least can get information about the location of a target from external sensors (like a radar) through a radio suite.
It’s not used only against ground targets.
It can by confusing the seeker as to how large and/or near the aircraft is.
It would depend on a lot of things, but regardless the missile will be no less effective against a 5th gen air superiority aircraft than a 4th gen strike aircraft.
It doesn’t? Documents such as this state that it can communicate with outboard systems for battlefield surveillance, not for weapons solutions. Weapons solutions are given purely by the EOTS system on the vehicle, and offer LOAL capability with any DL capable missile.
Can you show me the M-SHORAD using its AGM-114s against any group of drone or aircraft?
By… Doing what exactly? A paint scheme will do absolutely nothing to affect infrared seekers. This isn’t the 1920s, there are not tiny gnomes inside of missiles that are liable to getting confused because a plane has a fancy paint job.
That’s why I said “at the very least [the LAV-AD] can get information about the location of a target from external sensors,” since at the very least it can be told where a target is generally (and therefore an aircraft unseen by external radars would have a much lower chance of them targeting it).
The fact that the soldiers in Germany were told that they were prohibited from using the Hellfires against aircraft, that the vehicle itself is meant for air defense (article), the stopgap measure is more stingers (surface-to-air missiles), and that the replacement for them will be the new surface-to-air missile whenever it gets finalized, should show that they were using it for air defense, lol.
In which none of this has any sway on the effectiveness of a MANPADS platform. Yes, battlefield awareness is important… But no, being told the direction of an enemy aircraft so you can lock it yourself does nothing for your argument.
So… The AGM-114 isn’t used as an air defense weapon… I think I got it…?
Where is the relevance in bringing it up then, let alone using this specific point as “backing”?
Nowhere in the article is it stated it was used as air defense weaponry prior. Hell, read the article entirely and you’d see exactly what I’ve said before.
So contrast based seekers?
Can you name me a single MANPADS that uses an optical contrast seeker, and why that has relevance over the IIR technology that has been mentioned 9 times prior to this?
The Type 91 missile uses an optical imaging seeker, where the paint scheme of the aircraft would be very much relevant to help it obscure itself. But even then that would be the only such MANPADS I could think of, with even the later Type 91 Kai having shifted to an IIR seeker.
As long as the non-MANPADS SAM counts, the Type 81 (C) variant uses two different seeker types, one of which being another optical imaging seeker like the Type 91 missile, though at this point it also uses datalink from ground based radar.
Both also have backup IR contrast seeker functionality.
Dual band UV/IR seeker.
The Type-91 Kai would be far more relevant in the discussion seeing its far more recent introduction.
I know the '90s isn’t that recent, but it’s an analogue to what’s in use at the moment.
Seeing as Strelas are valid for use in this, I’d say so.
The thing about the Type-81C is that it’s severely gimped by in-game capabilities. It doesn’t have a radar homing missile, and its IR missile is working off of a very crude system. Even with CCD seekers that take in information from the visible spectrum, anything past the early '00s (AGM-65s included) uses the far more effective RGBW filter to increase the fidelity of images. When digitized into a black/white image for processing it’s far more accurate and less prone to contrast-intensive images.
Seeing as they can track still targets at night via a black/white image, I’d imagine they would have little to no issue tracking a 1-off dazzle camouflage against a far brighter backdrop.
Then again, I’m too out of it to double check that by searching for CCD seekers that have legitimately been tested against this. If you can find anything, good on you. Please share, would love to read.
That only works against the effects of dazzle camouflage (I think I’m trying to say negates??), especially seeing as the imaging capabilities of the Type 81 rely purely on a lack of datalink feed. If it does receive aid it goes straight to IR once in range.
Type 91 uses an optical imaging seeker with backup IR contrast mode. It’s not an IR/UV seeker like the Stinger is.
Type 91 Kai is more relevant to IIR seekers since it is one, but for those the camouflage of an aircraft isn’t anymore, which was the question I replied to.
That’s in game though, where it’s just modeled like the optical contrast seeker of a Strela. In reality it is an imaging seeker (a mechanic that isn’t in game yet for any missile and thus “not a bug”)
At night it tracks through a backup IR mode of the seeker, not visible light, which lowers performance. This same issue was the reason the Type 91 Kai uses an IIR seeker rather than an optical imaging one like the previous.
Not saying that other guy had a point, just bringing up the very few missiles I’d know that would even be able to “see” such a dazzle camouflage.
IR is purely a backup that is initiated when an optical lock isn’t possible. Datalink is also not available without external radar FCS vehicle.
I’d also argue a dazzle camouflage does little to optical seekers either.
A target can be seen as long as it contrasts its surroundings, for pure contrast seekers this needs to be clearly differentiated from other contrast, like the ground or other obstacles, or else the seeker loses track. For an imaging seeker the tolerance is expanded for however long a targets image can be differentiated from its surroundings, even if contrasts might overlap.
A dazzle camouflage would still need to blend in with the surroundings to fool either of these seeker types, at which point the paint still can’t universally fool any optical seeker, only help blend into specific environments. I’d hardly consider this an effective countermeasure unless you have specific uses for it (e.g. camouflage against the surrounding area when parked on the ground)
And back on topic for IIR missiles, it is very much irrelevant.
what do you mean those are there high strength screws used so can tighten things securely without stripping screws the ones they used on the su57 where improper philps head screws which can not be tightened as tight without them striping which means they will fall off eventually
Of course the F-22 will be superior with it’s stealth capability, it’s Radar and sensor suites are a little dated now compared with some Gen4.5 and 5 airframes. As an air superiority fighter its the pinacle in every measure. When you set them up with an EAWACs aircraft DL their BVRAAMS they become death.
But thats not what the Su-57 or J-20 are designed to do. Russia and China know they cannot hope to defeat the US airforce, they dont have enough Gen 5 airframes and are both lagging behind NATO in certain areas. What they do know though is that it doesnt matter how good an F-22 is if its not got gas or a DL. Su-57 armed with R-37M is a huge threat to any US command control and support assets.
The J-20 with it’s BVRAAM is the same.
With the future conflicts set to be fought over Russia/Ukraine and Taiwan. The US will depend on tankers and EAWACS aircraft to maintain operational tempo. Remove a few of these and you start to impact NATO air strategy.
![Su 57 wing [1651x960] : r/WarplanePorn](https://i.redd.it/n2us2ljoxm691.jpg)
