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
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.
No it’s very much general data about the laser assembly as a whole and not specifics (wavelength, power, etc) because that data is classified.
You’re not wrong. But that doesn’t mean that most militaries don’t classify that data anyway. That’s not saying it can’t be sussed out with open source info (hell if you’re an EE or good enough at math) you can easily calculate a lot of it.
The OP asked if anyone had any data on the specifics or sources on the output power of DIRCM systems. And I said that it’s unlikely because specifics are almost always classified.
General statements about whole system are typically ok, specifics get troublesome.
And that’s the confusion. Litterally no one said either of those systems had that capability.
OP did. He asked about frying the seeker.
Ish, he asked about them as a whole and not just CIRCM.
But the response was quoted to me, with in depth discussion of how they work specifically to show CIRCM doesn’t possess the power which doesn’t make a lot of sense because I never suggested it did.
Sure for an optimal countermeasure, these things would like to be known. though it’s obviously bounded by both the Transmittance of the optical train, and the sensitivity of the detector for any given threat system. as well as the limited number of material Laser configurations that actually emit within said sensitive band(s), though they may well be sitting on an exotic or novel approach that provides some leeway, or reserve capability in these areas.
I’ve provided sources for input power, which of course provides the upper bounds for the output, and I think it should be fair to compose sources to estimate the performance of a generic system using what is known of various systems to come to fairly broad conclusions.
Hell you could probably work backwards from known power draw of older systems like the ALQ-144, and the geometry of the aperture of modern systems to get an idea of the the scale in performance since they in effect replaced the ALQ-144 on the AH-64 the power budget could be assumed to be similar.
I mean I’m not particularly aware of any other Western DIRCM systems outside the AAQ-24 that have actually entered service let alone been type classified, the ALQ-144 and -157 are Incoherent-IRCM systems. so it’s not obvious at to the existence of any other potential systems you could possibly be referring to in the following claim;
excepting of course DEW systems, but they have different use case entirely
No one said otherwise. I said that the specifics are classified in response to the OP’s post.
Yes you can largely sus out a lot of the broad details with enough open source digging. But nothing OS/Unclassified exists that documents the specifics of these systems for someone to say “Hey Gajin model this” or you modeled it wrong because it’s for x power not Y power which is what he was asking
That would not be a safe assumption since the ALQ had been sunsetted before the CIRCM was fielded, and the systems do not directly replace each other.
There are several DIRCM countermeasure systems in common use today such as the ALQ-212, Elbit MUSIC (which is a whole series)
Then there are the one off/specialty threat systems that are in various stages of testing or fielded in small batches to specialty agencies or units with unique requirements or special budgets/appropriation channels
All im saying is that I’m aware of atleast one system which has caused some commotion in the industry because it has under atleast some testing conditions shown it has the capability to possibly damage seeker heads. Which can be a big deal because foreign weapon system seeker heads are not something in common stockage and doing so unintentionally tends to be a big deal.
I intentionally did not mention system names and refrain from discussing specifics of any particular system because it’s hard to keep track of what info about what system is at what level and the Army takes a very dim view of unintentional release of information, doubly so right now to WT. And many older/replaced systems are still in use by partner forces or sometimes because of the weirdo rules with aviation.
