OLS the Russian tricks

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: OLS the Russian tricks
YelliChink 8/19/2011 8:56:21 PM

It seems that Russians do have some tricks in the sleeve when it comes to counter stealth aircraft and missiles. The optical systems used on MiG-35 or newer version of Su-27 family may give them some edge in electronic warfare. You maybe able to dodge radar detection, but you can't hide the hot gas expelled from the rear. That is surely not the ultimate solution when up against F-22. However, when used on PAK-FA it may be another story. Chinese, nevertheless, still didn't put similar system on J-20.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

YelliChink 8/19/2011 9:01:05 PM

BTW, the Chinese seem to have copied the idea and installed similar optical systm on J-11B and newer J-10B.

Quote Reply

RedParadize 8/19/2011 9:04:43 PM

YC, may i suggest to read the other tread about the same subject?

Quote Reply

Hamilcar21 YC.... 8/19/2011 9:28:36 PM

YC, may i suggest to read the other tread about the same subject?

Water vapor. The US has LOOKED at those solutions. We are NOT stupid.

Quote Reply

YelliChink 8/20/2011 1:29:58 AM

And when people start installing LADAR, things will be more interesting.

In the case which stealth fighters are against stealth fighters. Your radar and stealth may be better than your opponent's, but as long as his stealth is good enough to allow him to find you with EO/IRST/LADAR before your super radar can see him, he can have the first shot.

Now consider the case which stealth fighters operate most at night, the plot thickens itself.

I do, however, suspect that some existing EO/FLIR targeting pods can do the same.

Quote Reply

earlm 8/20/2011 1:39:33 AM

There's only been dozens of threads here and elsewhere about the drawbacks of IRST, EO etc. For one the search is inefficient because of the laws of optics. The other issue is that water is IR active and lots of photons get absorbed/scattered by it. My guess is that the F-22 and F-35 are tuned to emit IR photons at the wavelengths that get absorbed/scattered the most. The idea that a platform can go up and use ESM to cue IRST and get an F-22 is the same as the German Bachem Ba-349 etc. it's just desperation because they can't touch VLO.

Quote Reply

YelliChink 8/20/2011 2:25:18 PM

Again none of you break out the chart and look at the absorption spectrum.

3-5um and 8-12um are completely usable. The technology to utilize the spectrum is already there.

There used to be a lot problem with producing lasers at that spectrum, but with the advancement in quantum cascade laser, that is no longer the problem.

The quantum efficiency of the devices that can detect at those bands used to be very low, and that is also resolved in recent years.

So even 90% or 80% transparency per 2km at sea level is less of an issue anymore. At higher altitude absorption will not even be an issue.

And no, you can't control black body radiation from the hot gas expelled out of the engines.

RF certainly has very low absorption in the atmosphere, which is good against non-stealth targets.

When going against stealth aircraft and missiles, the effectiveness of radars are cut down dramatically.

Quote Reply

Hamilcar21 8/20/2011 4:10:51 PM

RF certainly has very low absorption in the atmosphere, which is good against non-stealth targets.

When going against stealth aircraft and missiles, the effectiveness of radars are cut down dramatically.

What is the refraction angle at those wavelengths, YC? As I have stated earlier, many times, ranging solutions are angle are angle solutions, and no laseers are nolt immune to optical physics.

LIDAR is NOT going to help those clowns, neither are bearing only detect solutions which they could get with a CAMERA.

In other words this is all a load of phantasmagorical crap, little better than the Rafale nonsense I heard ten years ago.

Quote Reply

YelliChink 8/20/2011 5:15:44 PM

What is the refraction angle at those wavelengths, YC? As I have stated earlier, many times, ranging solutions are angle are angle solutions, and no laseers are nolt immune to optical physics.

LIDAR is NOT going to help those clowns, neither are bearing only detect solutions which they could get with a CAMERA.

In other words this is all a load of phantasmagorical crap, little better than the Rafale nonsense I heard ten years ago.

LADAR, not LIDAR. The current trend is to develop coherent receiver instead of merely amplitude modulated one.

By refraction angle I think you mean defraction angle. Any coherent EM wave have have that limit. Radars usually have very large aperture and beam diamter, but they do defract as well. Optical system is the same, depending on the aperture of your projecting lens set.

For optical system it is impractical to expect the same efffective range as radar systems on non-stealth targets. If you set your expectation to get contact on fighter-size targets 30-40km away at mid to high altitude, and cruise-missiles at 20km from look-down perspective, then the technology is feasible. That fits right about the range of AIM-120.

I am not saying that EO is solution to all, and merely pointed out what the technology is capable of today. Sure it is nonsense if the best fighter that enemy can field remains Su-27 and their best cruise missile remains Kh-55.

Sure they will never deploy radar-evading fighters and cruies missiles, forever, and the air-to-air mode of F-35's EOTS is just for show.

Quote Reply

Hamilcar21 I am speaking quantum mechanically, now.. 8/20/2011 5:37:41 PM

Light is light, YC. It is all about the frequency. If shorter wavelengths worked, we would have used them. Radio is still the best wavelength as an atmosphere penetrating light sensor. As for LADAR. Laser ededctection and rangingf still has to be clocked and the signal decompressed over time. Its LIGHT. The receptors are not as simple as a piece of wire for radio. So there is a lot of exploit paths there. Range futzing for a LIDAR or a LADAR is easy, If we have to ECM the receiver, we just corrupty the signal the receiver obtains. False range and doppler is just as good as no range and doppler.

As I said, if this crap worked on a low observable platform, we would use it FIRST. We DID.

Quote Reply

YelliChink 8/20/2011 6:53:35 PM

As I said, if this crap worked on a low observable platform, we would use it FIRST. We DID.

Optical system allows some funny implementation against countermeasurement.

The speed of optical system does not allow the same type of range gate jaming that is very often used on radars.

Merely sending back pulsed signal do not work for coherent optical system. You can't mimicking the random amplitude envelop of a laser with any electronics, and optical bandwidth is simply too large to cope, unless you have pure optical system to cope with it, and we are talking about impraticability here. The only hope you have is to "burn through" enemy photonic detectors so that he can't resolve his signal with all the false signal you put in. However, that requires precise information of enemy receiver and wavelength filters aren't very expensive.

Nonetheless, in theory radar jamming source can be triangulated, so is LADAR/LIDAR jamming source. The only difference is that each fighter can have two passive EO/IRST onboard like Russians did already.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 NEXT