Guided bullets...  Tic Toc, hello to reality. Guess folks are finally openly discussing this.  

 

Only difference between a bullet and a rocket is that a bullet is shot out of a tube giving its velocity and then uses said velocity to maneuver whereas a rocket has to have a rocket motor to do all of the above.  If one can put a laser target designator on said maneuvering missile, then one can steer a rocket/bullet onto said missile. 

 

Where tech has been going for a very long time is a cross between the two.  Launched like a bullet, with a mini rocket motor for sustained flight. 

 

CIR is dead long live the bullet.  Why? Because a modern MANPAD will have shape recognition.  They don't go for a point source.  IE how CIR also known as DIRCM works in that it interrupts the modulated signal by creating a giant point source.  Its why I typed what I did up thread.  Yes, they are mounting CIR systems on aircraft mainly because of weight.  Said systems only work against old "dumb" homing on point source technology missiles.  As soon as one takes recognition tech as used on any digital camera and mates this to a MANPAD, all of the DIRCM systems will be useless unless one can blind the whole sensor in question continuously.  Even a split second of non blinded will be more than enough. 

 

PS. Knew I made a mistake upthread when I Said CIWS.  Knew you would jump on the shipboard gigantic heavy system that has been around since the 70's instead of what I meant in its principle for use on aircraft.  Steerable explosive bullets.

Guided bullets...  Tic Toc, hello to reality. Guess folks are finally openly discussing this.  

 It's been discussed since there's been an internet and probably before, research into guided artillery projectiles CLGP's has been ongoing since at least the 70's, and the M712 was used in Desert storm, Excalibur is the most recently fielded example AFAIK.

Only difference between a bullet and a rocket is that a bullet is shot out of a tube giving its velocity and then uses said velocity to maneuver whereas a rocket has to have a rocket motor to do all of the above.  If one can put a laser target designator on said maneuvering missile, then one can steer a rocket/bullet onto said missile. 

Acceleration is the problem - G-forces and miniaturisation, given the expensive thing is always the guidance system and servos you end up with thousands of dollars per round.

Where tech has been going for a very long time is a cross between the two.  Launched like a bullet, with a mini rocket motor for sustained flight. 

 

CIR is dead long live the bullet.  Why? Because a modern MANPAD will have shape recognition.  They don't go for a point source.  IE how CIR also known as DIRCM works in that it interrupts the modulated signal by creating a giant point source.  Its why I typed what I did up thread.  Yes, they are mounting CIR systems on aircraft mainly because of weight.  Said systems only work against old "dumb" homing on point source technology missiles.As soon as one takes recognition tech as used on any digital camera and mates this to a MANPAD, all of the DIRCM systems will be useless unless one can blind the whole sensor in question continuously.  Even a split second of non blinded will be more than enough. 

Firstly, that is exactly what DIRCM does, blind the entire sensor, or enough of it to obscure the target, secondly, it doesn't necessarily operate continuously - threat recognition classifies the missile type, then an appropriate strobe is directed to disrupt guidance, MANPADS have a very short fuse, the incremental loss in accuracy equates to a miss: especially given the very narrow FOV which in most cases will cause it to lose the target completely. That and likely lose the target altogether until MANPADS have staring arrays..  You are probably right though as home-on-jam against a laser is a distinct possibility and given the wavelengths I can't really see what could be done to prevent this on given the NM wavelengths involved. 

 

PS. Knew I made a mistake upthread when I Said CIWS.  Knew you would jump on the shipboard gigantic heavy system that has been around since the 70's instead of what I meant in its principle for use on aircraft.  Steerable explosive bullets.

Well, who knows, my money is on something like CAMM being used as an all-purpose anti-air-anti-missile system, and as I said before, guided 70mm rockets are already reality, I just don't see the need for the "gun" part other than perhaps to provide initial point as with the Israeli system....

 

R

Why do you continually talk about equipment R&D 20 years ago, fielded 10 years ago before the silicon revolution?  DIRCM doesn't blind the whole sensor.  That is the problem.  Missiles have shape recognition now via IR.  Flares or flashing a strobe at their sensor does jack squat.  Try a physics book and the chapter on optics as to why.  Power needed to bury a sensor in noise is going up by the cube daily with the introduction of higher S/N ratio IR sensors.  Meaning said diodes are a dead technology for DIRCM as their power throughput is not high enough before melting.  This leaves lasers to try and blind, well burn out missile sensors as energy weapons.

 

If you want to talk about MANPADS designed long ago, be my guest.  It is pointless to do so IMO.

 

PS. The g' forces issue for internal nav systems are essentially gone with the invention of silicone based accelerometers.

 

DIRCM does indeed blind (provide full beam coverage over) the whole sensor, it works by obscuring a large enough proportion that guidance does not function.

 

Missiles have shape recognition now via IR.  Flares or flashing a strobe at their sensor does jack squat. 

 

lol, I think you are vastly overstating your own understanding of the system , as has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread you're wrong. Flares and IR lasers are not analogous, the equivalent would put placing a flare directly in front and a few feet away from the IR sensor's field of view and then expecting it to track a target 3km away. That is the advantage of LASERS, they are collimated, coherent light (HEAT) transmitted at distance. 

 

Try a physics book and the chapter on optics as to why.  Power needed to bury a sensor in noise is going up by the cube daily with the introduction of higher S/N ratio IR sensors. 

 

Well given you can't even understand the basic concept might I suggest you actually do some reading about how laser countermeasures actually work? 

 

Meaning said diodes are a dead technology for DIRCM as their power throughput is not high enough before melting.  This leaves lasers to try and blind, well burn out missile sensors as energy weapons.

I'm going to ignore the slur as you're still not quite "getting" the basics here - look at how DIRCM systems are distributed throughout the airframe, the energy levels used are manageable and scalable because for obvious reasons an IR sensor needs to be in a low energy state   all that has to happen is to deliver enough high energy IR radiation in the correct wavelength to disrupt the seeker's ability to discriminate targets in the desired wavelengths.  The word-soup about diodes is meaningless noise. 

If you want to talk about MANPADS designed long ago, be my guest.  It is pointless to do so IMO.

This is a bullshit argument intended to allude to your understanding of newer systems.

aticourses.com/sampler/Directed_Infrared_Countermeasures_DIRCM_Principles_CourseSampler.pdf

 

youtube.com/watch?v=7gqQuwRX-ps 

youtube.com/watch?v=WKmVToBoSko 

aticourses.com/sampler/Directed_Infrared_Countermeasures_DIRCM_Principles_CourseSampler.pdf 

 

But I'm sure you're correct, after all NG, LM, BAE, Raytheon etc are probably wasting their time developing laser countermeasure systems, you should tell them about "diodes burning out" and "image recognition"..