Countermeasures Effectiveness Against Man-Portable Air-Defense System.pdf

8/10/2019 Countermeasures Effectiveness Against Man-Portable Air-Defense System.pdf

1/11

Countermeasure effectiveness against aman-portable air-defense system

containing a two-color spinscaninfrared seeker

James JackmanMark RichardsonBrian Butters

Roy Walmsley

wnloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms


2/11

Optical Engineering 50(12), 126401 (December 2011)

Countermeasure effectiveness againsta man-portable air-defense system containinga two-color spinscan infrared seeker

James JackmanMark RichardsonCranfield UniversityDefence Academy of the UKDepartment of Informatics and Systems

EngineeringShrivenham, Swindon, SN6 8LAUnited KingdomE-mail:[email protected]

Brian ButtersRoy WalmsleyChemring Countermeasures Ltd.High PostSalisbury Wiltshire, SP4 6AS

United Kingdom

Abstract.Man-portable air-defense (MANPAD) systems have developedsophisticated counter-countermeasures (CCM) to try and defeat any ex-pendable countermeasure that is deployed by an aircraft. One of these isa seeker that is able to detect in two different parts of the electromagneticspectrum. Termed two-color, the seeker can compare the emissions fromthe target and a countermeasure in different wavebands and reject thecountermeasure. In this paper we describe the modeling process of atwo-color infrared seeker using COUNTERSIM, a missile engagement andcountermeasure software simulation tool. First, the simulations model aMANPAD with a two-color CCM which is fired against a fast jet model anda transport aircraft model releasing reactive countermeasures. This isthen compared to when the aircraft releases countermeasures through-out an engagement up to the hit point to investigate the optimum flarefiring time. The results show that the release time of expendable decoysas a countermeasure against a MANPAD with a two-color CCM is critical.C2011Society of Photo-Optical InstrumentationEngineers (SPIE). [DOI: 10.1117/1.3657507]

Subject terms: man-portable air-defense; simulation; infrared; electro-optics; coun-termeasures.

Paper 110863RR received Jul. 22, 2011; revised manuscript received Oct. 3, 2011;accepted for publication Oct. 12, 2011; published online Nov. 16, 2011.

1 Introduction

Man-portable air-defense (MANPAD) systems employinfrared (IR) seekers to lock-on to and track target aircraft.They are shoulder fired, quickly operational, and offerfire-and-forget capability. Coupled with the large numbersproliferated worldwide and relatively low cost, they currentlyrepresent the most serious threat to all types of aircraft.1, 2

To combat the threat of IR guided missiles, aircraft havebeen fitted with expendable decoys, i.e., flares, as a counter-measure. These proved very effective against first generationMANPADs that had no countercountermeasures (CCM)ability incorporated into their IR seeker. This led to devel-opments in MANPAD design to give the missile the abilityto discriminate between a flare and the target and continuetracking the aircraft.3, 4 In this paper we investigate whetherpre-emptive flares can prove more successful against aMANPAD with a two-color CCM than reactive flares.

2 IR Seekers

The design of an IR seeker consists of the dome, an opticaltelescope, some form of scanning technique, thedetector, and

the electronics for signal processing. The scanning techniquelookedat in this paper uses a reticle as a spatial filter to discernthe target from the background and optical modulation togive target tracking.4, 5 The purpose of spatial filtering isto maximize the signal-to-noise ratio of the target with regardto thebackground radiation. As thetarget is a hotpointsourceits signal will be a series of pulses with a chopping frequencyof

fc = n fr, (1)

0091-3286/2011/$25.00 C 2011 SPIE

where n is the number of pairs of opaque and transparentspokes of the reticle and fr is its rotational frequency. Bycomparison, the background will cover many spokes so itwill be seen as an extended source with no chopping. Thecombined signal is then amplified and electrically filteredwith a bandpass filter centered at the chopping frequencysuppressing the background radiation. An error signal is pro-

duced giving guidance information in the form of polar co-ordinates projected onto the image plane. The seeker willuse this information to plot a proportional navigation (PN)guidance course to intercept the target.6 The PN law issuesacceleration commands, nc, which areproportional to theline

of sight rate,.

, the closing velocity,Vc, and the PN constantk.

nc = kVc.

. (2)

As the seeker will not know the closing velocity, an estimatehas to be incorporated into the PN law. This can be based onthe known maximum velocity of the missile and likely targetvelocity.

2.1 Reticle Seekers

There are two ways a reticle system is commonly used to pro-duce the error signal: spinscan and conical scan (conscan).4, 5

In a spinscan system the optical telescope is fixed and the ret-icle rotates, as shown in Fig. 1.The reticle can have a risingsun pattern with a 50% transmission portion which modu-lates the amplitude of the signal from the target, Fig. 2(a).The amplitude of the signal from the target when it is in thewagon wheel section is proportional to the radial distance ofthe target image from the center of the reticle. To measurethe phase variation, a phase reference is needed and one wayto achieve this is through a pickup at every rotation from

Optical Engineering December 2011/Vol. 50(12)126401-1

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/11

Jackman et al.: Countermeasure effectiveness against a man-portable air-defense system. . .

Fig. 1 Layout of a spinscan reticle IR seeker.

the 50% transmission portion.5 A gimballed head gives theseeker a field of regard of typically 120. These systems givethe unique position of the target within the field of view(FOV), but are insensitive to on-axis targets due to a lossof amplitude modulation (AM) when the target image is atthe center of the reticle. Because of this they are sometimes

termed center null systems.In a conscan seeker the problem of on-axis insensitivity

is overcome by rotating the optics instead of the reticle. Inthis arrangement the rotating secondary mirror is tilted andthe reticle is fixed. The design of the reticle can be a wagonwheel with a checkerboard center, Fig.2(b).When the targetimage is on-axis, a nutation circle is produced centered onthe reticle pattern. In this instance the detector output is aconstant carrier frequency. When there is a tracking error thenutation circle is no longer centered on the reticle and thedetector output is then a frequency modulated signal. This isthe case for small tracking errors when the nutation circle ofthe target image is still fully on the reticle. For large trackingerrors when part of the nutation circle is off the reticle, theoutput is essentially an AM signal. The magnitude of thefrequency modulation gives the off-axis distance and a pick-off gives phase variation to yield the position of the target inthe FOV.

2.2 CounterCountermeasures

Flares proved to be very successful at decoying any IR seekerthat had no CCM capability. CCMs use the inherent differ-ences between the signatures of an aircraft and a flare.7 Whena flare is released there will be a sudden, very large increasein the radiation incident on the detector. There will also be aneffect on the tracking caused by the flare quickly separatingfrom the aircraft, which increases the rate of change of the

line of sight rate in the current PN guidance course. Thesetwo events can trigger the IR seeker to apply a track anglebias (TAB) or a track memory for a specified duration. Atrack angle bias will stop the tracking and push the seekerhead forward at a preprogrammed angle at a certain rate.When this is completed the flare should have exited the FOVand the seeker recommences tracking the target. For trackmemory, the seeker will stop tracking but continue on itscurrent PN guidance course, i.e., applying the same rate ofturn acceleration commands. Again, this is for a fixed dura-tion, and when the tracking is turned back on the flare shouldhave exited the FOV but not the target. Both of these CCMsrequire there to be some amount of crossing rate in the en-gagement. This limitation means they are not designed for

tail-on or head-on scenarios. However, the easiest scenariofor the missile to obtain lock-on and track an aircraft is in therear aspect due to the greater emissions from a hot tail pipeand an exhaust plume.

An improved CCM that was designed to be more robustand work for all engagement geometries is two-color. Inthis instance the IR seeker is able to detect in two differentwavebands where the emission from the aircraft and flare donot match. The seeker can then either compare the ratio of thesignalin thetwo wavebands or tryand null thesignal receivedfrom a flare; both of which canbe incorporated into thesignalprocessing of the reticle tracker. Modeling a two-color seekerallows the chance to test current countermeasures against thistype of threat. Also, a two-color CCM is more likely to beactive prior to missile launch so the use of pre-emptive flarescan be studied.

Previous papers have modeled reticle seekers and two-color CCMs.812 They have concentrated on the design of

Fig. 2 Reticle designs for (a) spinscan and (b) conscan seeker.




4/11


Fig. 3 Hierarchy of items in COUNTERSIM.

CCM, whereas in this paper we have modeled the CCM totest the effectiveness of the aircrafts countermeasures.

3 Modeling and Simulation

Thesoftwareused to model a missile engagement with an air-craft is calledCOUNTERSIM, which is designed anddevelopedby Chemring Countermeasures, Ltd.13 COUNTERSIM isa dis-

crete event simulation tool that is designed to be modular andcapable of being tailored to the end users requirements.14

Figure 3 shows the list of items needed to model a MANPADengagement with an aircraft. The inputs depend on the typeof scenario trying to be modeled and the outputs from thesimulation can be chosen by the user. Each chosen output,e.g., target position/missile acceleration, is logged at timeintervals in the simulation and saved in a data file.

3.1 MANPAD Model

The first item in the MANPAD model is the tracker, Fig.3.This mimics the operator of a MANPAD who has to trackthe target and obtain a lock-on. The designator item specifieswhich target to track. Next, the missile system defines theprelaunch firing sequence. First, the seeker head is uncaged,then lead and super elevation are applied, and finally missilelaunch. All these actions are dependent on the seeker main-

taining lock-on. Super elevation is needed in every scenarioas there is a half second delay to the boost thrust until themissile is a safe distance from the operator. The initial ejec-tion is at a speed of 30 m/s, and in this time the missile willhave dropped slightly from the initial launch angle. Lead alsohas to be applied in scenarios where there is a crossing ratebetween the MANPAD and aircraft. The amount of lead andsuper elevation, and timings for each action, are set to enacta firing by a real operator.

The missile body item defines its physical characteristics.This includes the size, mass, drag coefficient, lateral accel-eration limit, and the timings/force of the boost and sustainmotors. All the values have been taken from open sourceliterature so the missile is an unclassified generic model.15, 16

The guidance unit item specifies guidance type and con-stant used in the PN law. The generic seeker item defines themaximum gimballimits andrates, which affect themaximumrate of turn achievable by the missile. Also, this is where themain detector and guard band waveband limits are set forthe two-color CCM. In the simulations the main band is 4 to5m and the guard band 2 to 3 m. Finally, the parametersof the optical system are set, focal length, F number, andoptical efficiency.

The reticle tracker sets the scanning technique and reticledesign. In this case it is an AM spinscan seeker with a risingsun reticle design, Fig.2(a).In the two-color configuration,alternate spokes in the reticle design are transparent to thedifferent detector wavebands.

The signal processor item is where the block diagram de-tail is designed, Fig.4.This allows the user to implement adesign of their choosing; the following describes the imple-mentation chosen for this paper.

Input 1 is the main band and input 2 is the guard band.A bandpass filter centered on the carrier frequency (or chop-ping frequency) is applied to the two waveforms of the sig-nals separately. Next, a full wave limiter is applied to the

Fig. 4 Block diagram design of the signal processor.




5/11


Fig. 5 Signal processor view for (a) aircraft and (b) aircraft and flare.

two signals set to the maximum signal level received fromthe aircraft. Then, a full wave rectifier turns both waveformspositive. The two low-pass filters applied to each waveformact as envelope detectors, essentially smoothing out the sig-nal, tp1 and tp2 in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b). As the shape ofinput 2 is a mirror image of input 1 (1 and 2 in Fig. 5),

due to alternate reticle spokes being transparent to the dif-ferent wavebands, input 2 is multiplied by minus 1. Afterthis, the two resulting waveforms are added together, tp3 inFig.5, and another filter applied to further smooth out thesignal, tp4 in Fig.5. Finally, another full wave limiter set tothe maximum signal level received from the aircraft givesthe tracking signal. The amplitude of the tracking waveformgives the radial distance,r, and the phase variation the polarangle,, in polar coordinates. The parameters for the filtersand limiters were calculated by running simulations with justthe aircraft and no flares then, just the flares with no targetsignature.

Figure5(a)shows the signal when just the target aircraftis in the FOV and Fig. 5(b)when the aircraft and a flare are

in the FOV. In Fig.5(b),tp3 is the combined signal from thetwo detectors showing the suppression of the signal tp2 fromdetector 2, the guard band. This detects in the 2 to 3 mwaveband and therefore will be dominated by the flare as itburns at a higher temperature than the target. Another effectof the suppression of the signal from the highest temperatureregion in the FOV is that during the end game of an engage-ment the missile will aim away from the hot tail pipe andexhaust plume toward the cooler metal parts of the aircraft.This can be a desirable result because the aircraft will mostlikely suffer more structural damage and be unable to landsafely.

3.2 Target Models

The two target models are a generic transport aircraft and fastjet, Fig.6.The fast jet model is based on a three-dimensional(3D) model of the AMX-A1; however, the temperature ofthe metal components and plume are based on open sourceliterature.5 Therefore, the results may or may not be indica-

tive of a real AMX-A1. On an AMX-A1, the flare dispensersare located on the side of the airframe. In the simulations,the flares ejected from the dispenser nearest the wingroot,highlighted by the largest oval in Fig.7(a).The flare modelused is a square format 218 in. magnesium Teflon vi-ton (MTV) flare with a radiant intensity profile provided byChemring Countermeasures.

Fig. 6 The two target aircraft models shown in the 3 to 5 mwaveband.




6/11


Fig. 7 Flare dispenser locations for (a) AMX-A1 (Ref. 17)and (b) C130 (Ref.18).

The transport aircraft model is based on a 3D model ofthe C130. Again, temperature contours for the plume andmetal components were taken from open source literature.There are two sets of flare dispensers on the C130 model.The first set is located under the nose and the second set islocated on the side of the aircraft in the aft end of the mainlanding gear fairings, highlighted by circles in Fig.7(b). Forthe C130model, the flare used isa 11 8 in. square formatMTV flare, again with a radiant intensity profile provided byChemring Countermeasures.

3.3 Engagement Models

In the first set of simulations the aircraft fly straight and level,on a constant bearing at an altitude of 1 km. The AMX-A1model travels at 200 m/s and the C130 at 150 m/s. To repre-sent the operational envelope of the MANPAD, the simula-tion start distance between the missile system and the aircraft

ranges from 1 to 5.5 km in steps of 0.5 km. Also, the aircraftazimuth angle with respect to the missile launch positionranges from 0 deg to 345 deg in steps of 15 Deg. An aircraftazimuth of 0 deg represents a tail-on engagement where theaircraft is flying directly away from the MANPAD operatorposition. This gives a total of 240 simulations (24 aircraftazimuths10 aircraft distances). In the simulations both air-craft release flares reactively at a detection range of 1500 m.TheAMX-A1 fires two flares, onefrom thedispenser on eachside of the airframe, Fig.8(a).For the C130 the simulations

are repeated, once for the front flare dispensers and anotherfor the side flare dispensers. In each case two flares are firedat the same time, Figs.8(b)and8(c).

In the second set of simulations flares are released ev-ery 0.5 s throughout an engagement up to the hit point. Theslant range is kept constant and the aircraft azimuth variedfrom 0 deg to 180 deg in steps of 45 Deg. Again, an aircraftazimuth of 0 deg represents a tail-on scenario. The simula-tions were repeated for constant slant ranges of 2, 3, and 4km. A limit was set on the aircraft altitude by a maximumlaunch elevation of 60 deg. For the 2 km slant range the al-titude varied from 300 to 1500 m in 100 m steps, for 3 km500 m to 2700 m and for 4 km 700 m to 3000 m. This gave13 simulations for each flare release time for a slant range of2 km, 23 simulations for 3 km, and 24 simulations for 4 km.

In all the simulations there is no cloud background, noatmospheric attenuation, and no noise included in the seekersystem. Modtran (Ref.18) can be included but this greatly

increases the computational time and makes large numbersof simulations unfeasible. This will therefore give the bestresults possible forthe MANPAD and represents a worst casescenario for the aircraft, which provides a good examinationfor the countermeasures.

4 Results

The primary simulation output is the miss distance, which isrecorded as the smallest distance from the missile body to

Fig. 8 Flare release characteristics for (a) the AMX-A1, (b) C130 front flare dispensers, and (c) C130 side flare dispensers.




7/11


Fig. 9 Results for the first set of simulations where (a) is the AMX-A1 with no countermeasures and (b) is the AMX-A1 releasing reactive flares.(c) is the C130 releasing no countermeasures and reactive flares deployed from (d) the front dispensers and (e) the side dispensers.




8/11


Table 1 PEH for each IR seeker and aircraft model releasing no flares and reactive flares.

AMX-A1 C130 Reactive flares

No flares Reactive flares No flares Front Side

Spinscan 0.19 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00

Conscan 0.11 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00

Conscan TAB 0.11 0.47 0.05 0.61 0.48

Spinscan Two-Color 0.23 0.38 0.17 0.63 0.45

Conscan Two-Color 0.20 0.34 0.09 0.27 0.33

Fig. 10 Results for the AMX-A1 model for constant slant ranges of (a) 2 km, (b) 3 km, and (c) 4 km.




9/11


Fig. 11 PEH versus flare release time for 2, 3, and 4 km slant ranges. Results for the C130 model using the front dispensers (a), (c), and (e)and side dispensers (b), (d), and (f).




10/11


any point on the 3D model of the aircraft. A hit is definedas a miss distance of less than 2 m, near miss between 2 and10 m, and a miss greater than 10 m. The miss distance ispermanently logged so the results can be reassessed usingdifferent hit/miss criteria. The results for the first set of sim-ulations are shown in Fig.9where the aircraft is at the centerof the polar plot and each point represents where the MAN-PAD is placed in relation to the aircraft at the start of the

simulation.Figure9(a)shows the results for the AMX-A1 releasingno countermeasures. Of the 240 simulations, 186 were hits,giving a probability of escaping a hit (PEH) of 0.23. Thiscompares to previous simulations of a spinscan IR seekerdetecting only in the 2 to 2.7 m waveband where the PEHwas 0.19.19 Therefore, the results are slightly worse for thetwo-color seeker, but the large improvement occurs when theaircraft deploys countermeasures. When flares are releasedreactively, Fig.9(b),the PEH is 0.38, compared to 1.00 forthe single detector IR seeker. This is also an improvementfor the IR seeker compared to previous simulations wherea TAB CCM was modeled. For a spinscan seeker detectingin the 2 to 2.7 m waveband, the PEH was 0.53, and for aconscan seeker detecting in the 3 to 5m waveband the PEHwas 0.47.7

For the C130 aircraft model when no countermeasuresare released, Fig. 9(c), there are 199 hits, giving a PEHof 0.17. This compares to previous simulations of a spin-scan IR seeker detecting only in the 2 to 2.7 m wavebandwhere the PEH was 0.27. When flares are fired reactivelyfrom the front dispensers, Fig.9(d),the PEH is 0.63. Whenflares are fired reactively from the side dispensers, Fig. 9(e),the PEH is 0.45. Again, this compares to a PEH of 1.00for both the front and side dispensers when reactive flaresare fired against a spinscan 2 to 2.7 m single detector IRseeker.

Table1gives a summary of the different IR seekers mod-eled to date; this includes one-color spinscan and conscan,

one-color conscan with a TAB CCM, and two-color spinscanand conscan. See Ref.20 for details on the two-color con-scan MANPAD model. The results give the PEH for eachIR seeker and aircraft model releasing no flares and reac-tive flares. They confirm the effectiveness of reactive flaresagainst one-color IR seekers with no CCM capability. How-ever, theinclusion of a CCM, eitherTAB or two-color,greatlyreduces the PEH.

The results for the second set of simulations for the AMX-A1 model are shown in Fig.10,where Figs.10(a)10(c)arefor the slant ranges 2, 3, and 4 km, respectively. The graphsshow the PEH for each flare release time for different aircraftazimuths. For the2 km slant range there is no aircraft azimuthof 90 deg or 135 deg because all the engagements resulted

in a miss, even when no flares were released. This is due tothe faster target having a greater crossing rate and the missilebeing unable to apply the required rate of turn for a successfulPN course.

Figures10(a)10(c)clearly show the timing of flare re-lease is critical if you want maximum protection for theaircraft. Firing after 4 s is too late for any engagement with acrossing rate. The worst performing is 0 deg azimuth, tail-on,where flares need to be fired prior to 2 s from the start of thesimulation. Also, in head-on engagements, 180 deg azimuth,releasing flares before 1 s is too early. This leaves a very shortwindow in which releasing flares gives the highest values of

PEH. The time is around 1 s, which corresponds to the periodof missile launch, and shows that a flare can still be effectiveagainst a two-color CCM if released at this time.

The results for the C130 model are shown in Fig. 11.Figures11(a)and 11(b)are for a slant range of 2 km withflares fired from the front and side dispensers, respectively.Figures11(c) and11(d)are for the 3 km slant range, andFigs. 11(e) and 11(f) are for the 4 km slant range. For a

slant range of 2 km, the worst performing countermeasure isflares fired from the front dispensers in a tail-on engagement,Fig. 11(a). Whereas for the side dispensers. there is stillthe window around 1 s in which the releasing flare givesmaximum protection to the aircraft, Fig. 11(b).

For slant ranges of 3 and 4 km there is no flare release timewhen the PEH is 1, irrespective of flare dispenser or aircraftazimuth, Figs.11(c)11(f).However, the highest values forthe PEH still occur between the times of 1 and 2 s from thestart of the simulation. This stage of the simulations coversthe period just prior to missile launch and the half secondignition delay on the boost thrust. At this time the missile iseither stationary or traveling at a low velocity. The presenceof flares in the seeker FOV at this time is likely to havean effect on the PN guidance course implemented by theseeker as it has to estimate the closing velocity. Overall, thedeployment flares around the time of missile launch givesthe best results for the aircraft independent of the aircraftplatform, distance, and angle of attack.

5 Conclusions and Future Work

An IR spinscan seeker with a two-color CCM was success-fully modeled. The model was then used to test expendabledecoys against this more advancedCCM. First, reactiveflareswere fired at a detection range of 1500 m which resulted inlow values for the PEH, especially with the AMX-A1. Then,flares were fired throughout an engagement to find the op-timum release time. For all aircraft platforms, distances andangle of attack releasing flares around the time of missilelaunch gave the highest values for the PEH. Therefore, flarescan still prove to be a valid countermeasure against a moresophisticated MANPAD with a two-color CCM capability.

Future work will be to model IR seekers with differentscanning techniques, such as rosette scan, which has bet-ter tracking than spinscan. The aim is to develop the bestperforming MANPAD model against which different coun-termeasures can be tested.

References

1. M. Richardson, The anatomy of the MANPAD, Technologies forOptical Countermeasures IV,Proc. SPIE6738, 67380h (2007).

2. Janes Intelligence Review, January 2003.3. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/ircm

.htm(accessed 2/21/2011).

4. J.May andM. VanZee, Electro-optic andinfraredsensors,MicrowaveJ.1983(9), 121 (1983).

5. R. D. Hudson,Infrared Systems Engineering, Wiley, New York (1969).6. P. Zarchan, Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance, American Institute

of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia.7. J. Jackman, M. Richardson, B. Butters, R. Walmsley, P. Yuen, and D.

James, Simulating pre-emptive countermeasures of varying perfor-mance against a Man-Portable Air-Defence (MANPAD) system witha track angle bias counter-countermeasures (CCM), Infrared Phys.Technol.54, 121129 (2011).

8. S.-H. Han, H.-K. Hong, and J.-S. Choi, Dynamic simulations of in-frared reticle seekers and an efficient counter-countermeasure algo-rithm,Opt. Eng.36(8), 23412345 (1997).

9. H. K. Hong, S.-G. Jahng, K.-S. Doo, and J.-S. Choi, Adaptive infraredcounter-countermeasures for two-color spinning concentric-annular-ring reticle seeker,Opt. Eng.40(6), 10931099 (2001).


http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.746609http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/ircm.htmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/ircm.htmhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infrared.2011.01.006http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infrared.2011.01.006http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.601462http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.1367344http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.1367344http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.601462http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infrared.2011.01.006http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infrared.2011.01.006http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/ircm.htmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/ircm.htmhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.746609


11/11


10. J. S. Oh, K.-S. Doo, Y.-I. Yoon, and J.-S. Choi, New two-color cancel-lation algorithm for counter-countermeasures of infrared seekers, Opt.Eng.40(8), 16991708 (2001).

11. J. S. Oh, S.-H. Lee, J.-S. Choi, and J.-T. Kim, Two-color infraredcounter-countermeasures based on the signal ratio between two detec-tion bands for a crossed-array tracker,Opt. Eng.44(9) (2005).

12. G. Kim, B.-I. Kim, T.-W. Bae, Y.-C. Kim, S.-H. Ahn, and K.-I. Sohng,Implementation of a reticle seeker missile simulator for jamming ef-fect analysis, in Proceedings of Image Processing Theory Tools andApplications (IPTA), pp. 539542 (2010).

13. http://www.chemringcm.com/AboutUs/TechnologyServices/Modelling

Simula/(accessed 8/17/2010).14. J. Jackman, M. Richardson, P. Yuen, D. James, B. Butters, R. Walmsley,and N. Millwood, The effect of pre-emptive flare deployment on firstgeneration man-portable air-defence (MANPAD) systems, J. DefenseModel. Simul. 7(3), 181189 (2010).

15. General dynamics,The Worlds Missile Systems, 8th Ed. (1988).16. J. F. Rouse,Guided Weapons, 4th Ed., Brasseys Land Warfare, E. L.

Korb, Ed., Brasseys UK, London, General Dynamics, Pomona, CA(2000).

17. http://www.enemyforces.net/aircraft/amx.htm(accessed 2/21/2011).18. http://www.bahe.be(accessed 2/21/2011).19. http://www.modtran.org(accessed 2/21/2011).20. J. Jackman, M. Richardson, B. Butters, and R. Walmsley, Modelling

a MANPAD system with a conical scan two-colour IR seeker, Proc.SPIE8187, 81870S (2011).

James Jackmanis currently a PhD student at Cranfield University inthe Sensors Group based at the Defence Academy of the UK.He hasa BSc degree in mathematics and physics from the Open Universityand an MSc degree in astrophysics from University College London.

Mark Richardson hasover25 years experience of electro-optics andinfrared systems and countermeasures in the defense industry andUK academia, and has written over 100 classified and unclassifiedpapers on these subjects. He is currently head of the Sensors Group

at the Defence Academy of the UK.

Brian Buttersis the manager of Modeling and Simulation at Chem-ring Countermeasures Ltd. He is a member of the Institute of Physicsand a Chartered Physicist who has worked in the EW industry formore than 30 years.

Roy Walmsley gained a BSc degree in chemistry from Leeds Uni-versity and has over 25 years experience in the pyrotechnic industry,including new product development, performance testing and instru-mentation, and latterly simulation and modeling.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.1386925http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.1386925http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.2047108http://www.chemringcm.com/AboutUs/TechnologyServices/ModellingSimula/http://www.chemringcm.com/AboutUs/TechnologyServices/ModellingSimula/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548512910366706http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548512910366706http://www.enemyforces.net/aircraft/amx.htmhttp://www.bahe.be/http://www.modtran.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.897118http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.897118http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.897118http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.897118http://www.modtran.org/http://www.bahe.be/http://www.enemyforces.net/aircraft/amx.htmhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548512910366706http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548512910366706http://www.chemringcm.com/AboutUs/TechnologyServices/ModellingSimula/http://www.chemringcm.com/AboutUs/TechnologyServices/ModellingSimula/http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.2047108http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.1386925http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.1386925

Documents

Countermeasures Effectiveness Against Man-Portable Air-Defense System.pdf