BAE Systems creates an updated "bait" to protect aircraft from air defense systems

The British defense company BAE Systems continues to develop systems for protecting aircraft from enemy air defense systems. At the moment, it is reported that the British are fulfilling an American FOTD order worth approximately 36,7 million dollars.

BAE Systems Illustration

It's about the so-called aviation the bait of a new generation.

FODT is a towed fiber optic demonstrator for the protection of manned aircraft. BAE Systems notes that the updated module is suitable for use on any type of aircraft. In fact, it is a “more obvious target” flying after an airplane, emitting signals in several ranges. It is noted that the new development increases the spectrum of signal emission, and this, in turn, will expand the capabilities of the already proven “FOTD AN / ALE-55 bait”.

From a message from a representative of a British company:

The explicit towed targets that we produce allow pilots to complete missions in well-protected airspace. The ALE-55 FOTD kit is a reliable and powerful jamming system that has been successfully used on F / A-18E aircraft for many years and has been thoroughly tested in the air by other aircraft. As part of the contract for the development of bait with two radio frequency ranges, we will use the experience of working on ALE-55 to prepare military pilots to confront the threats that await them in the future.

According to BAE Systems Program Director Tom McCarthy, "the role of this tool is to protect the aircraft by aiming missiles at itself."

Tom McCarthy:

The purpose of this aviation "bait" (trap) is also to disrupt the enemy radar, to prevent the very launch of a rocket.

The radio frequency bait can work when interacting with on-board electronic warfare systems, as well as independently.

Comments

[Victor_B]

I have never heard of such a method.
The bait towed behind the plane!
Has this ever been used before?
Simple but tasteful!

[vadson]

As I understand it, you can forget about a maneuverable battle with this thing? or do they no longer need it? and if the rocket is guided at close range according to the "picture"?

[Victor_B]

Quote: vadson

as I understand it, you can forget about the maneuverable battle with this thing

Well come off, that's all!
And to hell with her.
We are fighting.

[parkello]

this bait works like this. as long as the planes go to break through the air defense they pull it along, As soon as an irradiation signal appears and lead the target, the plane makes a maneuver abruptly freeing itself from the cargo and goes the other way, thereby luring the rocket toward itself and firing light points of air defense systems. against the Su-35, such tricks are not relevant of course, but they can deceive an air defense system. although if the object is well protected, the pilot is clearly a kamikaze, 1 missiles go to 2 target, when there are fights, 2 pieces each, and sometimes three are fired, which would be for sure, depending on which target is of course.

[abyssal]

Quote: vadson

As I understand it, you can forget about a maneuverable battle with this thing? or do they no longer need it? and if the rocket is guided at close range according to the "picture"?

Well, when was the last time there were "mobile battles"?

[vadson]

Well, after 2mv, the Americans also removed artillery weapons from aircraft, assuming that dog dumps are history. but it was not there

[abyssal]

Quote: vadson

Well, after 2mv, the Americans also removed artillery weapons from aircraft, assuming that dog dumps are history. but it was not there

So what about "it was not there"?

[vadson]

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Like the other fighters of its generation, the F-4 did not have cannon weapons, the built-in 20-mm Vulcan gun appeared on the F-4E modification during the Vietnam War.
According to detailed statistics from the American almanac, relating only to the US Air Force (data on the Navy and the ILC are not there), for the entire time of the Vietnam War, the F-4 chalked up 106,5 victories in air battles (66 MiG-21, 33,5 MiG-17 (1 joint) and 8 MiG-19 and another 1 Chinese MiG-17) [30] [30] [31] [32]. According to Soviet data, the loss of the MiG-21 from the actions of the "Phantoms" amounted to 54 vehicles. John Sherwood claims 277 air victories without giving any details [33], but North Vietnam lost 134 aircraft for all reasons [34].

Losses amounted to, according to Soviet data, 122 aircraft (103 were shot down by Vietnamese MiG-21s, 14 MiG-17s, 3 MiG-19s and 2 more were shot down by Chinese MiG-19s, according to American data, the US Air Force lost 67 aircraft of all types in air battles [ 35] [36] [37] [38] [39].

During air battles, air-to-air missiles showed low accuracy, which made the guns return to planes. At the initial stage of the war, F-4C / D fighters had an AIM-9E missile efficiency of 13,2%. Of the 612 AIM-7 missiles fired throughout the war, 57 (9,3%) hit the target. For AIM-4, the effectiveness of the entire war was 10,4%. For the first year of use, North Vietnamese hit the target 34,7% of the R-3C missiles launched.

Throughout the war, for all reasons, 761 to 895 F-4s were lost, more than any other aircraft

[abyssal]

Since the Vietnam War? Those. more than 50 years ago? Thanks to the expert!

[REEKMAN]

Offer your vision of the situation! everyone knows how to criticize with a smart look, you put your thoughts to the general court, a whistleblower of concepts ...

[abyssal]

Poke your parents. I do not need.

[REEKMAN]

I can do without these tips. On the topic of discussion have something to say?

[abyssal]

Quote: REEKMAN

I can do without these tips. On the topic of discussion have something to say?

Many things. Learn to communicate - come and talk.

[Jack O'Neill]

Well, after 2mv, the Americans also removed artillery weapons from aircraft, assuming that dog dumps are history. but it was not there

Only Phantom II did not have an airborne gun, since it is an interceptor!
Other planes had guns.

[Good_Anonymous]

Quote: vadson

well, after 2mv, the Americans also removed artillery weapons from aircraft

Everyone did it. On the MiG-21, too, initially there was no gun.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: abyssal

Quote: vadson

As I understand it, you can forget about a maneuverable battle with this thing? or do they no longer need it? and if the rocket is guided at close range according to the "picture"?

Well, when was the last time there were "mobile battles"?

And when was the last time there were no maneuverable battles, when several groups of aircraft fought?

[abyssal]

Quote: Vol4ara

And when was the last time there were no maneuverable battles, when several groups of aircraft fought?

This is the answer to the question "when was the last time there were maneuver battles"? Problems answering?

[Vol4ara]

Quote: abyssal

Quote: Vol4ara

And when was the last time there were no maneuverable battles, when several groups of aircraft fought?

This is the answer to the question "when was the last time there were maneuver battles"? Problems answering?

You did not ask me this question.
And this is your answer to the question "when was the last time there were no maneuverable battles." Problems answering?

[abyssal]

Quote: Vol4ara

You did not ask me this question?

And why did you get into the discussion? Well, let me ask you one, and when you answer, I will answer your question.

[lucul]

Well, when was the last time there were "mobile battles"?

The question is incorrect.
Not when they were, but when they will. In any war between countries having a sufficient fleet.
Like Pakistan and India for example. Or do you think that countries will fight on the same plane?
I have always been touched by such questions)))

[knn54]

As an option, the FOTD bait will be issued from a hanging container, and after use - back to the container.
Regardless, it is unlikely to succeed, the power will obviously be from the botnet.

[Avior]

They also have independent decoys, false goals.
Muldy and Italdy
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-TALD

[venik]

Quote: vadson

as I understand it, you can forget about the maneuverable battle with this thing?

========
Nope! And they (in the sense of the imitator) will pull him back on a string and drag him onto the pylon - and forward, into the "dog dump"! : laughing

[Siberia 75]

The classic confrontation between "armor and shells" at a new technological level. Who will be "smarter" Plane \ Rocket or Air Defense \ ABM

[arkadiyssk]

Of course it was used. 25 years already used on NATO aircraft. Tow trap AN / ALE-50. And in Iraq they used in Kosovo, etc. It is installed on bombers and fighters. Over 1000 sets have produced.

[YOUR]

So I have questions. How to supersonic or transonic speed to drag it along. But what about the exhaust. How many degrees are there. And what will happen when maneuvering. Apparently everyone at least once tried to slap a whip. Others, and in the ass themselves, were self-inflicted. The same principle, as if such a bait itself worked no worse than an enemy rocket.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Victor_B

I have never heard of such a method.
The bait towed behind the plane!
Has this ever been used before?

Yes, a long time ago!

[Professor]

Quote: YOUR

So I have questions. How to supersonic or transonic speed to drag it along. But what about the exhaust. How many degrees are there. And what will happen when maneuvering. Apparently everyone at least once tried to slap a whip. Others, and in the ass themselves, were self-inflicted. The same principle, as if such a bait itself worked no worse than an enemy rocket.

Exhaust? So she attaches to the wing.

Quote: Victor_B

I have never heard of such a method.
The bait towed behind the plane!
Has this ever been used before?
Simple but tasteful!

Not used, but applied. And they were successfully applied. In the same Yugoslavia, such a bait is in the museum. Her air defense shot down instead of an airplane.

[Fedorov]

But what about the carrier's maneuverability? And if the head is heat-guided? Even if this crap is shot down, the real one will appear on the radar instantly. Vague doubts gnaw at me that it will be able to interfere with the operation of the radar, say, "Buk" or S-300.

[Professor]

Quote: Fedorov

But what about the carrier's maneuverability? And if the head is heat-guided? Even if this crap is shot down, the real one will appear on the radar instantly. Vague doubts gnaw at me that it will be able to interfere with the operation of the radar, say, "Buk" or S-300.

1. With maneuverability, there are limitations, but not critical ones.
2. The bait does not interfere with the radar. She stupidly takes on a rocket. Do you know why the fiber optic cable to it from the plane? What is being transmitted on it? Correctly. There is a radar installed that returns an amplified signal from an enemy radar and thereby the primary glows like ... As it should. The processor is installed on an aircraft.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Professor

Quote: Fedorov

But what about the carrier's maneuverability? And if the head is heat-guided? Even if this crap is shot down, the real one will appear on the radar instantly. Vague doubts gnaw at me that it will be able to interfere with the operation of the radar, say, "Buk" or S-300.

1. With maneuverability, there are limitations, but not critical ones.
2. The bait does not interfere with the radar. She stupidly takes on a rocket. Do you know why the fiber optic cable to it from the plane? What is being transmitted on it? Correctly. There is a radar installed that returns an amplified signal from an enemy radar and thereby the primary glows like ... As it should. The processor is installed on an aircraft.

That is, 2 signals come back, the first normal, the 2nd amplified? And where is the problem?

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Professor

Quote: Vol4ara

That is, 2 signals come back, the first normal, the 2nd amplified? And where is the problem?

The principle of operation of towed decoys ALE-50 is quite simple. After receiving the signal from the enemy's radar, the bait amplifies and re-emits the received signal, thereby simulating an echo signal from the protected aircraft. As a result, the enemy’s radar receives two signals: weak, reflected from the aircraft and more powerful, emitted by a false target repeater, which the ground-based radar or missile homing device perceives as a signal reflected from the target due to its much larger radar signature than the aircraft. The AN / ALE-50 towed lure also modulates the signal it emits to simulate aircraft engine signatures. This further complicates the work of ground-based radar or missile homing head in distinguishing the signal reflected from an airplane and the signal from a false target transponder.
https://topwar.ru/12650-buksiruemye-lozhnye-celi-raytheon-v-ale-50.html

And what prevents to reject a strong signal and process only a weak one, provided that you receive exactly 2 signals? What to do when 2 missiles are fired at a target? What to do when a multispectral head on a rocket? And if the ground radars are networked, the reflected weak signal from the glider for different radars will be different, and the bait will shine the same in all directions, although here I am mb and I’m mistaken, an attempt at logical reasoning

[Avior]

And if you receive several signals?
For example, from a missile launched by an airplane-target or a dropped bomb?
During the battle on the air, there is plenty of everything.
GOS captures only one target, the rest are filtered out as interference.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Avior

And if you receive several signals?
For example, from a missile launched by an airplane-target or a dropped bomb?
During the battle on the air, there is plenty of everything.
GOS captures only one target, the rest are filtered out as interference.

To launch a rocket, the plane must turn on its radar, and that’s all, that’s all the camouflage ends. If the plane throws bombs, then your air defense is already crap and the bombs are falling down, separating their signal is not a problem, the same applies to missiles, their speed and the speed of the plane are different

[Avior]

Who told you that a radar is necessary?
Can shoot through the ground through the OLS, for example.
And modern bombs can be dropped outside the air defense, up to 100 km or more.
And it’s not at all a fact that the GOS generally distinguishes that signal 2 is identical in shape, and the signal from the plane is simply lost against the background of the signal from the trap.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Avior

Who told you that a radar is necessary?
Can shoot through the ground through the OLS, for example.
And modern bombs can be dropped outside the air defense, up to 100 km or more.
And it’s not at all a fact that the GOS generally distinguishes that signal 2 is identical in shape, and the signal from the plane is simply lost against the background of the signal from the trap.

100km is not the limit of air defense, far from the limit. If you are going to shoot at the ground through the OLS, then through the OLS they can shoot at you and the towed interference will not save you. The signals come at different times, in the sense not to distinguish? And here the conversation is not about GOS missiles, but about ground-based radar. If the target teaches 2 stations what signal the towed device will receive, the one that came from the left or from the front or maybe to the right, as a result, there will be 2 signals in general, the first weak and the second strong and the other

[Avior]

The distance between the plane and the trap is not enough for the distance to be seen by the GOS.
Yes, and for the radar there may be a problem.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Avior

The distance between the plane and the trap is not enough for the distance to be seen by the GOS.
Yes, and for the radar there may be a problem.

It’s not about distance, but about the fact that if you train a 2 radar plane from different angles, then the weak signals will be different, and the strong one from interference is always one

[Avior]

the distance between the trap and the plane is below the possible resolution of the GOS - this was discussed.
And the word hindrance can be misleading for you - this is not a hindrance, but a false goal.

[Good_Anonymous]

Quote: Vol4ara

And what prevents to reject a strong signal and process only a weak

Probably the fact that a false signal can be weakened.

Quote: Vol4ara

So what about when 2 missiles are fired at a target?

No difference.

Quote: Vol4ara

What to do when a multispectral head on a rocket?

Put on a bait a multispectral emitter.

Quote: Vol4ara

To launch a rocket, the plane must turn on its radar, and that’s all, that’s all the camouflage ends.

By turning on the radar, the aircraft (possibly) detects its presence. But to determine the coordinates of the aircraft by radar radiation is a difficult task, and it is impossible to establish them accurately.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Good_Anonymous

Probably the fact that a false signal can be weakened.

And what will it give you? What rockets with an active head, instead of a bright bait, will attack the plane, that is, the only bright plus will be leveled?
You can stop and amplify the signal from the trap, but it will always come second, following the signal from the ground-based radar itself reflected from the glider, and this will be the basis for the system of selecting a false value from an airplane. But for missiles with an active radar head, this trap will really create problems, since they will automatically capture a brighter target, but with your proposal we turn this + into -, thanks)

Quote: Good_Anonymous

No difference.

Indeed, no, the first destroys the bait, the second plane, since there is no radiation from the bait.

Quote: Good_Anonymous

Put on a bait a multispectral emitter.

Tell me what it is, otherwise I do not know. Pay particular attention to how the bait will represent the aircraft in the optical range.

Quote: Good_Anonymous

By turning on the radar, the aircraft (possibly) detects its presence. But to determine the coordinates of the aircraft by radar radiation is a difficult task, and it is impossible to establish them accurately.

By turning on the radar, the aircraft always gives out its presence if it is not the lpi mode, which reduces the maximum detection range of the target. And by turning on the radar, the plane always gives out its coordinates, and there is no hemorrhoids in this, everything has been automated since the days of the USSR

[Good_Anonymous]

Quote: Vol4ara

Probably the fact that a false signal can be weakened.

And what will it give you

Nothing for me. But it will fool a rocket that selects a weaker signal.

Quote: Vol4ara

the first destroys the bait, the second plane

Or both are pointing to the bait, the first misses, and the second destroys the bait. Or both explode at about the same time to guarantee the destruction of the bait. Or the second does not have time to capture the plane.

Quote: Vol4ara

Pay particular attention to how the bait will represent the aircraft in the optical range.

I understand that you are not interested in infrared and ultraviolet?

Quote: Vol4ara

everything is automated since the days of the USSR

What all"? No one disputes that with any accuracy an aircraft with a radar on can be detected. But this accuracy is, by definition, less than radar detection accuracy.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Good_Anonymous

Nothing for me. But it will fool a rocket that selects a weaker signal.

A missile with an acrylic radar head always selects a stronger signal, but now we’re talking about ground-based radars that lead a missile about a target. Therefore, by weakening the trap signal you will not achieve anything. Sense in a trap emitting a weak signal - absolute zero

Quote: Good_Anonymous

Or both are pointing to the bait, the first misses, and the second destroys the bait. Or both explode at about the same time to guarantee the destruction of the bait. Or the second does not have time to capture the plane.

Our priority is to hit the target with striking elements as a result of undermining the warhead of a missile at a distance; We heard about a liner shot down over Ukraine, and so there the missile didn’t hit the liner, it exploded nearby, riddled with airplane fragments. Well, if a couch expert is planted for managing an air defense complex, he will undoubtedly do so, and 2 missiles at the same time will try to launch a kinetic interception with a missile designed for remote detonation, I don’t know how, I’m sure he will find a way out.

Quote: Good_Anonymous

I understand that you are not interested in infrared and ultraviolet?

Interested in, but I want you to talk specifically about how to simulate a trap, an airplane, in the optical range.

Quote: Good_Anonymous

What all"? No one disputes that with any accuracy an aircraft with a radar on can be detected. But this accuracy is, by definition, less than radar detection accuracy.

The accuracy of radar detection depends on the distance from the radar to the target and is of tremendous importance, but for some reason you throw it out of your reasoning. The plane that switched on the radar is direction-finding the ground radar in passive mode with the accuracy allowing rocket fire to be fired at it, if a missile with an active radar head is loaded into the missile system, then it can be fired at without targeting. Have you heard about lpi mode?

[Good_Anonymous]

Quote: Vol4ara

A missile with an acrylic radar head always picks a stronger signal

The rocket chooses what it is programmed to do. And you recently suggested "discard the strong signal and process only the weak". Thus, you offer an ideal way to disguise a real target - to keep a false one, emitting a weaker signal, next to it.

Quote: Vol4ara

if for the control of the air defense complex they plant a couch expert, no doubt he will do so, and 2 missiles simultaneously on 1 target and try to launch a kinetic interception with a missile designed for remote detonation

What a nonsense.

Quote: Vol4ara

Radar detection accuracy depends on the distance from the radar to the target

Accuracy is pretty little dependent on distance.

Quote: Vol4ara

The aircraft that switched on the radar is direction-finding by the ground-based radar in passive mode with accuracy allowing it to conduct rocket fire

One ground radar? With precision to fire? Well then, everything, kapets, you won.

Quote: Vol4ara

Have you heard about lpi mode?

Even if you hadn’t heard it before, this is not the first time you have mentioned it.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Good_Anonymous

Rockets selects what it is programmed for. And you recently suggested "discard the strong signal and process only the weak". Thus, you offer an ideal way to disguise a real target - to keep a false one, emitting a weaker signal, next to it.

Judging by will, there has not yet been an idiot who would program missiles to process weak signals in the presence of strong ones. And I suggested processing the first reflected signal, which would be weak, processing not weak a priori, but the first one that reached the radar, if it was strong, then processing strong, if weak then weak.

Quote: Good_Anonymous

What a nonsense.

The same senseless as the simultaneous attack by two missiles of the same target, probably in order for the pilot to have a chance to escape from both at once

Quote: Good_Anonymous

One ground radar? With precision to fire?

No, at least 2.

About imitation in the optical range, answer?

[Town Hall]

Quote: Vol4ara

About imitation in the optical range, answer?

Do you have any idea what the concept of "optical range" is used in guidance systems?

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Town Hall

Quote: Vol4ara

About imitation in the optical range, answer?

Do you have any idea what the concept of "optical range" is used in guidance systems?

Yes

[Town Hall]

And what if briefly?

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Town Hall

And what if briefly?

Do you ask a question in order to gain knowledge?

[Town Hall]

It seems that you do not understand what it is in reality

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Town Hall

It seems that you do not understand what it is in reality

Justify what causes your doubts

[Good_Anonymous]

Quote: Vol4ara

Judging by will, there has not yet been an idiot who would program missiles to process weak signals in the presence of strong ones.

How to know, how to know. Target selection algorithms can work, as a skajed, in an unintuitive way.

Quote: Vol4ara

About imitation in the optical range, answer?

No, for this you need to know more about the operation of optical GOS than I know. If the seeker is just looking for a bright spot, imitating it is trivial.

[Professor]

Quote: Vol4ara

And what prevents to reject a strong signal and process only a weak one, provided that you receive exactly the 2 signal?

He suggests introducing an algorithm into the rocket in which it would prefer an almost guaranteed shooting down to chase a weak signal?

Quote: Vol4ara

What to do when 2 missiles are launched on target? What to do when a multispectral head on a rocket? And if ground radars are networked, the reflected weak signal from the glider for different radars will be different, and the bait will shine the same in all directions, although here I am mb and I’m mistaken, an attempt at logical reasoning

Everything that flies falls and there are no non-downing aircraft. Traps have proven effective in battle.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Professor

He suggests introducing an algorithm into the rocket in which it would prefer an almost guaranteed shooting down to chase a weak signal?

If this is a missile that is being driven from the ground by ground-based radars, then these algorithms will be in the brains of this very radar, if from one point there are 2 signals, strong and weak, then you will attack the one that comes first, it doesn’t matter whether it is strong or weak, but the first will always come the signal reflected from the plane, and if in doubt then do more launches, the plane is always more expensive than a rocket.
Regarding your second thesis, I agree, traps add hemorrhoids, but this is not critical.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Vol4ara

And what prevents to reject a strong signal and process only a weak one, provided that you receive exactly the 2 signal? What to do when 2 missiles are launched on target?

As it seems to me, the "clumsy" explanations of some tovarisches prevent you from understanding the "essence"! And the "essence" is this: the reflected radar signal from a larger object (aircraft) is "stronger" ... the reflected signal from an object that is smaller than the aircraft (trap) is "weaker" ... The aircraft, having caught the radar signal, determines the necessary parameters and transmits them to the trap via FOCL ... the trap with the help of active (!) equipment, using information about the parameters, reproduces a radio signal that simulates a radar signal reflected from an aircraft; that is, stronger than a "passive" one, a radio signal reflected from a trap smaller than an airplane ...

[SETSET]

Nikolaevich I (Vladimir)

Quote: Nikolaevich I

The aircraft, having caught the radar signal, determines the necessary parameters and transmits them to the trap via FOCL ... the trap with the help of active (!) Equipment, using information about the parameters, reproduces a radio signal that simulates the radar signal reflected from the aircraft; that is, stronger than "passive", reflected from a trap that is smaller than an airplane, a radio signal ...

And in what time, having received the reflected signal, can the trap simulate the reflected signal? Apparently more than 10 μs (10x10 ^ -6 sec) Do not forget
1 μs = 150 meters and compare with the resolution of the radar of the enemy (in our case, Russian). The result of you all here in VO will amaze. Not so smooth with "traps" from BAE Systems and others from other firms. There are many ways to neutralize these traps.

[Lord of the Sith]

Some kind of bootor is this. A trailer on a cable from an airplane, smacks of 50's technology.
I’m silent how he will take off with this balalaika))

[tlauicol]

Quote: Lord of the Sith

Some kind of bootor is this. A trailer on a cable from an airplane, smacks of 50's technology.
I’m silent how he will take off with this balalaika))

balalaika in a case. get it when you need to play

[Professor]

Quote: Lord of the Sith

Some kind of bootor is this. A trailer on a cable from an airplane, smacks of 50's technology.
I’m silent how he will take off with this balalaika))

What is the problem? He is in the container. And it can be tightened back.

PS
Here is my article on lures.
https://topwar.ru/12650-buksiruemye-lozhnye-celi-raytheon-v-ale-50.html
Raytheon's towed decoys in ALE-50

[Zeev Zeev]

Here are the bastards, these British. Shaved off the idea of ​​"Raphael" presented two years ago

[Volodin]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

Here are the bastards, these British. Shaved off the idea of ​​"Raphael" presented two years ago

Fs fso fry. This idea belongs, of course, to the Americans. They used it back in the days when American aviation waged a war of independence - almost immediately after supporting the democracy of ancient Rome. Trump himself said ...

[abyssal]

Quote: Volodin

Quote: Zeev Zeev

Here are the bastards, these British. Shaved off the idea of ​​"Raphael" presented two years ago

Fs fso fry. This idea belongs, of course, to the Americans. They used it back in the days when American aviation waged a war of independence - almost immediately after supporting the democracy of ancient Rome. Trump himself said ...

I’m sure that you won’t take a prize at the World Championship of comments.

[Wedmak]

What will prevent you from teaching a rocket to choose the first of two close targets following each other? Even if it "glows" less brightly. An active seeker and a dozen lines of code for comparing the strength of the reflected signal, and all these developments will go to the forest.

[tlauicol]

Quote: Wedmak

What will prevent you from teaching a rocket to choose the first of two close targets following each other? Even if it "glows" less brightly. An active seeker and a dozen lines of code for comparing the strength of the reflected signal, and all these developments will go to the forest.

it's hard to see a flashlight in front of which a spotlight is lit.

[V1er]

If I remember correctly, we have air defense missiles stuffed with shrapnel. And the rocket explodes next to the target so that the fragments hit the target with great speed. In this case, this trap will be useless, the fragments will still catch the plane. The principle of kinetic interception, when a rocket hits exactly the target without shrapnel, is practiced in the American air defense system.

[tlauicol]

the shrapnel of the VV rocket flies to the sides, and not forward, the rods too. But the anti-aircraft gun behind the plane smells - kinetic will do nothing, but some S-200 will make a hole (it’s unlikely to hit)
it is clear that passive means are not a guarantee, but the survival rate of aircraft is increased

[Zeev Zeev]

This shrapnel will fly behind the plane

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Tlauicol

Quote: Wedmak

What will prevent you from teaching a rocket to choose the first of two close targets following each other? Even if it "glows" less brightly. An active seeker and a dozen lines of code for comparing the strength of the reflected signal, and all these developments will go to the forest.

it's hard to see a flashlight in front of which a spotlight is lit.

Put on sunglasses

[Zeev Zeev]

The missile will not corny see a less noticeable target, since it will be illuminated by the radiation of the bait.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

The missile will not corny see a less noticeable target, since it will be illuminated by the radiation of the bait.

It will create problems for missiles with an active and semi-active head, ground-based radars are most likely to be able to reliably select targets, for missiles with a multispectral head it will not care

[Zeev Zeev]

Ground radars will not be able to select two such close targets. A missile with a multispectral homing head has nothing to do with it.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

Ground radars will not be able to select two such close targets. A missile with a multispectral homing head has nothing to do with it.

Terrestrial radars will be able to distinguish 2 signals, the first which came immediately after the waves were reflected from the glider and the second amplified one that would come an instant later, since it needs to be processed and emitted. A missile with a multispectral head will switch to the infrared spectrum at a short distance and would not care about the radiation of the bait, although it will most likely take into account all incoming information and neither radiation from the target nor heat traps can deceive it

[abyssal]

Quote: Wedmak

What will prevent you from teaching a rocket to choose the first of two close targets following each other? Even if it "glows" less brightly. An active seeker and a dozen lines of code for comparing the strength of the reflected signal, and all these developments will go to the forest.

This is because they were produced in Britain. I am sure that if there was such news from the military-industrial complex of Russia, you are the first here to be a trendsetter, that this is a breakthrough and achievement.

[Wedmak]

Do not be sure of other people's thoughts - this is the time. I have criticized the RF system more than once - these are two. And even more so, you should not award your thoughts to strangers - these are three.

[abyssal]

Quote: Wedmak

Do not be sure of other people's thoughts - this is the time.

I read your comments before writing.

Quote: Wedmak

I have criticized the RF system more than once - these are two.

Yes Yes. I read your "article" about Russian software. Laughed for a long time.

Quote: Wedmak

And even more so, you should not award your thoughts to strangers - these are three.

Once again: I read your comments, where the wisest look like this: "There are no fools sitting and knowing what they are doing."

[Fedorov]

And there is also an optoelectronic detection and guidance system, or whatever it is called correctly ... In front of the pilot's flashlight, this "ball is clearly visible, for example, on the SU-30. So this device will generally be purple.

[Zeev Zeev]

At what distance does electro-optics operate and at what radar?

[Fedorov]

On the Su-35, for example, the radar is up to 270 km, the optical-location system up to 80 km, depending on the reflected surface and the course of the enemy’s aircraft, the range may fall.

[Zeev Zeev]

Up to 80 km is ideal. In reality, this is 40 km at best. And air-to-air missiles from the aircraft are still not controlled, so even if you detect the bait carrier with optics, you can’t do anything about it.

[Good_Anonymous]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

air-to-air missiles from an airplane are still not controlled

Actually managed (on the AIM-120D generally two-way communication). So, theoretically, you can convey some information about the bait.

[Zeev Zeev]

The AIM-120D has two-way communication for slightly different purposes. But the pilot still can’t control the rocket.

[Good_Anonymous]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

The AIM-120D has two-way communication for slightly different purposes.

But it is there. There are no known reasons that would prevent it from being finalized to receive the command "hit that target".

Quote: Zeev Zeev

But the pilot still can’t control the rocket.

If a computer can control it (and it obviously can), this is enough.

[Zeev Zeev]

In order to select targets at such a level, the radar in the rocket should not even be aircraft, but missile. But the computer cannot manage at a sufficient level, since it still needs to enter parameters that determine the priority goal.

[Good_Anonymous]

My idea is that the actual selection is carried out by the aircraft radar. Or, if you really do not follow the fantasy, together the radars of a flock of aircraft and ground air defense. Yes, I understand that this is not implemented anywhere, so from the very beginning I said "theoretically".

Quote: Zeev Zeev

the computer cannot manage at a sufficient level, since it still needs to enter parameters that determine the priority goal.

The manager of the radar software definitely has a set of criteria that determine what is the target and what is an obstacle.

[Something]

Fedorov (Valery)! For you and "friends" from Israel: "Detection range Radar "Irbis" Su-35 is D = 400 km for purpose with Image intensifier = 3 m2. Radar "Irbis" will discover F-35 with image intensifier = 0,3 m2 on distance D = 225 km. And don't listen to Zeev Zeev.

[Zeev Zeev]

We are not talking about radar, but about electro-optics.

[Vitaly Tsymbal]

I offer English scientists the idea (for free !!!!) - to create a tank - a decoy: a real one is coming ahead, and is towing a cheap copy that shoots firecrackers !!! Well this is how many pounds you can master !!!!!

[voyaka uh]

This will. And soon.
Just the opposite. Ahead will be unmanned tanks, baits with light weapons for reconnaissance, and behind - real ones.

[Avior]

Metallized film on a frame with a low trolley and a heater inside for heating.
So that anti-tank fuses do not work.
Shoot - I do not want

[Avior]

new version of the trap.
The traps themselves have been used for a long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ALE-50_towed_decoy_system

Released such a bait and BAE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ALE-55_Fiber-Optic_Towed_Decoy
Optical fiber is needed, since the most expensive electronics remain on the plane, the bait is a transmitter and an antenna.

I heard they developed a rewinder to return to the container, but I don’t know how it ended.

[Professor]

Quote: Avior

I heard they developed a rewinder to return to the container, but I don’t know how it ended.

Successfully.

[NN52]

All these towed traps, "yesterday" ...
They have already been replaced by BriteCloud from Leonardo, and not only from Italians, traps fired.

[Nikolaevich I]

1. However, the zur will have to be equipped with 2 radar seeker ... centimeter and millimeter ranges ... or, "long" millimeter range + "short" millimeter range. As an option: radar seeker + 2-3-band optical seeker (IR + UV; IR + UV + photocontrast (FC); IR + FC ...). 2. Also ... in the USA (and not only there ...) the development of an active laser seeker is underway ... It is possible to "add" an active laser seeker to the active (even semi-active ...) radar seeker ... that the "trap" is towed behind the aircraft at a relatively short distance ... AL.GSN can be small, relatively short range and "work" in the final section of the trajectory of the launched zur. 3. More: remember the zur 5V55 ... MIM-104 with the guidance system: "escort through the missile" ("semi-active" radar "sight" ...)! You can apply the improved method "tracking through a rocket" (active (!) Radar "sighting"). 4. Equipping the zur with a split (!) Warhead, including, for example, 2 homing small-sized interceptors with data exchange ...

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Quote: Vol4ara

And what prevents to reject a strong signal and process only a weak one, provided that you receive exactly the 2 signal? What to do when 2 missiles are launched on target?

As it seems to me, the "clumsy" explanations of some tovarisches prevent you from understanding the "essence"! And the "essence" is this: the reflected radar signal from a larger object (aircraft) is "stronger" ... the reflected signal from an object that is smaller than the aircraft (trap) is "weaker" ... The aircraft, having caught the radar signal, determines the necessary parameters and transmits them to the trap via FOCL ... the trap with the help of active (!) equipment, using information about the parameters, reproduces a radio signal that simulates a radar signal reflected from an aircraft; that is, stronger than a "passive" one, a radio signal reflected from a trap smaller than an airplane ...

I realized this, I’m interested in another moment - as soon as the wave from the ground radar touches the glider, it is reflected and goes back. On the aircraft itself, the received wave is processed in a computer, which after processing gives information to the towed emitter, all this takes time, small, but nonetheless. As a result, we have that 2 waves come to the earth, one is reflected, the other is amplified radiated, and between them there will be a time range, but it will be small. If the ground radar will distinguish them, but there will be no problems. In this case, such problems will only be for radar missiles, since the possibility of signal selection and interference is a priori lower than that of a ground radar

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Avior

the distance between the trap and the plane is below the possible resolution of the GOS - this was discussed.
And the word hindrance can be misleading for you - this is not a hindrance, but a false goal.

Where was this discussed? I initially said that the front reflected signal and the lateral reflected signal will have a different configuration. What signal will the trap give out? The one that needs to be simulated, amplified and radiated and which came from the radar located on the front or the one that needs to be simulated, amplified and radiated and which came from the radar located on the port side. If 2 signals arrive at 2 radars, one of which is strong and the same in configuration for both radars, and the second is weak and different for each radar (which is logical because the radars are located on different sides relative to the aircraft and irradiate the plane, respectively, from different sides) and if Since these radars are networked, they can easily determine where the trap is and where the target is. But all this logic collapses if modern methods of processing the incoming signal and radiation of its amplified copy back are so fast that in fact not one different signal will arrive to the ground radar, but one strong signal

[Avior]

The trap will emit all the signals that hit the plane, and the specific radar will consider everything else but its own as interference and filter out.
But in general, the trap is intended primarily for GOS missiles.