is there even a classification for 6th gen missiles yet?
No 6 as of now
1 Like
yeah i was kinda thinking there wouldnt be
A good illustration of generation of missiles:
Current 5 gen missile are for full sphere engagment capability (ie capable to shoot at a target behind).
That’s why the Wikipedia list is wrong.
R-73/R-74 are 4 gen missiles, they don’t have LOAL…
Idk why they included ARH missile (R-77/R-37/ASTRA/PL-21/PL-15/PL-12/ AIM-120/ Gokdogan/ KS-172/Meteor) since its weird to talk generation when talking about radar missile especially when their capability are so different.
Because you’re not going to have a big missile sutch as an R-37, a PL-21 or a KS-172 do a 180° turn and shoot a target behind the launcher.
Maybe you have a different definition of the 5th gen missile.
I guess 6 gen missile will be stealthy and with better range (sensor and kinematic wise).
- : I remberbered DIEHL kinda have a 6gen missile developpement:
IRIS-T FCAAM: the future SRAAM 6th generation missile by Diehl Defence
Using AI , a more sotisphicated sensor, easier to carry internaly (rectangular shape)
2 Likes
yeah this is nice ty for the clarification
also this is quite interesting what would be the difference between a 6 gen and a 5th gen, the AI?
Moving this to the correct thread.
Even with simple thermal devices, brief exposure looking directly at the sun can cause permanent “spots” on the sensor that prohibit its’ ability to “see” or pick up IR emissions in that area anymore. While IR guided missiles should be resistant to the sun or brief exposure… I doubt it would take much of a powerful laser to begin damaging the array. Especially at WVR… last second blinding of the missile is still better than just getting hit.
1 Like
Well, probably not a good example I’m looking for. I’m looking for examples where I can prove to Gaijin that SAM launches should be much more visible in thermal view like in Gunjob’s video. Currently the bright flame of SAMs aren’t modeled somehow, much less smaller IR missiles.
Afterburner plume and the plume around the thrust cone are not modeled at all, period. This could be fixed with some suggestions.
1 Like
The sun is also putting out multiple orders of magnitude more energy than a laser. Google gives me figures of 384 septillion watts per second. Camera optics will focus a ~100mm diameter area of sunlight down to a pretty small point, too.
At the very least what I see is L-370 appears to lack the volume dedicated to focusing the laser beam down to a point where it could burn sensors at highly variable distances.
Stryker DE-MSHORAD likely has a large part of the internal volume dedicated to ensuring the laser’s focus point is always at the correct distance from the target. I’d wager the beam goes through a number of prisms, lenses and bounces off multiple mirrors before actually exiting through the “turret”.
1 Like
Thermal devices are not camera optics. In this case, I am discussing the drivers thermal viewer on the M1 Abrams series tanks. 1 minute of exposure to the direct sunlight can damage the thermal viewer… which is why it cannot be used during daytime when exposed to the sun. The damage shows up as a burnt out spot on the displayed image… exactly where the sun appeared on the screen. That spot is no longer usable and shows up as just an empty white or black dot (depending on polarity).
Thermal optics - which have coatings and measures taken to protect against the sun so as to be usable during daytime… are still negatively affected by it. Prolonged exposure drastically shortens lifespan.
L370 predates the Su-57’s DIRCM… and it is meant to stop manpads by confusing them more so than damaging them. Systems like these while early and clunky… need to be lightweight and draw little power. Helicopters cannot carry heavy or bulky systems.
This is a dedicated system meant to physically harm small targets such as drones. The energy required to do so is far greater than what is required to damage a thermal optic.
Right, so the laser DIRCM would need to provide enough power to either A: brute force burn the entire sensor (for example, focus the beam to a ‘X’ mm circle on an ‘X’ mm imager size) at a given distance in seconds or B: burn multiple small portions of the sensor also at a given distance within seconds.
It’s beyond me to calculate the power requirements to burn a part of the M1’s thermal imager, let alone determine how to even calculate the required energy to burn a missile’s sensor (either partially or completely) to the extent that it no longer is capable of tracking a target at a given distance over a given time.
I am certain that either way, a laser DIRCM that intends to destroy sensors will need a large amount of power to draw on and a fair amount of space for focusing the laser beam. I’d expect a system like that to look like an oversize targeting pod or something.
Also, from a cursory google search, it seems that there exist some thermal imaging devices that can handle direct exposure to sunlight on the sensor for a short time (seconds, at most). So that might also throw more math in the way.
It may actually be more efficient to burn a chunk of missile body away and let aerodynamic forces pull it off course or destroy it.
Edit: now that I’ve given this more thought, it’s definitely faster and easier to use a lower power laser with the right focus to overwhelm the sensor by blinding it, rather than permanently damaging it. Thermal imagers pointed at the sun for a very short time have a “hot trail” from where the sun hit the imager, so achieving the same hot trail effect with a laser shouldn’t be super difficult.
Image of said “hot trail” below.
There are various research papers talking about the effect of DIRCM systems on IIR seekers, and the general consensus seems to be that iIR seekers are by their nature fairly resilient to them.
I mentioned one such paper in this comment (and the subsequent one):
Of particular note:
The second section showed that the laser jamming signal does not saturate all of the focal plane and therefore the jammer (and target) location is still detectable, even when there is sufficient jamming energy to cause damage to the focal plane
5 Likes
I think the “6th” gen is more of a marketing thing.
The AI would probably help the missile enegy wise to take the best trajectory possible and maybe in the endgame to reject counter measure.
It would mostly be upgrade in those sense i feel.
It improve on 5th gen features but doesn’t really create new feature (sutch as the 180° to 360° launch envelopp from 4th to 5th gen missile)
yeah but its funny the way they advertise it. There’s too much fancy stuff around and it’s a bit overexaggerated
Video of a ground launched ASRAAM:
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1781938098881827183
If the video is in real speed then what can we get from it:
- The missile start to turn 1sec after ignition.
- Really sharp turn / tigth turning circle after this 1sec. It looks like the ASRAAM will be deadly in close range dogfigth even without having TVC.
- Main booster (high flame) is around 3sec long, then sustainer is activated.
Gotta love that tail control with a lift body.
Same as AMRAAM design, without wings.
No offense, but the article linked about the IRIS-T states that it can pull more than 100 G, not 60 to 80 G.