Ka-52s lamp style DIRCM doesn’t, Laser when tuned properly does.
2 Likes
there is no evidence to suggest that it does, and ive seen images claiming to show IIR being lased by a similar system where the seeker could still identify the target and get pretty close due to its programing to go to the center of the induced thermal gradient
its not a question of “tuning” its weather the laser is diffused enough to not produce a clear thermal gradient over the seeker and offering it a very bright and obvious target that happens to be co-located with the aircraft mounting such a system
6 Likes
still, has to have some power no?
if the laser is the same freq as the iir(or ir), wouldnt it fry it?
not gonna lead anyone by the nose, the point of this post is to find out whether the ldircm has enough power to completly disregard the iris t missile, or any other missile(i just assume irist has the best seeker, second being 9x)
Yes, it has to have enough power to be able to dazzle a missile over a relatively greater range, but it is still not great enough to fry it.
I will assume you mean wavelength. While frequency is technically a way to describe it, it is not used. Yes, the laser has to operate within that wavelength, in order to be able to decoy a seeker effectively. Still that does not have any impack on its ability to fry it.
These sekers are made to be robust enough to withstand them. Some of them are more resistant to their decoying, some of them are less, however there is no realistic scaenario where a seeker will be exposed for a laser long enough to be damaged in any way.
Remeber that the laser would have to be aimed preciselly at the, lets call it lens, of the seeker, that is from a airplane which is not stationary, as even hovering helis move a little, on a missile that is very much not stationary. Aiming it is nearly impossible, and even if, the missile will get to the target closer than the damage can be done.
2 Likes
There is no unclassified information about the power or specifics of the lasers used in DIRCM systems and I would bet there likely won’t be for a long time.
Because those are specifics that you need to counter them.
Depends on the individual system and a whole host of specifics. I know of atleast one system that has the power and capability to burn out seeker heads (of atleast some weapons/sensors/under some engagement conditions)
1 Like
There absolutely is, note that both 200 Volts, and 3.5kVA (Volt-Amps, the AC equivalent to Watts for a DC power ) and 400hz are listed in the following brochure, which provides an absolute upper limit to the laser, prior to incurred efficiency losses within the system itself
Similarly the CIRCM family of systems has in it’s datasheet listed values of 200~250 watts specifically listed for the Laser.
Further;
is not possible based on established metrics (according to [Volume 7 of the Infrared Handbook, 3.3.5.1 Detector Damage ] needs about 63kW to be delivered) and known power draw President-S uses 3.5kVA, assuming 100% of said power was transmitted and a full duty cycle (Sans jamming waveform) that means it would take ~18 seconds to destroy a generic seeker. and with a stinger for example self destructing at 17 seconds, it would take too long to be useful even at the stingers maximum range, falling inside the system’s minimum.
And considering it’s rated for ranges between 500 and 5000m The stinger has a time of flight to said ranges of ~1.3-11.7 seconds it’s unrealistic for that to even be attempted unless the system is a 60KW DEW, of which is a class of weapons used on Ships, so it needs to go a fair way in terms of miniaturization to be viable.
It should be fairly obvious that it can’t realistically function as such anyway, and for example with a stinger it still doesn’t explain how it impacts the UV channel which should be complexly unaffected anyway since it’s outside the bandwidth of the laser.
4 Likes
Yes but that’s not telling you output power. That’s how much it draws to run it.
The important part is the output frequency, wavelength of the laser and power of the individual laser diodes in the assembly. If you want to filter or protect from the laser you need to know what wavelength, power and the modulation frequency
Exactly, and if even were to somehow be 100% efficient it’s not anywhere near the ballpark it would need to be to even approach damage to the seeker, Thus it’s a pretty good indication that that’s not how it works.
And that the CIRCM listing, specified 250 Watts peak power, so it’s even further anyway.
The Duty cycle is reduced somewhat due to the use of a Tailored jamming waveform, that needs to be effective against the various methodologies that seekers employ (AM, FM, Con-Scan, Rosette, IIR), any given section of the program will only be effective against a single method at a time (to be most energy efficient and so minimize engagement time before OBL (Optical Break Lock) is achieved), and it will cycle though various techniques over time to provide full spectrum defense, and avoid susceptibility to Anti-Jamming responses that change the characteristics of the Guidance mechanism on more modern / reprogrammable missiles.
Which needs to actually be inside to wavelength of the Missiles detector to actually inject the Jamming signal into the autopilot, so it’s limited to a fairly inefficient band for transferring energy, and as lasers aren’t broadband it’s not effective outside those channels, such as the UV band the the Stinger POST uses.
It would be very inefficient to waste precious space and energy in a band that most encountered threats simply don’t respond to, also you would need a very different optical train and aperture geometry to focus both an IR and UV source (let alone ) onto the same point.
A lot can be done in software to detect and counteract the induced jamming signal, and with field reprogrammable systems (FIM-92C and later for example) there is a lot of latitude as to what could be done in response to encountering a novel system.
2 Likes
That’s a lot of words but I don’t really understand what you think that’s getting at or how that’s relevant to what I said.
I also feel like that post tossed a lot of big words out to sound good without really saying much at all.
he is proving that you are wrong, and if you cant understand the pretty simple terms he was using you clearly dont know enough about the topic to argue
2 Likes
As a guy who repairs, maintains, and has used some of these systems in theater I’m gonna disagree with that assessment.
But I mean hey it’s the internet 🤷🏻♂️
given you somehow think the laser can output more power than it draws im pretty confident with that assessment
That’s not something I ever said though……
What I did say was
Now you can argue that the general power consumption for the entire unit is infact specifics about the power or specifics of the laser.
But it’s pretty clear what I was talking about.
yes it is very clear, that you somehow think that the laser can output significantly more power than the entire unit consumes
it is very simple logic that the maximum power of the laser is less power than is consumed by the unit, and the energy on target at the systems engagement distance will be much lower
Again, you’re asserting something I never said, or suggested.
Please quote where I said anything even approaching that.
Again, who said otherwise?
can you not read either?
You do understand that nominal and peak draw are for the entire laser assembly (you can look at the weight and dimensions too) and not just the specific of the laser right?
yes and do you understand that the laser will never be able to draw more power than the peak draw of the entire assembly
which as said multiple times here is nowhere near enough to cause damage to the seeker of incoming missiles in the engagement window
1 Like
I never said otherwise, and I have asked for you to kindly quote me if I did.
I never claimed CIRCM could.
I said
Is this not somehow data about the Laser?
Sure it might have some sort of novel Jamming technique generator that does some neat things, but for the most part functional signals used to defeat; AM, FM & Con-Scan methods are conceptually known and “solved” issues, mostly due to the tracking methods being fairly basic, them not having evolved much after the first tranche of systems came online in the '60s, sure some things have changed with the move away from Incoherent sources. and that there isn’t much “official” for jamming Rosette or IIR class threats, they aren’t that conceptually difficult to evolve an understanding of from prior techniques (it’s not really possible for a truly generic waveform to be developed, as countermeasures would be readily available to a modern system), though they would require a much higher level of performance and so the jump to a straight up DEW is a far simpler task, and realistically the only real way to absolutely keep pace with the higher end Modern threats.
The point is to establish that solely from an energy perspective either of the prospective DIRCM (either CIRCM or President-S) systems do not have anywhere near the energy output they would need to sufficiently physically damage the detector of a generic missile, within the time it would take for a missile launched at maximum range to impact them (Stinger for example Self destructs at 17 seconds), even if they were using the full capability of the laser (100% duty cycle) to maximize energy transfer and not injecting the jamming waveform which of course as a pulsed signal, doesn’t use the entire duty cycle available to the laser.
What they are perfectly capable of doing is injecting an appropriately formatted jamming waveform into the guidance section of threat missiles, in effect a similar waveform (as outlined above) to those used by Incoherent-IRCM systems (e.g. ALQ-144) would do so just fine (the swap to DIRCM does solve some inherent issues with and provides greater latitude in terms of what can actually be injected, a digitally controlled laser can obviously react far faster than two rotating elements in front of a carbon arc lamp).
But as to how exactly the President-S (as implemented in game), or CIRCM would go about dealing with the Stinger POST (and later variants)'s UV guidance channel while only having IR lasers (focusing and sizing of optical elements for a UV laser is very different to an IR one, and doing that in a single train is fairly complicated, and takes a portion of the total energy from the IR band) I don’t know, or be expected to get around any potential digital Counter-Countermeasure regime that the Reprogrammable systems could be able to field deploy an update for tailored defeat to seems unlikely on its face.
Let alone an upcoming system like QuadStar.
3 Likes