Weird New V-22 Osprey Paint Job

[SCFalken]

When are the V-22 squadrons scheduled to go operational?

 

Is the Army scheduled to operate them?

 

 

Falken

[JOE BRENNAN]

My assertion has always been that IR-suppressing paint won't materially affect the chances of a modern seeker to have a successful intercept. Changing the IR signature to another spectral line than that displayed in the pics is only part of the story. Believe marketing material at your own risk.

251064[/snapback]

The coating in the pics I showed doesn't "change the IR signature to another spectral line". That simple system just reduces solar heat absorption of the hull, with the slight trick of having a color shade that's not more reflective in the visible spectrum (white paint would have a similar effect but be more visible in daylight). And reduces the IR signature in the bands where typical seekers/surveillance systems look, as evidenced by the photo's from NRL tests, not somebody's marketing. I would assume more advanced coatings tackle more elements of the reflected/re emitted IR signature more effectively in more scenario's.

 

I'd also assume generally given the effort on IR supressing coatings in a number of programs that they can provide tactically significant advantages, I don't see info in the thread supporting the opposite idea. If a seeker can lock on, and once it approaches the target in the absence of IRCM or decoys then I wouldn't expect signature reduction to "materially affect the chances", but...

-it might significantly reduce the acquisition range at which the seeker can lock on. Example: F-22 has such paint; it's own IR weapon the AIM-9X is comtemplated to used at quite long ranges, described as BVR despite IR missiles usually being thought of as short ranged. The use of opposing missiles at similar ranges could be curtailed by the F-22's IR signature reduction, though not at close range.

-similarly with IR surveillance and targeting systems. F-22 v enemy fighters' IRST's at long range. V-22: MANPADS gunners lock on visually in daylight but need night sights at night when US helos often fly in combat to avoid them, may also use IRST's for cuing (like the one Brits use with Rapier).

-decoy systems need to pump out less target-mimicking energy to blank out a seeker if the target signature is smaller.

 

"Marketing materials" cuts several ways: seekers, decoy's, active IRCM, signature supression etc. doesn't argue for the non-validity of IR suppressive paint.

 

Joe

Edited November 26, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Brasidas]

The coating in the pics I showed doesn't "change the IR signature to another spectral line". That simple system just reduces solar heat absorption of the hull, with the slight trick of having a color shade that's not more reflective in the visible spectrum (white paint would have a similar effect but be more visible in daylight). And reduces the IR signature in the bands where typical seekers/surveillance systems look, as evidenced by the photo's from NRL tests, not somebody's marketing. I would assume more advanced coatings tackle more elements of the reflected/re emitted IR signature more effectively in more scenario's.

 

But Joe, that is precisely what I described. You have a certain amount of incoming solar energy, and a certain amount is reflected (which increases signature in IR or visible) or instead, is absorbed, and then re-emitted, spontaneously of course on another energy level not typically used by sensors.

 

I'd also assume generally given the effort on IR supressing coatings in a number of programs that they can provide tactically significant advantages, I don't see info in the thread supporting the opposite idea.

It might be because people have an incomplete understanding of the the principle of conservation of energy and the upcoming era of multi-spectral sensor nets. Just a guess.

 

If a seeker can lock on, and once it approaches the target in the absence of IRCM or decoys then I wouldn't expect signature reduction to "materially affect the chances", but...-it might significantly reduce the acquisition range at which the seeker can lock on.

 

I've never said otherwise Joe. As a matter of fact, I do think I stated that quite succinctly in a previous post.

 

Example: F-22 has such paint; it's own IR weapon the AIM-9X is comtemplated to used at quite long ranges, described as BVR despite IR missiles usually being thought of as short ranged. The use of opposing missiles at similar ranges could be curtailed by the F-22's IR signature reduction, though not at close range.

Then, that is a case of IR suppression in one band, that I have a hard time finding fault with, except it doesn't do anything with the other bands.

 

-similarly with IR surveillance and targeting systems. F-22 v enemy fighters' IRST's at long range. V-22: MANPADS gunners lock on visually in daylight but need night sights at night when US helos often fly in combat to avoid them, may also use IRST's for cuing (like the one Brits use with Rapier).

 

Light amplification is not the same as IR Joe. Most night sights tend to be amplification, not IR.

 

-decoy systems need to pump out less target-mimicking energy to blank out a seeker if the target signature is smaller.

Decoy systems typically work on the older and dumber seekers Joe, and in actuality, for the older seekers, it is better for decoys to have larger signatures, since the older seekers do not have a discrimination filter with selective logic, and instead go for the "easiest" target to see.

 

"Marketing materials" cuts several ways: seekers, decoy's, active IRCM, signature supression etc. doesn't argue for the non-validity of IR suppressive paint.

 

Joe

251181[/snapback]

 

IR suppresive paint is unable to defeat an IR missle with lock. DIRCM is capable of doing so. Older and present systems are capable of doing this, but the newest systems are even more capable against all types of IR seekers, not just the older types. So much so, that the CV-22s are being fitted with DIRCM.

 

[format error]

Edited November 29, 2005 by Brasidas

[Guest pfcem]

JOE BRENNAN

The coating in the pics I showed doesn't "change the IR signature to another spectral line". That simple system just reduces solar heat absorption of the hull, with the slight trick of having a color shade that's not more reflective in the visible spectrum (white paint would have a similar effect but be more visible in daylight). And reduces the IR signature in the bands where typical seekers/surveillance systems look, as evidenced by the photo's from NRL tests, not somebody's marketing. I would assume more advanced coatings tackle more elements of the reflected/re emitted IR signature more effectively in more scenario's.

 

Brasidas

But Joe, that is precisely what I described. You have a certain amount of incoming solar energy, and a certain amount is reflected (which increases signature in IR or visible) or instead, is absorbed, and then re-emitted, spontaneously of course on another energy level not typically used by sensors.

But you do not have to reduce the energy emmitted over the entire EM spectrum, only withing the relatively narrow spectrum the the sensors are looking in.

 

 

 

JOE BRENNAN

I'd also assume generally given the effort on IR supressing coatings in a number of programs that they can provide tactically significant advantages, I don't see info in the thread supporting the opposite idea.

 

Brasidas

It might be because people have an incomplete understanding of the the principle of conservation of energy and the upcoming era of multi-spectral sensor nets. Just a guess.

Again, as long as you reduce the energy emmitted withing the spectum the sensors are looking in, you will have reduced their ability to detect/track/lock.

 

 

 

JOE BRENNAN

If a seeker can lock on, and once it approaches the target in the absence of IRCM or decoys then I wouldn't expect signature reduction to "materially affect the chances", but...-it might significantly reduce the acquisition range at which the seeker can lock on.

 

Brasidas

I've never said otherwise Joe. As a matter of fact, I do think I stated that quite succinctly in a previous post.

1st you have to detect, then you have to track & then you might be able to lock. IR suppressive measures are not intended to cause a seaker to lose lock, they are intended to reduce their ability to detect/track/lock.

 

 

 

JOE BRENNAN

Example: F-22 has such paint; it's own IR weapon the AIM-9X is comtemplated to used at quite long ranges, described as BVR despite IR missiles usually being thought of as short ranged. The use of opposing missiles at similar ranges could be curtailed by the F-22's IR signature reduction, though not at close range.

 

Brasidas

Then, that is a case of IR suppression in one band, that I have a hard time finding fault with, except it doesn't do anything with the other bands.

Again, only the comparatively narrow spectrum the seaker is looking in matters. IR seakers have been "dual color" for some time & the latest 5th generation IR seakers are "wide" spectrum but they still only look in a comparatively narrow spectrum.

 

 

 

JOE BRENNAN

-similarly with IR surveillance and targeting systems. F-22 v enemy fighters' IRST's at long range. V-22: MANPADS gunners lock on visually in daylight but need night sights at night when US helos often fly in combat to avoid them, may also use IRST's for cuing (like the one Brits use with Rapier).

 

Brasidas

Light amplification is not the same as IR Joe. Most night sights tend to be amplification, not IR.

Not the same but in prinicpal, very similar just in a different area of the Em spectrum.

 

 

 

JOE BRENNAN

-decoy systems need to pump out less target-mimicking energy to blank out a seeker if the target signature is smaller.

 

Brasidas

Decoy systems typically work on the older and dumber seekers Joe, and in actuality, for the older seekers, it is better for decoys to have larger signatures, since the older seekers do not have a discrimination filter with selective logic, and instead go for the "easiest" target to see.

More complicated/capable seakers require more complicated/capable countermeasures.

 

 

 

JOE BRENNAN

"Marketing materials" cuts several ways: seekers, decoy's, active IRCM, signature supression etc. doesn't argue for the non-validity of IR suppressive paint.

 

Brasidas

IR suppresive paint is unable to defeat an IR missle with lock. DIRCM is capable of doing so. Older and present systems are capable of doing this, but the newest systems are even more capable against all types of IR seekers, not just the older types. So much so, that the CV-22s are being fitted with DIRCM.

Again, 1st you have to detect, then you have to track & then you might be able to lock. IR suppressive measures are not intended to cause a seaker to lose lock, they are intended to reduce their ability to detect/track/lock.

[Brasidas]

But you do not have to reduce the energy emmitted over the entire EM spectrum, only withing the relatively narrow spectrum the the sensors are looking in.

 

Again, it seems you are not aware that both seekers, and active IRCMs are becoming multi-spectral. If one or the other is active in one band only, they are by definition obsolete.

 

Again, as long as you reduce the energy emmitted withing the spectum the sensors are looking in, you will have reduced their ability to detect/track/lock.

Incorrect. Once you detect, you have a lock, and then tracking is quite doable as well. Also, as stated before, going single spectrum is a quick way to obsolesence.

 

1st you have to detect, then you have to track & then you might be able to lock.  IR suppressive measures are not intended to cause a seaker to lose lock, they are intended to reduce their ability to detect/track/lock.

 

Detection is the key. Detection is quite easy. Tracking is something that's been figured out for years now, not exactly rocket science. I've worked for a company that has an array that can detect a 1 m cube of ice in a 10,000 mile orbit in space using longwave IR. Using some decent filtering, it shouldn't be too hard to do the same in atmosphere.

 

Again, only the comparatively narrow spectrum the seaker is looking in matters.  IR seakers have been "dual color" for some time & the latest 5th generation IR seakers are "wide" spectrum but they still only look in a comparatively narrow spectrum.

By definition, IR is a narrow spectrum since all of the EM spectra encompass a far wider field. That doesn't change the fact that newer seekers don't look in just one spectrum any longer, they have a much wider "field" of regard and it makes counteracting them a bit more difficult, along with the "smarter" seeker routines.

 

Not the same but in prinicpal, very similar just in a different area of the Em spectrum.

 

Actually, not. IR is a much more commonly emitted spectra in atmosphere. There isn't a need to amplify IR at most times. Filter it yes, but amplify it? Not really. And if it is amplified, it is done with real time DSP usually to enhance the near-IR spectra for observation/targeting, but even that isn't usually required. Light amplification, or "night scopes" are using ambient light levels and increasing the contrast with the background light levels. Totally different in principle.

 

More complicated/capable seakers require more complicated/capable countermeasures.

Complexity isn't the issue. Something can be very complex, but limited in functionality.

 

What is key for seekers, is increased capability to track a target across a wide array of spectral lines. Commensurately, it becomes more urgent that countermeasures be capable of denying those spectral lines to the seeker.

 

 

Again, 1st you have to detect, then you have to track & then you might be able to lock. 

 

Again, detection is pretty easy.

 

IR suppressive measures are not intended to cause a seaker to lose lock, they are intended to reduce their ability to detect/track/lock.

252802[/snapback]

 

They can only preclude detection. Tracking is a function of detection. Lock is a function of detection. Therefore, again, detection is key and not too difficult, as long as you are looking in the right direction..

[mcantu]

Brasidas,

 

The Article I quoted above stated the following...

 

Boeing developed the topcoat to protect the aircraft against threats that use a broad range of wavelengths. The new paint replaces conventional topcoats, performing all the required environmentally protective functions while also reducing vulnerability to detection.

 

Also, I remember reading an article in World Airpower Journal a while ago that left me with the impression that when a seeker was "dual-band" that it was IR/UV (like newer Stinger models). That the UV portion would lock onto the 'hole' an aircraft would leave against a UV background.

[Guest pfcem]

Brasidas,

 

You seem to be missing the point entirely.

 

Before you can lock onto a target, you must track it (usually only a matter of seconds but it is by no means instantaneous).

 

Brefore you can track a target, you must detect it (usually only a matter of seconds but it is by no means instantaneous).

 

There are several ways one can mask or otherwise reduce an object's IR signature (including IR masking/reducing paint), which by definition would make it more difficult to detect/track/lock. Many of them are not limited to a small band of IR wavelengths (some undoubtably are).

 

You seem to think that all these IR masking/reducing techniques are only effective for one wavethength (or very narrow spectrum) while the sensors are able to detect accross a very wide spectrum of wavelengths.

[Brasidas]

Brasidas,

 

You seem to be missing the point entirely.

 

Before you can lock onto a target, you must track it (usually only a matter of seconds but it is by no means instantaneous).

 

Brefore you can track a target, you must detect it (usually only a matter of seconds but it is by no means instantaneous).

 

Actually, it seems to be you that is missing the point entirely.

 

Detecting a target is the only real hard part. Once detected, a target is trivial to track. Once detected, it is acquired and is "locked" on to, or in other words, it's position is referenced by the seeker and all relevant position data is refreshed on a real time basis. So you see, the only relevant topic here, is detection. Tracking and locking are both dependent functions of detection, and it is somewhat futile, to keep referring to them synonymously, as "detect/track/lock".

 

There are several ways one can mask or otherwise reduce an object's IR signature (including IR masking/reducing paint), which by definition would make it more difficult to detect/track/lock.  Many of them are not limited to a small band of IR wavelengths (some undoubtably are).

Do you have actual proof of this, or speculation only? The reason I ask, is because the nature of energy absorption, specifically photon energy in this case, is a discrete, and tends to absorbed and re-emitted in the same wavelength. This can be counteracted however, but usually not across a whole spectrum of EM energy. It would be kind of similar to saying, "this medium absorbs almost all visible light". You would essentially be talking about an object that was invisible to the human eye, through it's ability to soak up a continuum of EM energy in the visible spectrum, and since it couldn't violate the second law of thermodynamics, it would have to re-emit them in another wavelength. So you see, if you have an object, that converts energy and does work, it has to emit some of that energy sooner or later, and is therefore detectable.

 

You seem to think that all these IR masking/reducing techniques are only effective for one wavethength (or very narrow spectrum) while the sensors are able to detect accross a very wide spectrum of wavelengths.

252912[/snapback]

 

Presently, yes, IR masking techniques are very limited. Sensors are becoming more versatile in their ability to detect energy in a broader range of spectra. This capability isn't installed in every modern seeker component yet, but it will be eventually.

[Brasidas]

Brasidas,

 

The Article I quoted above stated the following...

 

Which is nearly useless considering one can take "broad range of wavelengths" and extrapolate it out to whatever one needs to take into consideration without more specific data.

 

Also, I remember reading an article in World Airpower Journal a while ago that left me with the impression that when a seeker was "dual-band" that it was IR/UV (like newer Stinger models).  That the UV portion would lock onto the 'hole' an aircraft would leave against a UV background.

252902[/snapback]

 

Really? I had an interesting discussion with several IR countermeasure engineers a few weeks ago. It definitely left me with a distinct impression that many of the newer threats coming, are going to be multi-band in the IR regime. I tend to trust their info since their continued employment depends on them being right, rather than the people at AW&ST or World Airpower Journal who can speculate less accurately and still have a job tomorrow.

[Guest pfcem]

Actually, it seems to be you that is missing the point entirely.

 

Detecting a target is the only real hard part. Once detected, a target is trivial to track. Once detected, it is acquired and is "locked" on to, or in other words, it's position is referenced by the seeker and all relevant position data is refreshed on a real time basis.

252926[/snapback]

If only it were that easy. You are completely ignoring the time & computational components.

A detected target is not a tracked target.

A tracked target is not a locked target.

 

 

 

So you see, the only relevant topic here, is detection. Tracking and locking are both dependent functions of detection, and it is somewhat futile, to keep referring to them synonymously, as "detect/track/lock".

252926[/snapback]

My "detect/track/lock"comments were prompted mostly by your comment that IR masking/reduction would not cause as missile to lose lock.

 

My point is that you must 1st detect the target (something that masking/reduction does effect) before you can aquire lock.

 

 

 

Do you have actual proof of this, or speculation only?

252926[/snapback]

Have your read any of the material posted in this thread?

 

 

 

The reason I ask, is because the nature of energy absorption, specifically photon energy in this case, is a discrete, and tends to absorbed and re-emitted in the same wavelength.

252926[/snapback]

I thought we were talking about IR waves, not photon (light) waves.

 

 

 

This can be counteracted however, but usually not across a whole spectrum of EM energy. It would be kind of similar to saying, "this medium absorbs almost all visible light". You would essentially be talking about an object that was invisible to the human eye,

252926[/snapback]

What a concept. Mask/reduce an objects visible signiture & it becomes more difficult to see.

 

 

 

 

through it's ability to soak up a continuum of EM energy in the visible spectrum, and since it couldn't violate the second law of thermodynamics, it would have to re-emit them in another wavelength. So you see, if you have an object, that converts energy and does work, it has to emit some of that energy sooner or later, and is therefore detectable.

252926[/snapback]

So you are saying that there is no way to mask/reduce an object's IR signiture.

 

It may come as a supprise to you but it is being done & has been done to some extent for decades.

 

 

 

Presently, yes, IR masking techniques are very limited. Sensors are becoming more versatile in their ability to detect energy in a broader range of spectra. This capability isn't installed in every modern seeker component yet, but it will be eventually.

252926[/snapback]

IR masking/reducing techniques are also working for broader range of spectra. The whole idea of masking/reducing an object's IR signiture is to do so to counter the sensors that would be used to detect it.