Commercial Anti-Missile Laser on Fed-Ex Jets

[elite marksman]

Chris, would a laser operating in IR frequencies not be able to deliver a pulse or continuous beam strong enough to overload the camera in the seeker head of the missile, much in the same way that a flashbang works on people? I know people and cameras are different, but if you point a camera at a target with sufficient ambient light, the image is washed out, I would think that this would work similarly on an IR camera.

As for the melting thing; so long as the lens could withstand the heat of the laser, a directed beam with minimal diffusion could well be powerful enough to either overload the sensor, or outright melt some of its more delicate parts, either should be enough to disable the missile. I, however, have no idea how powerful a laser you would need for this, and weather or not satisfactory materials exist or could be produced in a timely fashion.

The other problem is the power source. The 747 modified to carry the  military experimental anti-missile laser system needs the majority of its cargo hold to be filled with large, specialized, liquid chemical tanks for the electrochemical reaction of the magnitude needed.

[Chris_F]

[quote]Chris, would a laser operating in IR frequencies not be able to deliver a pulse or continuous beam strong enough to overload the camera in the seeker head of the missile, much in the same way that a flashbang works on people? I know people and cameras are different, but if you point a camera at a target with sufficient ambient light, the image is washed out, I would think that this would work similarly on an IR camera.

As for the melting thing; so long as the lens could withstand the heat of the laser, a directed beam with minimal diffusion could well be powerful enough to either overload the sensor, or outright melt some of its more delicate parts, either should be enough to disable the missile. I, however, have no idea how powerful a laser you would need for this, and weather or not satisfactory materials exist or could be produced in a timely fashion.

The other problem is the power source. The 747 modified to carry the

[elite marksman]

So there really aren't many effective counters to the current generation of IR missiles short of simply blasting them out of the sky with an AEGIS ship or Phalanx CIWS? Thank god our primary enemies have older versions that aren't as sophisticated.

Radar guided missiles seem to be much easier to counter as our current countermeasures are frequency-agile to deal with different bands of RF. Using a jammer opens a whole can o' worms if he happens to have a few ARMs lying around, specifically the AGM-88 HARM, since it remembers the transmitters last location should it be shut off.

[Ivan]

So there really aren't many effective counters to the current generation of IR missiles short of simply blasting them out of the sky with an AEGIS ship or Phalanx CIWS? Thank god our primary enemies have older versions that aren't as sophisticated.

Igla's are easy to get hold of... $80K each, and there are reports that these are being used in Iraq already. And if they have the luck to get a 2nd generation one, flares are close to useless.

[Chris_F]

So there really aren't many effective counters to the current generation of IR missiles short of simply blasting them out of the sky with an AEGIS ship or Phalanx CIWS? Thank god our primary enemies have older versions that aren't as sophisticated.

Radar guided missiles seem to be much easier to counter as our current countermeasures are frequency-agile to deal with different bands of RF. Using a jammer opens a whole can o' worms if he happens to have a few ARMs lying around, specifically the AGM-88 HARM, since it remembers the transmitters last location should it be shut off.

It depends on the platform you're trying to protect.  A Maveric or Penguin isn't going to be used to shoot down a plane and a shoulder fired SAM isn't going to be used against a ship.  The best defense against a IR camera style Air-Ground missle is killing the airplane before it can fire on you.  That's the defense that tank columns and ships rely on.  Phalanx is for when the s- hits the fan and things have gone very wrong.  It's a last ditch defense.

Also, most RF missiles are used against air platforms.  Some SAMS have Home-On-Jam technologies that attempt to home on jammers, however towed jammers are starting to be fielded (one is being feilded by my company for use on the F-18, and our competitor makes one for the F-16 I believe).  Anything that homes on those will just hit the towed decoy.  But there's no way a HARM is going to be used on an airplane.  It's an Air-Ground missile, entirely useless against air targets (what use is a location memory feature on a fast moving air target anyway?).

Short range air-Ground RF guided missiles (like the Longbow Hellfire) are similar to the IR guided Air-Ground missles in the defensive strategy sense: the best option is to kill the platform before it fires.  Once that missile is in the air the fate of the target is pretty much written.  That's an advantage an airborne platform has: it can maneuvere fast enough to prevent a missle shot from becoming a foregone conclusion.

Long range missiles of any homing type are treated just like any other air threat: try shooting them down with aircraft flying CAP and SAMs at long range.  Naval targets can use chaffe somewhat effectively.   Then Phalanx type stuff when things have gone horribly wrong.

[Ivan]

Only airborne target that provides enough juice to get a HARM to lock in is an AWACS.
Towed Decoys are useless against most largert SAMs (like Patriot and S-300, which have around 100kg of explosives onboard), and after the thing gets blown up you end up just as defenseless as you were if you didnt load it up at all.

And how much use is a towed decoy against the infamous 'double shot' (IR and radar together) that has been the standard 'russian book' interceptor rule for ages...

[Chris_F]

and after the thing gets blown up you end up just as defenseless as you were if you didnt load it up at all.

And how much use is a towed decoy against the infamous 'double shot' (IR and radar together) that has been the standard 'russian book' interceptor rule for ages...

I'd rather be defenseless with a blown up decoy than blown up with no decoy.