L166V "Ispanka" IR Jammer

[AeriaGloria]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Really. Lets have that conversation.

That form IRCM works fine on a wide variety of seekers. Which were around in the 70's 80's 90's and even modern era. They work great on anything with an AM modulated seeker, and partly why FM seekers were made, and again depending on pulse programs they can work there too. There are plenty of documents on how they work, and how well they work out there too in the professional literature. Its on ED to actually model that, which well, they don't currently.  

Or shall we talk about the ED "flare as a dice roll" IR flare model. Cuz well that largely depends on a variety of factors that are not modeled in DCS, cuz you know, "flare "programs" are "thing" not just pump out a billion flares cuz in DCS each flare has a 1/32 chance (or whatever) it is to decoy missile XYZ. 

 

Being "very nice" about it, ED's modeling of anything relating to IR missiles or IRST, or IR TGP's is "borat" level at best.

 

Yes they don’t work so well on FM modulated seekers as you say. One reason the US invested in huge upgrades to their similar IR countermeasures even throughout the 90s, but the Russians with their resources never seemed to update this particular jammer to deal with the wide variety of modern threats that you so succinctly indicated is possible on paper and with in US’s case with continuous investment. 
 

I don’t disagree with your point of view on ED’s IR Simulation, hopefully there new FLIR tech leads to improvements. All I mean to say is it is not in my opinion unreasonable for ED to say “this jammer does not work well on MANPADs in game, the specifics of its interactions with the more advanced MANPADs in game would be too difficult to model, and is thus not worth the time and effort until we have such 80s weapon against which its usefulness is proven and a simple countermeasure response can be programmed” 

If you have any information from any of these papers you mention that say something about this specific jammer or any AM modulation jammer against The type of MANPAD seekers in DCS that would indicate a level of effectiveness, it would be worth mentioning so ED can Atleast know where they are wrong. I would LOVE to even read about how an IR jammer for AM modulation works against FM seekers and their interaction, if you have that please don’t keep it to yourself 

This specific paper, a DOD audit from 1991 on page 6 and 7 states findings in 1988 that the AN/ALQ-144 was becoming less and less effective against contemporary threats and needed upgrading https://media.defense.gov/1991/Jun/18/2001714503/-1/-1/1/91-099.pdf

” However, the threat assessment promulgated in 1988 addressed a new generation of more sophisticated infrared seeking threat technology that was less susceptible to existing countermeasures systems. The current infrared seeking threat significantly reduced the effectiveness of the existing Navy and Marine Corps countermeasures systems.”

Here on page 7 speaks of the the upgraded A model succeeding where the original did not against modern threads “The Infrared Jammer was effective against the early generation of infrared seeking threat systems, but advancements in the threat systems' technology reduced the effectiveness of the Infrared Jammer and degraded its ability to protect helicopters. Army operational tests concluded that the AN/ALQ­ 144 Infrared Jammer was not effective in counteracting certain aspects of the infrared seeking threat technology that existed at the time of our review. The same operational tests demonstrated that the newly developed Infrared Jammer, the AN/ALQ-144A Infrared Countermeasures Set, was effective against all known threat systems when it was used in conjunction with an infrared suppression system.”

 

Okay, maybe it has a slight effectiveness against the threats represented in DCS, but I don’t fault ED for not finding that worth it to model until later, especially when modern Russian units have already removed the system for good reason, if it was worth it’s weight and electrical draw they would’ve kept it 

There is an upgraded version L166V1A which had production start in 2005, which is stated to still be designed to work on AM seeker threats, but no evidence I can find that it was added to Mi-24P from the 80s in Russian service
 

Perhaps you are saying a world would be great if ED modeled its small percentage of effectiveness on modern threats(whatever that percentage is god knows) and the minutiae of its interaction with FM seekers(I would read a paper on that if you can link it, I’m sure ED would appreciate the help) it was never designed to work with and thus removed or upgraded with good reason. Is that what you’re trying to say? 

Edited January 11, 2022 by AeriaGloria

[SmukY]

Because of the Stingers Russian pilots just got used to flying very low and fast with Hinds in Afghanistan and consequently never had the actual need for jammers since they just didn't have them anymore.

Also I think IR exhausts suppressors provides more to the safety of the helicopter and its crew, so until ED rework and make them actually useful and I think we'll profit more from them than IR jammer which was, you may or may not like this fact, withdrew from the usage for a reason which was already mentioned many times.

[Harlikwin]

On 1/11/2022 at 1:42 AM, AeriaGloria said:

Yes they don’t work so well on FM modulated seekers as you say. One reason the US invested in huge upgrades to their similar IR countermeasures even throughout the 90s, but the Russians with their resources never seemed to update this particular jammer to deal with the wide variety of modern threats that you so succinctly indicated is possible on paper and with in US’s case with continuous investment. 
 

I don’t disagree with your point of view on ED’s IR Simulation, hopefully there new FLIR tech leads to improvements. All I mean to say is it is not in my opinion unreasonable for ED to say “this jammer does not work well on MANPADs in game, the specifics of its interactions with the more advanced MANPADs in game would be too difficult to model, and is thus not worth the time and effort until we have such 80s weapon against which its usefulness is proven and a simple countermeasure response can be programmed” 

If you have any information from any of these papers you mention that say something about this specific jammer or any AM modulation jammer against The type of MANPAD seekers in DCS that would indicate a level of effectiveness, it would be worth mentioning so ED can Atleast know where they are wrong. I would LOVE to even read about how an IR jammer for AM modulation works against FM seekers and their interaction, if you have that please don’t keep it to yourself 

This specific paper, a DOD audit from 1991 on page 6 and 7 states findings in 1988 that the AN/ALQ-144 was becoming less and less effective against contemporary threats and needed upgrading https://media.defense.gov/1991/Jun/18/2001714503/-1/-1/1/91-099.pdf

” However, the threat assessment promulgated in 1988 addressed a new generation of more sophisticated infrared seeking threat technology that was less susceptible to existing countermeasures systems. The current infrared seeking threat significantly reduced the effectiveness of the existing Navy and Marine Corps countermeasures systems.”

Here on page 7 speaks of the the upgraded A model succeeding where the original did not against modern threads “The Infrared Jammer was effective against the early generation of infrared seeking threat systems, but advancements in the threat systems' technology reduced the effectiveness of the Infrared Jammer and degraded its ability to protect helicopters. Army operational tests concluded that the AN/ALQ­ 144 Infrared Jammer was not effective in counteracting certain aspects of the infrared seeking threat technology that existed at the time of our review. The same operational tests demonstrated that the newly developed Infrared Jammer, the AN/ALQ-144A Infrared Countermeasures Set, was effective against all known threat systems when it was used in conjunction with an infrared suppression system.”

 

Okay, maybe it has a slight effectiveness against the threats represented in DCS, but I don’t fault ED for not finding that worth it to model until later, especially when modern Russian units have already removed the system for good reason, if it was worth it’s weight and electrical draw they would’ve kept it 

There is an upgraded version L166V1A which had production start in 2005, which is stated to still be designed to work on AM seeker threats, but no evidence I can find that it was added to Mi-24P from the 80s in Russian service
 

Perhaps you are saying a world would be great if ED modeled its small percentage of effectiveness on modern threats(whatever that percentage is god knows) and the minutiae of its interaction with FM seekers(I would read a paper on that if you can link it, I’m sure ED would appreciate the help) it was never designed to work with and thus removed or upgraded with good reason. Is that what you’re trying to say? 

 

 

I honestly want more "older" systems/assets in game, TBH we need Gen1 shorads to cover the 70's and into the 80's. 

And yes, CCM for seekers got really good really fast in the 80's but for Russia too. Stuff like rosette scanning and CCM logic got good primarily because you could have re-programable computer chips that could do advanced logic, as opposed to primitive AM/FM seeker heads. 

I mean bottom line if ED are gonna fix IR missiles like they claim they will, it should cover the gamut from stuff like the Aim9B to the 9x. And you can include early versions of the stinger in that pretty easily, no more excuses about 3D models there no one sees the inside of the seeker head. Same for stuff like the chaparral. I mean really how hard would it be to add an A version or a C, instead of the 90's G version we have. And really how hard is to add something like an Sa7 or redeye, the hard part there is the infantry model which is done. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AeriaGloria]

5 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I honestly want more "older" systems/assets in game, TBH we need Gen1 shorads to cover the 70's and into the 80's. 

And yes, CCM for seekers got really good really fast in the 80's but for Russia too. Stuff like rosette scanning and CCM logic got good primarily because you could have re-programable computer chips that could do advanced logic, as opposed to primitive AM/FM seeker heads. 

I mean bottom line if ED are gonna fix IR missiles like they claim they will, it should cover the gamut from stuff like the Aim9B to the 9x. And you can include early versions of the stinger in that pretty easily, no more excuses about 3D models there no one sees the inside of the seeker head. Same for stuff like the chaparral. I mean really how hard would it be to add an A version or a C, instead of the 90's G version we have. And really how hard is to add something like an Sa7 or redeye, the hard part there is the infantry model which is done. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I completely agree

[Northstar98]

On 1/11/2022 at 4:45 AM, Harlikwin said:

Really. Lets have that conversation.

That form IRCM works fine on a wide variety of seekers. Which were around in the 70's 80's 90's and even modern era. They work great on anything with an AM modulated seeker, and partly why FM seekers were made, and again depending on pulse programs they can work there too. There are plenty of documents on how they work, and how well they work out there too in the professional literature. Its on ED to actually model that, which well, they don't currently.  

I wouldn't say a wide range], it's a pulsed thermal jammer, and as you said they only really work against 1st generation, AM logic, spin-scan trackers.

AFAIK, the only stuff that has that kind of tracker in DCS (AFAIK) are the following:

• AIM-9B
• R-3S
• R-13M
• R-13M1
• R-24T (?)
• R-40 (?)
• R-60

From what I've read, further developments in seeker technology (FM logic conical scanning, pseudoimaging rosette scanning, crossed linear arrays and focal plane arrays) are theoretically immune to this kind of jamming (of course, a strong jammer might work against conical scanners, owing to scattering and reflections).

Of course, DCS doesn't model this with any fidelity whatsoever, even if it was purely a class, allowing them to be differentiated.

Though @AeriaGloria this is still a fairly long list of potential threats the jammer would be useful against, though we really need a 9K32M/SA-7b, which is probably the most prolific MANPADS out there.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Northstar98
removed 9M31 - not an IRH missile, thanks Harlikwin!

[Sacarino111]

On 11/8/2021 at 8:46 PM, Enduro14 said:

Should be part of dcs in my opinion.

+1

[Harlikwin]

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I wouldn't say a wide range], it's a pulsed thermal jammer, and as you said they only really work against 1st generation, AM logic, spin-scan trackers.

AFAIK, the only stuff that has that kind of tracker in DCS (AFAIK) are the following:

• AIM-9B
• R-3S
• R-13M
• R-13M1
• R-24T (?)
• R-40 (?)
• R-60
• 9M31 (9K31/SA-9)

From what I've read, further developments in seeker technology (FM logic conical scanning, pseudoimaging rosette scanning, crossed linear arrays and focal plane arrays) are theoretically immune to this kind of jamming (of course, a strong jammer might work against conical scanners, owing to scattering and reflections).

Of course, DCS doesn't model this with any fidelity whatsoever, even if it was purely a class, allowing them to be differentiated.

Though @AeriaGloria this is still a fairly long list of potential threats the jammer would be useful against, though we really need a 9K32M/SA-7b, which is probably the most prolific MANPADS out there.

 

Against a spin-scan seeker (AM) you basically can get AGC capture, and you can then manipulate the phase of the envelope so you can mess with the position vector that the seeker is calculating. Versus con-scan seekers (FM) your jammer needs to be able to match the modulation frequency of the seeker, which then means the tracking error output will be kept at the equilibrium point, i.e. it the jammer will adjust the phase delay which will then appear as a "wrong" target position indication. So, IR jammers can also work against FM seekers (its harder tho) which opens up that list quite a bit. Its not untill you get to pseudo imaging rosette scanned stuff and then modern imaging seekers that the old school jammers are less and less effective. But by then you have more modern DIRCM countermeasures being deployed as well. 

Also, you are wrong about the 9M31 (9K31/SA-9), due to the fact its seeker is operating in a totally different way alot of "Traditional" CM's don't work well against it. It was actually the first "all aspect" seeker, but its modeled incorrectly in DCS as a gen1 rear aspect seeker whereas its use case is much more complicated, but it is under good conditions actually a fully capable frontal aspect seeker (it mainly needs a uniform background to work tho) (And yes ED knows very well its wrong but its complicated to model). 

And if there is literally 1 SAM that needs to be the top of the list to add in DCS its gotta be the 9K32M/SA-7b due the fact its the most profilic manpad system ever fielded, even though it kinda sucked. It saw use on every battlefield of the cold war and into the modern era with terrorist groups. 

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Also, you are wrong about the 9M31 (9K31/SA-9), due to the fact its seeker is operating in a totally different way alot of "Traditional" CM's don't work well against it.

It was actually the first "all aspect" seeker, but its modeled incorrectly in DCS as a gen1 rear aspect seeker whereas its use case is much more complicated, but it is under good conditions actually a fully capable frontal aspect seeker (it mainly needs a uniform background to work tho) (And yes ED knows very well its wrong but its complicated to model). 

Ahh yeah, it's EO (photocontrast) not IRH, I'll take it off the list (though does it still use spin-scan?) 

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

And if there is literally 1 SAM that needs to be the top of the list to add in DCS its gotta be the 9K32M/SA-7b due the fact its the most profilic manpad system ever fielded, even though it kinda sucked. It saw use on every battlefield of the cold war and into the modern era with terrorist groups. 

Definitely agree.

[Harlikwin]

22 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Ahh yeah, it's EO (photocontrast) not IRH, I'll take it off the list (though does it still use spin-scan?) 

I'm not entirely sure how the seeker/logic on it works, there are lot WTH things about it that don't seem right, i.e. sources list it as PbS seeker but operating more in the vis range which seems rather unlikely. 

[Stratos]

Just seen this video from Mi-24P fighting in the War in Ukraine, is a Russian helo, not designed for export, and in 2022, still sporting the Lipa. 

[Dragon1-1]

Probably because nobody bothered to unbolt it. It's not like it's a huge drag item. 

[unknown]

11 hours ago, Stratos said:

Just seen this video from Mi-24P fighting in the War in Ukraine, is a Russian helo, not designed for export, and in 2022, still sporting the Lipa.

Yeah but it seems nobody bothered to remove the metal protection cover....could be a Hind  of how usefull it is.

Edited March 14, 2022 by unknown

[AeriaGloria]

Yeah with protective cover on it, it’s not able to do anything but work as a heater if they have to crash land somewhere 

[Tiger-II]

It ca't be that dubious - I've recently seen Western military helicopters sporting something similar.

[Dragon1-1]

That particular jammer is dubious about any modern threat. It worked on certain early MANPADS such as Redeye, but is useless against anything more advanced. They don't even take the cover off, they do not remove the whole unit presumably because it's not impacting the helo's performance very much, or perhaps it's simply a huge PITA to get off the airframe.

There are more advanced IR jammers today, not to mention there are many other things that might have a similar shape. Ispanka just isn't useful for anything today. 

[AeriaGloria]

5 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That particular jammer is dubious about any modern threat. It worked on certain early MANPADS such as Redeye, but is useless against anything more advanced. They don't even take the cover off, they do not remove the whole unit presumably because it's not impacting the helo's performance very much, or perhaps it's simply a huge PITA to get off the airframe.

There are more advanced IR jammers today, not to mention there are many other things that might have a similar shape. Ispanka just isn't useful for anything today. 

Hey it’s useful as a space heater to keep warm and cook food! 

[Dragon1-1]

For that, better give the door gunner one of those old Maxim guns that are supposedly still in use around Ukraine. Shoot one of these for long enough and you can even brew tea using the water from the cooling jacket.  

[Kampfer616]

Even if the truest data isn't available to model, due to obvious concerns, even having DIRCM and other CM modules onboard helicopters versus IR missiles would be cool to have just modifiers versus those specific types of missiles i.e the aspect dependent heat visibility modifiers used by DDCS to factor in wether a fox-2 or manpad can track you well enough for a hit.   
 

TLDR, Due to lack of info, having them code it in as useabe, and give a 10-20% reduction in IR tracking chance or something would be neat.

[rcjonessnp175]

Ya I mean the VIPER and Hornet both have types of ECM that are not and can not be like the real thing....  if wishes were horse though I suppose

[Northstar98]

On 4/19/2022 at 7:48 PM, Kampfer616 said:

Even if the truest data isn't available to model, due to obvious concerns, even having DIRCM and other CM modules onboard helicopters versus IR missiles would be cool to have just modifiers versus those specific types of missiles i.e the aspect dependent heat visibility modifiers used by DDCS to factor in wether a fox-2 or manpad can track you well enough for a hit.   
 

TLDR, Due to lack of info, having them code it in as useabe, and give a 10-20% reduction in IR tracking chance or something would be neat.

There isn't a lack of information.

The L-166V works best against spin-scan AM logic trackers found in earlier IR guided missiles:

In these missiles, there's a reticle that IR radiation from the target passes through; this reticle has sectors (well, more sort of a checkerboard pattern, but whatever) which are either opaque or translucent, with other sectors being fully transparent and spins at some rate. After some filtering, the result is an amplitude modulated signal, whose frequency is the frequency of the spinning reticle and whose phase encodes target position information. The logic in the tracker acts to drive the error signal to 0, by aiming the tracker in the direction of the target, such that the target falls on the tracker's boresight.

We've got several missiles in DCS that uses this tracking scheme, but hardly any that would be a threat to the Hind (we really need some more Cold War MANPADS)

• AIM-9B - 70 Hz reticle frequency
• R-3S - 70 Hz reticle frequency (this missile is a reverse-engineered AIM-9B, so I've assumed the same reticle frequency)
• R-13M (K-13M)
• R-60

See this for more detail on spin-scan AM logic trackers.

 

What the jammer does is it pulses high-intensity IR radiation, in the L-116V's case this is a caesium vapor arc lamp.

The idea is to inject a false signal into the missile's seeker that overpowers the true target signal such that the missile's tracking logic drives the missile towards the false target and away from the true target - this will happen when the 2 signals are in anti-phase with each other.

However, since the jammer can't know the frequency of the missile's reticle, nor know the phase of true target signal, the frequency of the pulsed IR radiation is swept across a range. Within that range, there will be a specific point where the 2 signals will be in phase and will not divert the missile at all (in fact actually aids the missile), a specific point where the 2 signals are in antiphase, where the missile will be diverted in the opposite direction to the target and everywhere else the missile will be diverted away from the target by some degree.

 

See this for more detail on pulsed IR jammers.

 

The only thing we need to know is the frequency range (which I imagine is something like 60 - 150 Hz, as this includes the range of typical IR guided missiles, or at least Sidewinders with spin-scan trackers), and the amplitude of the emitted IR radiation. If you wanted to go further, the wavelength of the IR radiation, purely for missiles that have CCM based on wavelength. EDIT: for a caesium arc lamp, according to this, it's in a range of 8.521 - 8.944 × 10^-7 m.

 

The main issue is a lack of fidelity to truly support this kind of jammer, as well as suitable threat missiles. We already have the control panel for it (it's above the transmitter/missile selection panel in the front-right of the copilot-gunner cockpit).

Heck, for now I'd even settle for just the 3D model - like on the Hip.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Northstar98
actually a checkerboard pattern, grammar

[Stratos]

ED hinted a Afghanistan map, we should get those early MANPADs with the map, and then the updated 3d and functionality.

[Harlikwin]

On 4/27/2022 at 4:21 AM, Stratos said:

ED hinted a Afghanistan map, we should get those early MANPADs with the map, and then the updated 3d and functionality.

I haven't seen any annoucment about what we get with that map with anything. I mean most likely it will be more for modern conflicts, i.e. Apache vs toyota wars. 

[Northstar98]

On 4/27/2022 at 11:21 AM, Stratos said:

ED hinted a Afghanistan map, we should get those early MANPADs with the map, and then the updated 3d and functionality.

I agree that we should, heck they're useful right now - the Strela-2/2M is the most prolific MANPADS around, used by a tonne of different operators, in just about every conflict since it's introduction.

However, there's a less than stellar track record of assets being developed to flesh maps out.

[Harlikwin]

8 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I agree that we should, heck they're useful right now - the Strela-2/2M is the most prolific MANPADS around, used by a tonne of different operators, in just about every conflict since it's introduction.

However, there's a less than stellar track record of assets being developed to flesh maps out.

I'd love to see a few older manpads and shorad systems in general. There is this huge gulf asset wise in the 60's and 70's for that stuff. And what we do have i.e. Chapperal is like the latest greatest 90's version. I mean how hard would it be to change the seeker type/range info in the lua to do the OG 70's version. The 3d model is the same. I'm sure there are other examples like roland etc. as well.