Well doesn’t explain AH64E. Cause they do work.
it will take a look, but whether or not it sees anything is a different issue. The laser if hommed in will try to disrupt the lock.
In what way?
It exists because systems have advanced sufficiently to permit it to be employed, and as a Coherent source and with passive missile detection. it is a covert system so is much better than the earlier incoherent sources which need to always be on (for the most part) to be effective.
https://www.tesble.com/10.1117/12.869848
https://www.tesble.com/10.1117/12.2067264
Against what threat specifically?
1 Like
A good paper to read about IIR vs LDIRCM
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284156197_Requirements_for_laser_countermeasures_against_imaging_seekers
Basically you pretty much need a DEW weapon to ensure total protection, the paper explains that even if the seeker is mostly saturated it can still home on jam, the laser would need to be powerful enough to encapsulate the whole seeker while projecting enough energy that a gradient isn’t available for the seeker to form a basis for home on jam. At which point the LDIRCM would become a DEW anyway.
7 Likes
Stop it with your fact based comment, @141_allen is trying to spread the glory and superiority of russia !!!1111!
2 Likes
Well, they are the few nations that don’t have fnf missiles on heli so I suppose it’s kinda fair to give them (L)DIRCM, but giving them fnf weaponary would be a better option.
BTW US heli now has neither LDIRCM nor FNF missiles, I do feel sorry for US mains.
That was just on DIRCM, not Mi28NM, in other ways, AH64E also mounts a much similar system. I am not a RUssian, nor do I play Russia, all I am pointing out is 1. IRIST is not immune to such systems, 2. it is not entirely unrealistic for them to be able to fend off IR missiles, but as I said right at the top, it should be down to chance and no one knows what it is IRL or will be in game.
1 Like
Regarding that study, that is why I said it is down to chance.
Also just to say one thing, the paper calculated the irradiance of a maximum of 100 Watts when we are looking at 4kW already back in 1980s.
Here is the example of the dazzle IRL, HOJ is available, however, depending on the size of dazzle, this will be less effective when closer up, and with flares more areas will be saturated.
My bad bro I misinterpreted and had thought the rounder one was the LDIRCM, I did some research and you are right
2 Likes
Fact still is that not even the producers themselves expect it to be effective against IIR.
Almost all missiles considered to be 4th generation and beyond use IIR seekers, except the R-73 but it has an enhanced FOV that may give it resistance against DIRCM.
2 Likes
Thats not the only method DIRCM resistance works. The seeker can guide off a brightness gradiant where the dazzler/laser is at the brightest point.
IE: it just tracks the laser source directly until it "see’s its initial target again.
There is an upper limit to that. And as seen from irradiance, that too increases with range. Afterall it just depends on the power, if high enough it can definitely saturate the seeker.
You cant fully obscure a IIR seeker with lasers, you have kill the seeker, these missiles can home on jam, and as long as psrt of the silhoutte remains expoaed which always happens they can retain accuracy
Are you talking about this?
Spoiler
Yeah, its the same DIRCM as on the Ka-52, which is to say, not a LDIRCM.
Im not sure if its the same in game because i dont have the spaded Mi-8, but if it is they implemented it wrong.
So the Mi-8 has the actual LDIRCM the Mi-28NM has so its correct.
its is completely ineffective against late model stingers because it doesnt work in both IR and UV ranges, it likely is purely IR and as such the UV seeker in stinger would still be able to guide the missile
1 Like
Thats probably the case for the older ka52 dazzler, but the new dazzler has 2 effectors, which i think is for IR/UV and not just IR.
Does it have wing mounted ones too or only 1 back mounted?