Semi Active Laser Homing and Beam Riding?

[Hunt3r.j2]

Now, I know that the Beam Riding system in for example, the Vikhr/AT-9 ATGM, the receiver for the missile is in the back, looking back at the aircraft to be guided.

 

I also know that the Semi Active Laser Homing system searches for reflected laser energy.

 

What are the disadvantages of each, and the advantages of each?

 

Oh, and SALH is the system used on Cobras and Apaches, and they're currently having a JAGM program (Joint Air to Ground Missile) that's supposed to replace the Maverick, TOW, and Hellfire in aircraft. The range is supposed to be greater then 20 kilometers, and if beam riding guidance supposedly has more range then SALH, why haven't we seen 20-plus km range ATGMs that are beam riding?

[zakobi]

problem with SALH could be that, if the target fire smoke shells, the reflection might be hard for the missile to see. With beam riding you get a very narrow area to shoot in, and another aircraft won't be able to direct your weapon, as it is seen with SALH (mostly bombs AFAIK).

[Hunt3r.j2]

problem with SALH could be that, if the target fire smoke shells, the reflection might be hard for the missile to see. With beam riding you get a very narrow area to shoot in, and another aircraft won't be able to direct your weapon, as it is seen with SALH (mostly bombs AFAIK).

But doesn't SALH also look backward for reference?

[159th_Viper]

But doesn't SALH also look backward for reference?

 

No - Seeker-Head homes in on the Laser Energy reflected by the Target.

[Hunt3r.j2]

No - Seeker-Head homes in on the Laser Energy reflected by the Target.

Oh.

 

Then are lasers even powerful enough to be able to guide weapons at targets say... 28km away?

[vanir]

My thinking is along these lines,

 

lasers have interferometry issues due to heat refraction esp near concentrated ground combat (irrespective of beam coherence), advanced optics and digital interferometers could compensate but you're dealing with weight, expense and complexity and could wind up using more expense for munitions in dealing with enemy equipment than they spent buying that equipment in the first place. Can you really call a battle which cost the enemy $10m and cost you $100m a victory ratio?

 

Beam riding at least leaves most of the avionics in the firing platform, cutting the cost of throwaway guidence avionics, but its range is governed by the weight of the missile to be carried (could be prohibitive for light attack a/c to go mounting 2-ton long range missiles just to take 100kg to the target), and of course complexity and weight of the radar set and avionics (could wind up with "low cost" tactical attack a/c that cost as much as front line multiroles).

 

I'd say battlefield attack a/c and munitions are governed in terms of cost benefit ratio, where the rule is how much it costs to send a squadron of Vipers in the first place. Even the modern combat helicopter is becoming prohibitive outlay for dealing with mundane terrorists (armed with angry camels and a couple of grenades, but dangerous around small children nonetheless), it beggars the need for the "lightweight, low cost battlefield attack aircraft" which has been popular in Europe and Africa for the past two decades, typically small combat trainers with rockets and gunpods slung. Again, if I spend $5m on lost equipment which forces you to spend $50m giving me that loss, I still win the day.

 

So the new Tomcat is a Super Hornet, the new Viper is a Raptor and the new combat helicopter is a Lightning, and in the end the US will probably start buying Russian surplus just like everybody else just so they can afford to keep going to war over everything from crime to the weather.

 

Seriously there's great argument for the good ol' fashion fin stablised rocket pack. Blows up tanks, doesn't cost a fortune. There's another good argument for a launch a/c that costs less to lose than a superduper AT missile does to fire from over the horizon.