optically guided A2A missiles?

[JohnSmith]

How come there are no optically-guided A2A missiles? There are so many A2G missiles with optical guidance (TV camera), both russian and american. What works against ground targers should work even beter against airborne targets because the sky is a "cleaner" background compared with the ground. However, I only know about radar and infrared guided A2A missiles, I never heard about optically guided A2A missiles.

[BOPrey]

Yes, there are. They are called IR guided missiles. Unless you mean TV guided missiles.

 

First of all, using TV camera to locate a fast moving target is almost always impossible. A aircraft's visible spe profile can change dramatically depending on viewing angle. Last but not the least, visible spe is susceptible by jaming, much easier than IR.

[GGTharos]

How come there are no optically-guided A2A missiles? There are so many A2G missiles with optical guidance (TV camera), both russian and american. What works against ground targers should work even beter against airborne targets because the sky is a "cleaner" background compared with the ground. However, I only know about radar and infrared guided A2A missiles, I never heard about optically guided A2A missiles.

 

 

Maybe because the fact that you're using the IR spectrum given you an even -cleaner- image? ;) Oh, and there's th ewhole work in night or day thing, and in moderately bad weather.

[SwingKid]

Jet engines usually radiate much more heat than light. TV seekers are also generally heavier and more expensive, only used when an imaging seeker is absolutely required (usually to pick targets out of ground clutter). There are cases of TV-guided Mavericks hitting slow aircraft in flight, but that's not a cost-effective way to do the job.

 

Note that even IR A2G weapons all need imaging (IIR) seekers to see targets against ground clutter, whereas A2A can usually get away with a single non-imaging IR element.

 

-SK

[SUBS17]

The newer technology missiles are being developed which employ both optical and infra red technology.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/air_missiles/python/Python5.html

[51GRIZZLY]

WOW .. this Python is really a mean mother :cool:

[ObvilionLost]

hmmm python.. if it was in LockOn i think it would create more problems then AIM-120 :rolleyes:

[GGTharos]

All new Air to Air missiles are IIR now; it naturally helps with CM rejection and in general the missile gets confused much less. Also the CCD is not that much heavier than the original IR element at this point.

[SwingKid]

All new Air to Air missiles are IIR now;

 

Try whispering that in the ear of an F-22 guy... :)

 

-SK

[JohnSmith]

Just a matter of time...

 

TV seekers are also generally heavier and more expensive, only used when an imaging seeker is absolutely required (usually to pick targets out of ground clutter). There are cases of TV-guided Mavericks hitting slow aircraft in flight, but that's not a cost-effective way to do the job.

-SK

 

Looks like the problems are: processing power, size/weight of the sensors and cost. But it's just a matter of time to improve in all these areas (for example, Python 5 has a computer 100 times better than Python 4).

So I think sooner or later the imaging sensors in both visible and IR will be standard on top-notch A2A missiles, to get the most information without any radar emissions.

Radar will still be around of course for BVR and poor visibility.

[GGTharos]

Why -why- would you even consider using visible? Far worse than IIR.

[crazyleggs]

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos.php?action=view&id=18

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos.php?action=view&id=17

 

You can see the AIM-9X's imaging infrared sensor in action on those videos. If you look closely enough, you can see that the missile's logic circuitry also has a few tricks up its sleeve.

[Steinhoff]

Some very nice links in this thread! The AIM9x trial2 was pretty impressive.

 

Many good videos at Patricks.

[JohnSmith]

Why -why- would you even consider using visible? Far worse than IIR.

 

I think visible adds info to IR. Once the cost of obtaining and processing this additional info will be low enough, why say no to visible?

[GGTharos]

I think visible adds info to IR. Once the cost of obtaining and processing this additional info will be low enough, why say no to visible?

 

 

Why would you WANT this 'additional info?' It's -noise-. It's far worse, using IR cleans up the image considerably, getting rid fo info you do NOT want. In other words, it makes targetting and tracking more reliable.

[SUBS17]

They use both to lockon to the airframe from what I understand, still sceptical about the pythons 180 deg ability.

[GGTharos]

They use both to lockon to the airframe from what I understand, still sceptical about the pythons 180 deg ability.

 

The Python has 180 deg ability due to a LOAL feature. With thrust vectoring its doable but the target has to be -close-.

 

Visible spectrum still makes no sense in the face of IIR.

[JohnSmith]

Why would you WANT this 'additional info?' It's -noise-. It's far worse, using IR cleans up the image considerably, getting rid fo info you do NOT want. In other words, it makes targetting and tracking more reliable.

 

Well, since all the smart guys making A2A are choosing IR against optical, I guess you are right...

[SUBS17]

The Python has 180 deg ability due to a LOAL feature. With thrust vectoring its doable but the target has to be -close-.

 

Visible spectrum still makes no sense in the face of IIR.

 

No it makes sense, IR gives one image from one spectrum. Optical gives another, IR can be distracted by flares and IR jammers. Optical can be lost in back ground clutter. So they use both and the missile is now smarter according to that article it is able to use both to see the whole aircraft. (like how the shivkal sees a ground target thats moving. Also note that the missile goes after the cockpit to kill the pilot, not the exhaust.

[GGTharos]

No it makes sense, IR gives one image from one spectrum. Optical gives another, IR can be distracted by flares and IR jammers. Optical can be lost in back ground clutter. So they use both and the missile is now smarter according to that article it is able to use both to see the whole aircraft. (like how the shivkal sees a ground target thats moving. Also note that the missile goes after the cockpit to kill the pilot, not the exhaust.

 

 

Uh ... no. Let me repeat: No :)

 

Visual makes zero sense, period. It's actualyl even -easier- to lose the aircraft than with IR. It doesn'tmake the missile smarter, it just adds more complexity and points of failure.

[Cobra360]

The new AIM-9X uses IR to track the aircraft as a heat source as well as recognise it as an aircraft and not just a heat source. Plus the imaging infra red seeker also tracks a spot within the heat source so it is less likely to be fooled be flares which will leave the target at high speed in relation to the natural motion of the aircraft. Gone are the days of AIM-9H missiles tracking the sun if a fighter flies across it with the missile coming up directly behind it.

 

Add speaking of the Python. The new Python 5 has a theoritical 360 degree sphere in LOAL mode. Those are some high claims to live up to. And according to Rafael the Python can re-aquire its target if it misses on it's first pass, provided it has enough energy to do so. If all this is true and the Python 5 is as leathal as it's older brother the 4, any half decent fighter pilot armed with a Python 5 will be almost invinceable in a dogfight.

 

The new generation of dogfight missiles must be a scary thought for any fighter pilot today, those that are going to on the recieving end that is.

 

Flares will soon become almost useless. What will be need in future will be small, accurate and fast lasers located on the aircraft's skin that can be targeted at an incoming missile and burn out it's IR seeker head, rendering the missile useless. But for that to happen you need some very good missile detection system and a lot of computing power to aim and fire at the missile in time. Systems like these are already in testing on RAF C-130s and are not likely to be fitted to fighters any time soon until the systems can be made smaller.

[SUBS17]

Uh ... no. Let me repeat: No :)

 

Visual makes zero sense, period. It's actualyl even -easier- to lose the aircraft than with IR. It doesn'tmake the missile smarter, it just adds more complexity and points of failure.

 

Infrared homing

Infra-red homing refers to a guidance system which uses the infra-red light emissions of a target to track it. Missiles which use infra-red seeking are often referred to as "heat-seekers". Infra-red is just below the visible spectrum of light and is radiated mostly by hot bodies. Many objects such as people, vehicle engines and aircraft generate and retain heat and as such, are especially visible in the infra-red wavelengths of light compared to background elements.

 

 

Seeker types

Not all "infra-red" seekers stick strictly to this part of the electromagnetic spectrum. For example, aircraft engines tend to emit a lot of radiation in the infra-red band but the aircraft's skin, which is heated by the passing air, will emit ultra-violet radiation. Newer "infra-red" seekers in air-to-air missiles and surface-to-air missiles tend to be the "two-colour" variety which use both the infra-red and ultra-violet radiation, greatly increasing their resilience to countermeasures such as flares, which tend only produce primarily IR light, and infra-red jammers. These types are also more effective at locking on to the signature of an aircraft while it is pointing towards the missile, giving them all-aspect capability

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/infrared-homing

 

Probably another way of looking at it.

[GGTharos]

UV is at the other side of the spectrum, and 'UV Filters' are not new. And by the way, UV lamps aren't new either ... (much like the IR lamps used in IR jammers)

[SUBS17]

Yeah but these new missiles recognise the shape of the airframe through both spectrums. That way jammers are much less likely to be effective, likewise flares so avoiding such missiles is very difficult. Future missiles will likely have all 3 heads(infra red, ultra violet and optical seeker) as technology allows for Artificial Inteligence to recognise objects in the visible light spectrum making them even less likely to miss.

[GGTharos]

I don't think you realize what 'shape recognition' is being done here...the two images are being matched, as well as the shape being matched form one frame to teh next (potentnially) which is intensive enough (lots of pixels, an outline needs to be generated etc - reasonably powerful processor required). And this is pretty simple, and barely 'AI' at all. It's ont the fastest process and while its undoubtedly good for ECCM, it can also undoubtedly be fooled by the right counter-measure. And a little moisture in the air is all it takes to make the images mismatch, too.

 

In the VISUAL spectrum you might be lucky to break out the outline at all, especially at range. The low visibility paints work pretty well on visual spectrum seekers - possibly better than on the Mk1 eyeball.

 

 

And FYI, you can have flares that'll blot out the shape in any used spectrum ... simultaneously. The CM's will need to become smarter, but they're by no means completely obsolete, either.