L-166W-1 AE "Ispanka"

[Raffi75]

Today we flew with a friend and asked ourselves a question. Is there a plan for a system of protection against infrared guided missiles - microwave emitter L-166W-1 AE "Ispanka"? In the lower cabin there is a panel which is currently inactive and of course the lamp itself is missing. Does anyone have any knowledge on this subject?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

IIRC, there's no intention to add it, mostly because it didn't seem to be very good at its job in combat. At least, against Stingers or more modern IR guided missiles. It might've been better against Redeyes and Blowpipes Strela-2s.
 

 

Edited November 23, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Raffi75]

Thanks for the link.

Edited November 23, 2024 by Raffi75

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

 It might've been better against Redeyes and Blowpipes.

It would have worked only against Redeye and Strela-2, neither of which is in DCS. Ispanka was specifically designed to counter spin-scan IR seekers. It would have done precisely nothing against either more advanced conical scan seekers (nevermind modern imaging seekers) or the manually guided Blowpipe. It's a very simple system exploiting a specific vulnerability of the spin-scan technique, and it was more or less phased out when the missiles it worked against were. I think only the housings remain on most Hinds.

Edited November 23, 2024 by Dragon1-1

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Just now, Dragon1-1 said:

It would have worked only against Redeye and Strela-2, neither of which is in DCS. Ispanka was specifically designed to counter spin-scan IR seekers. It would have done precisely nothing against either more advanced conical scan seekers (nevermind modern imaging seekers) or the manually guided Blowpipe. It's a very simple system exploiting a specific vulnerability of the spin-scan technique, and it was more or less phased out when the missiles it worked against were. I think on the housings remain on most Hinds.

Thanks for the explanation.

[Raffi75]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It would have worked only against Redeye and Strela-2, neither of which is in DCS. Ispanka was specifically designed to counter spin-scan IR seekers. It would have done precisely nothing against either more advanced conical scan seekers (nevermind modern imaging seekers) or the manually guided Blowpipe. It's a very simple system exploiting a specific vulnerability of the spin-scan technique, and it was more or less phased out when the missiles it worked against were. I think only the housings remain on most Hinds.

I know they were used on a few of our helicopters (version D and V, which still had lamps) during missions. There are photos without the lampshades.

article with photo

Edited November 23, 2024 by Raffi75

[Dragon1-1]

Well, I guess if they were going to Afghanistan, then Strela-2 was enough of a concern that Ispanka could have come in handy. That said, spin-scan missiles are pretty dumb, they have no flare rejection capabilities, so if Strela-2 was implemented, it wouldn't be exactly difficult to counter. That said, if ED ever does add any spin-scan missiles to DCS, maybe then they can be convinced to revisit Ispanka (and also add its US counterpart, the original ALQ-144).

[Northstar98]

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That said, if ED ever does add any spin-scan missiles to DCS

There are already spin-scan missiles in DCS - the AIM-9B, E (coming) and J (and possibly the P) are all spin-scan. For the Warsaw Pact there's also the R-3S, R-13M and M1. AFAIK the R-60 uses a spin-scan seeker too.

EDIT: No, Dragon1-1 is correct - the document I used on this implies that conical came with the AIM-9L and R-60M, most sources actually describe the seeker construction as having a tilted secondary mirror, which would imply conical scanning.

It would however be great to get Cold War MANPADs like the SA-7 and Redeye which are vulnerable to infrared jammers like L-116 and AN/ALQ-144 as those are more the intended threats these jammers were intended to be used against.

Edited November 23, 2024 by Northstar98
Correction

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

There are already spin-scan missiles in DCS - the AIM-9B, E (coming) and J (and possibly the P) are all spin-scan. For the Warsaw Pact there's also the R-3S, R-13M and M1. AFAIK the R-60 uses a spin-scan seeker too.

Nope, all the missiles you listed use conical scan seekers, which is more advanced and completely invulnerable to being fooled by a simple IR strobe (which is all those jammers are), even leaving aside the fact that a helicopter-mounted jammer would not be tuned for them. Classic spin-scan was only ever used operationally on a few MANPADS, where simple electronics this technique requires were a must. 

 

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Nope, all the missiles you listed use conical scan seekers, which is more advanced and completely invulnerable to being fooled by a simple IR strobe

My apologies - you are correct, further reading actually had these (at least the Sidewinder) as having tilted secondary mirrors, which implies conical scanning (though wiki also describes these as AM seekers, which implies spin-scan).

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

even leaving aside the fact that a helicopter-mounted jammer would not be tuned for them

According to this and this, the AIM-9E and FIM-43 have the same reticle frequency (though, not that it matters with conical scanning). The others though, sure (though some I don't know the numbers).

Edited November 23, 2024 by Northstar98

[Copperfield86]

If there are no missiles in the DCS that the L-166 can disrupt, why is there a panel in the lower cabin where you can switch the switch?

Besides, a functioning L-166 doesn't do much anyway.
 

[AeriaGloria]

45 minutes ago, Copperfield86 said:

If there are no missiles in the DCS that the L-166 can disrupt, why is there a panel in the lower cabin where you can switch the switch?

Besides, a functioning L-166 doesn't do much anyway.
 

Because it’s in the real aircraft 

It’s been said it will be made functional when such missiles are added

I have also heard that AM seekers of air to air such as R-3S/AIM-9B, R-60, I think some other early stuff would be effected by it as well

[Copperfield86]

I know that the L-166 panel is in a real helicopter, in a real helicopter there is also a working "IW-500 Control" button and in a real helicopter this button works in DCS, the "IW-500 Control" button does not work even though the vibration control system works.

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, Copperfield86 said:

If there are no missiles in the DCS that the L-166 can disrupt, why is there a panel in the lower cabin where you can switch the switch?

Besides, a functioning L-166 doesn't do much anyway.

The panel is typically still there even if the IR lamp is not even installed. It just does nothing. Also, if ED ever adds this functionality, the panel will work.

Also, when it does work, the L-166 is perfectly adequate - provided that you enemy fields missiles that can be fooled by a blinking IR lamp. It's not at all difficult to fool a Redeye, or a Strela-2, for that matter, but the L-166 has an advantage over flares in that it's not expandable, so you can operate it continuously. Preflaring only works for a limited time, as long as you have flares.

4 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

I have also heard that AM seekers of air to air such as R-3S/AIM-9B, R-60, I think some other early stuff would be effected by it as well

See my previous posts. They use the conical scan technique, which is still AM ("AM" refers to the way signal is processed, not the way it's generated), but more sophisticated than primitive spin-scan of Strela-2 and Redeye. Conical scan can't be fooled by a simple IR strobe. This is why in the US, the ALQ-144 was quickly upgraded to ALQ-144A, while the L-166 was simply abandoned and often removed as useless deadweight.

[AeriaGloria]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The panel is typically still there even if the IR lamp is not even installed. It just does nothing. Also, if ED ever adds this functionality, the panel will work.

Also, when it does work, the L-166 is perfectly adequate - provided that you enemy fields missiles that can be fooled by a blinking IR lamp. It's not at all difficult to fool a Redeye, or a Strela-2, for that matter, but the L-166 has an advantage over flares in that it's not expandable, so you can operate it continuously. Preflaring only works for a limited time, as long as you have flares.

See my previous posts. They use the conical scan technique, which is still AM ("AM" refers to the way signal is processed, not the way it's generated), but more sophisticated than primitive spin-scan of Strela-2 and Redeye. Conical scan can't be fooled by a simple IR strobe. This is why in the US, the ALQ-144 was quickly upgraded to ALQ-144A, while the L-166 was simply abandoned and often removed as useless deadweight.

Ah, Thank you 

 

5 hours ago, Copperfield86 said:

I know that the L-166 panel is in a real helicopter, in a real helicopter there is also a working "IW-500 Control" button and in a real helicopter this button works in DCS, the "IW-500 Control" button does not work even though the vibration control system works.

It’s still Early Access however surprising, and thus there are things not implemented. The cabin floor has limited damage model, there is no actual fluid leaks despite graphics, the manual is still being worked on, a few lights are still not implemented (please ED gimme the max engine temp lights), etc 
 

The difference with L-166V is it was not promised for early access/release, but to stay as only visual model until early MANPADs are added 

[Raffi75]

@AeriaGloria Can you satisfy my curiosity? Where do you get such knowledge about Mi-24? Life, practice, direct contact, or the Internet, books, manuals?

[admiki]

1 hour ago, Raffi75 said:

@AeriaGloria Can you satisfy my curiosity? Where do you get such knowledge about Mi-24? Life, practice, direct contact, or the Internet, books, manuals?

Be prepared to be amazed! 

[AeriaGloria]

20 hours ago, Raffi75 said:

@AeriaGloria Can you satisfy my curiosity? Where do you get such knowledge about Mi-24? Life, practice, direct contact, or the Internet, books, manuals?

Someday I hope to make a holy pilgrimage to a real Mi-24. 
 

I’ve just tried to find any manual I could and translate and read it. Every book. Anything on the internet. Boring maintenance books (one tells you the exact gear ratios of the autopilot!), just a lot of study 

[Raffi75]

25 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

Someday...

Thank you.

[Copperfield86]

3 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

Boring maintenance books

Maintenance books are not boring at all. I know something about it. They may not be written in simple language and you need to have experience with a helicopter to make them easier to understand, but they are definitely not boring.

[AeriaGloria]

11 minutes ago, Copperfield86 said:

Maintenance books are not boring at all. I know something about it. They may not be written in simple language and you need to have experience with a helicopter to make them easier to understand, but they are definitely not boring.

Yes. I might be exaggerating. Some of the electronic ones can definitely get to me though. 300 pages of which contact connects to another contact? Sometimes I have to tap out temporarily lol 

[Copperfield86]

I worked on these helicopters as an avionics technician for 9 years and I agree with you that keeping track of what is connected to what and where it goes is tedious. It is best to read the manual with electrical diagrams while in the helicopter.

[AeriaGloria]

3 hours ago, Copperfield86 said:

I worked on these helicopters as an avionics technician for 9 years and I agree with you that keeping track of what is connected to what and where it goes is tedious. It is best to read the manual with electrical diagrams while in the helicopter.

Happy to have your experience here!