By: Mercurius
- 20th May 2016 at 11:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Got something to back your claim ?
I am not in the business of making 'claims' – I cite facts. And if unsure of my facts, I qualify them with words such as "To the best of my knowledge" or "If my memory is correct".
The AH-64 versus SA-24 incident was mentioned in a technical presentation made during last week's EW Europe conference in Rotterdam. I do not have a copy of the presentation (cameras and recorders were forbidden), but do have the notes made by someone who attended the conference.
Can't have been a valid engagement with dual waveband IIR then, because flares simply wouldn't work.
A bold claim! But there is a lot more to modern flare technology than the layman or enthusiast appreciates.
there's no way of knowing whether the missile fired in that specific instance was an SA-24 or SA-18, or even an SA-7. They would both generate the same alert, a MAWS warning.
According to the presentation, the threat was positively identified as an SA-24.
New
Posts: 330
By: Sigma4
- 20th May 2016 at 12:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A bold claim! But there is a lot more to modern flare technology than the layman or enthusiast appreciates.
Widely accepted fact. A flare is no more likely to fool IIR than it is to fool the human eye. Unless there's such thing as a holograph-generating flare that creates an image of a fake plane/helo in IIR.
According to the presentation, the threat was positively identified as an SA-24.
How the hell did they do that exactly? Helicopter systems definitely can't distinguish one MANPADS from another, let alone between two that are virtually identical but for missile internals. I'd sure like to see this presentation you mention and how they identified it so specifically.
By: Mercurius
- 20th May 2016 at 13:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That something is 'widely accepted' on enthusiast fora does not make it correct!
Is there evidence that the SA-24 seeker is of the IIR type? Even if it is, flares can be used to upset IIR seeker operation, and I have seen seeker-derived imagery that illustrates this.
I do not know how the threat was identified, having only the information contained in the notes. I will probably get my hands on a copy of the presentation eventually, but it may not be cleared for public release.
Perhaps other assets had noted the presence of an SA-24 vehicle in the area, and the launch was made from the system's known location.
New
Posts: 330
By: Sigma4
- 20th May 2016 at 14:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That something is 'widely accepted' on enthusiast fora does not make it correct!
It's widely accepted will beyond enthusiast fora, if it weren't, then there wouldn't be much point in IIR over IR.
Is there evidence that the SA-24 seeker is of the IIR type? Even if it is, flares can be used to upset IIR seeker operation, and I have seen seeker-derived imagery that illustrates this.
GOS is equipped with two image sensors are operating in different bands.
I do not know how the threat was identified, having only the information contained in the notes. I will probably get my hands on a copy of the presentation eventually, but it may not be cleared for public release.
At present it seems very, very sketchy. SA-24 identified by a photo of a truck with it mounted on it. That in itself is dubious. SA-24 vs SA-18 differentiation from a photo. At what range? Then helo has passive missile fired at it that is somehow identified as an SA-24, rather than an SA-18, or SA-18 or even an RPG, which would still have set the MAWS off.
Perhaps other assets had noted the presence of an SA-24 vehicle in the area, and the launch was made from the system's known location.
Well I think we need more than that before we can determine that a dual waveband IIR seeker was defeated by flares. Don't AH-64s have IR jammers too? ALQ-144? That would be more plausible.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 20th May 2016 at 14:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If they were on and functioning properly, I'd expect the MAWS system to be capable of detecting the incoming missile and launch flares. Since flares were not launched, it's easy to assume that the system was not working for whatever reason (be it maintenance, pilot negligence, etc.).
Lots of speculation here.. It could have been simple failure to detect a rocket launch..
Who or what is http://militaryrussia.ru? Is it an official outlet of the Russian defence industry or defence ministry?
At present it seems very, very sketchy...Well I think we need more than that before we can determine that a dual waveband IIR seeker was defeated by flares.
The incident was reported as just one small part of a 20 minute technical presentation. But whether "we" can or cannot determine what happened is unimportant. According to a senior engineer working the field of platform protection, the UK MoD has made that determination, which seems to have been accepted by the appropriate NATO working group. That is what I reported on this forum. If you have problems with the MoD's conclusion, or NATO's apparent acceptance of it, you will have to take it up with them.
New
Posts: 645
By: Scar
- 20th May 2016 at 15:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Igla, as well as its further development - Verba, has no imaging sensors.
By: JSR
- 20th May 2016 at 18:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And you have seen inside the seeker for domestic and export versions. Missiles are now country specific.
New
Posts: 330
By: Sigma4
- 20th May 2016 at 18:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Of course an IIR seeker is more difficult to defeat than the non-imaging type. But it is not invulnerable to flares, which is what you were claiming.
Err... yes it is invulnerable to flares. Would you confuse a bright ball for a helicopter? No, and neither would IIR.
Who or what is http://militaryrussia.ru? Is it an official outlet of the Russian defence industry or defence ministry?
You asked for evidence of guidance system. I gave it.
The incident was reported as just one small part of a 20 minute technical presentation. But whether "we" can or cannot determine what happened is unimportant. According to a senior engineer working the field of platform protection, the UK MoD has made that determination, which seems to have been accepted by the appropriate NATO working group. That is what I reported on this forum. If you have problems with the MoD's conclusion, or NATO's apparent acceptance of it, you will have to take it up with them.
You haven't provided proof of either, only unfounded assertion.
By: Mercurius
- 20th May 2016 at 19:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Err... yes it is invulnerable to flares. Would you confuse a bright ball for a helicopter? No, and neither would IIR.
As I said before, I've seen seeker imagery that shows how an IIR seeker can be distracted by modern flares. How well would your eyes cope at following a helicopter if I released several dozen "bright balls" near simultaneously into the general line of sight between you and the helicopter?
Flare manufacturers are not going out of business just because IIR seekers have been developed. They are rising to the challenge. It is not a matter of fooling the human eye, but of fooling the algorithms of a the seeker's software. That is an easier task.
You asked for evidence of guidance system. I gave it.
You have given a link to one site whose origin and expertise is unclear, and which contains a Russian-language phrase that *could* be taken as meaning an IIR device. Meanwhile, every other source I've seen states that the seeker is not of the IIR type.
You haven't provided proof of either, only unfounded assertion.
I was not trying to provide what you may or may not regard as proof. All I was doing was 'leaking' some relevant information from a closed conference that I thought forum members might find interesting. Whether or not an individual forum member accepts this information is immaterial to me.
New
Posts: 330
By: Sigma4
- 21st May 2016 at 09:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I said before, I've seen seeker imagery that shows how an IIR seeker can be distracted by modern flares. How well would your eyes cope at following a helicopter if I released several dozen "bright balls" near simultaneously into the general line of sight between you and the helicopter?
Where's the evidence showing any of this? If you want to go against what I've heard industry experts and pilots say, then please provide proof. Flares are a physically different shape, there is no mistaking them for the the IIR image of an aircraft. Gravity takes the flares down. If they actually stopped in the line of sight, the technology of the flare would be irrelevant, but they don't. And if they did, the missile would still be on the right course until they moved a short period later.
Flare manufacturers are not going out of business just because IIR seekers have been developed. They are rising to the challenge. It is not a matter of fooling the human eye, but of fooling the algorithms of a the seeker's software. That is an easier task.
Flares are still manufactured because there are plenty of non-IIR missiles still widely in circulation. That is all. The algorithms are based on shape comparison, so no it isn't.
You have given a link to one site whose origin and expertise is unclear, and which contains a Russian-language phrase that *could* be taken as meaning an IIR device. Meanwhile, every other source I've seen states that the seeker is not of the IIR type.
You have given no links to anything in order to back up some pretty massive allegations. And even taken on your word, the evidence alleged doesn't amount to proof as I've already pointed out. There is no definitive proof in your own allegations that it definitely was an SA-24, only that there were some in the country and a rocket powered something was fired at an AH-64. Hardly proof.
I was not trying to provide what you may or may not regard as proof. All I was doing was 'leaking' some relevant information from a closed conference that I thought forum members might find interesting. Whether or not an individual forum member accepts this information is immaterial to me.
So you can 'leak' that much, but no actual proof. How extraordinarily convenient.
By: Mercurius
- 21st May 2016 at 11:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Convenient for what? I do not work for Key Aero Networks, so anything I post here is done simply as a hobby. It earns me neither fame, glory, or cash. I have worked as a self-employed defence analyst since my 50s, and to date none of my clients has ever asked me for "proof" or "links" to justify the content of my reports. (Their response is normally to pay my fee, and start thinking about future assignments.)
As for my 'pretty massive allegations" - all I have done is to report briefly on a brief combat engagement from the Libyan campaign. Hardly earth-shattering stuff, and obviously of little interest to most other forum members. You seem to be the only person who feels impelled to argue with me.
But it is the weekend. Time to abandon what has become a pointless discussion, and focus on enjoyment...
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 21st May 2016 at 11:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, that's a given, but it would be nice to know some more details on the installed systems and their capabilities and limitations (e.g. weather conditions and so on). Like, e.g. perhaps it brings many false alarms so the pilot kept it off.
Based on the pics showing the AN/AAR-60 MILDS UV-sensors it looks like they have had the AMPS-M suite made by BIRD Aerospace, Israel..
By: Sigma4
- 21st May 2016 at 11:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Convenient for what? I do not work for Key Aero Networks, so anything I post here is done simply as a hobby. It earns me neither fame, glory, or cash. I have worked as a self-employed defence analyst since my 50s, and to date none of my clients has ever asked me for "proof" or "links" to justify the content of my reports. (Their response is normally to pay my fee, and start thinking about future assignments.)
As for my 'pretty massive allegations" - all I have done is to report briefly on a brief combat engagement from the Libyan campaign. Hardly earth-shattering stuff, and obviously of little interest to most other forum members. You seem to be the only person who feels impelled to argue with me.
But it is the weekend. Time to abandon what has become a pointless discussion, and focus on enjoyment...
Well there are types who like to claim superior technology and you may be one of them.
It is quite Earth-shattering because IIR is widely acknowledged to be invulnerable to flares. This is the opinion of a well-respected pilot on the matter:
Older generation IR missiles certainly had this problem, they also had issues with reflected ir energy from the ground. This problem has largely been solved in modern IRAAMs by the use of advanced software and imaging infrared sensors. In fact if you ever find youself being locked onto by an ASRAAM or AIM-9X, you may as well eject because once the sensor has it's teeth into you, it won't let go no matter how many flares you put in front of it.
Well yeah, when you make a wild assertion and back it up with fresh air, it's always a pointless discussion. Even taken on your word, there is insufficient evidence to confirm that 1) it was definitely an SA-24, or that 2) the miss was definitely due to flares. It's entirely possible the missile was another rocket-propelled device given the evidence, and/or that it missed due to range, no lock, incorrect operation.
By: ijozic
- 21st May 2016 at 14:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Based on the pics showing the AN/AAR-60 MILDS UV-sensors it looks like they have had the AMPS-M suite made by BIRD Aerospace, Israel..
Which pics exactly? From the photo on the previous page, it doesn't look like AN/AAR-60 sensors to me - the frame is different. They also don't mention Cobras here:
Did the USMC Super Cobras have some MAWS system installed? E.g. these photos are claiming to show the ones bought from USMC, but I'm not sure if they came with MAWS or it was subsequently installed.
MAWS sensors do like AN/AAR-60 to me: Here's one of the sensors from the crash:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246047[/ATTACH]
Casing is slightly different, but screw positions and small extruded component in the side/bottom part is exact match:
MILDS AN/AAR-60:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246048[/ATTACH]
Turkish militiary acknowledged the missile is shot down by a missile of unknown type. Also, they -indirectly- confirmed protective suite was on board; it was standard procedure to set system on auto before take-off, (can be set auto, semi-auto, manual, off or bypass) and investigation is ongoing as to why system failed to react to the missile (whether pilot forgot to turn it on, maintenence problem, defect, malfunction etc)
As for recent ex-USMC Cobras mentioned, they had no MAWS when they were transferred; They are refitted with HEWS as well, however:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246049[/ATTACH]
Those units have different engine exhausts when compared to standard Army Super Cobras, easy to identify.
Edit:
AH-1W in the back is the one shot down (tail number 10608 matching the wreckage pictures), picture from 2+ years ago:
By: ijozic
- 22nd May 2016 at 12:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
System is not AMPS-M. It is Aselsan HEWS. In short, its a combined defense suite for RWR, MAWS, Laser Warning, and RF Jammer:
Casing is slightly different, but screw positions and small extruded component in the side/bottom part is exact match: MILDS AN/AAR-60:
Turkish militiary acknowledged the missile is shot down by a missile of unknown type. Also, they -indirectly- confirmed protective suite was on board; it was standard procedure to set system on auto before take-off, (can be set auto, semi-auto, manual, off or bypass) and investigation is ongoing as to why system failed to react to the missile (whether pilot forgot to turn it on, maintenence problem, defect, malfunction etc)
As for recent ex-USMC Cobras mentioned, they had no MAWS when they were transferred; They are refitted with HEWS as well, however:
That's a very comprehensive reply. I searched, but I couldn't find any article on MAWS used on the Turkish Super Cobras, so thanks for clearing that out.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 22nd May 2016 at 14:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
System is not AMPS-M. It is Aselsan HEWS. In short, its a combined defense suite for RWR, MAWS, Laser Warning, and RF Jammer..MAWS sensors do like AN/AAR-60 to me: Here's one of the sensors from the crash.
Thanks, looks I was right on the AN/AAR-60 part but not on the AMPS. Interestingly, the HEWS looks like a standard system for many TKK platforms, including T129, S-70A, AS532UL, AH-1W, AH-1P
it's not clear why previous PM Davutoglu resigned, although the news came just a day after him publically declaring that Turkey was willing to invade Syria if need be
so it seems not unlikely that a military operation into Syria was the cause of the rift
from what I understand the PM acts as a balance to the Turkish President's power
with a newly elected loyalist, Erdogan now has pretty much free reign to do whatever he wants, whatever that my be
the goal is said to be the defeat of ISIS, however we all know the US and its allies aren't too keen on Assad either
the fact that Aleppo is edging closer to falling back into Assad's hands could be another reason for the US's increased efforts
and it certainly would be a motivator for Turkey, a staunch Assad opponent, to launch an invasion
with the excuse of fighting ISIS of course
but it seems more likely that the operations will focus on pushing back the Kurds and relieving pressure on the rebels in Aleppo
just as Russia came in to "fight ISIS" and then mostly focussed on the rebels
seems like everyone goes to Syria to fight ISIS, but no one really does...
By: maurobaggio
- 22nd May 2016 at 15:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lots of speculation here.. It could have been simple failure to detect a rocket launch..
In fact this is a realistic possibility, after all there are no systems with 100% reliability.
Among the various novelties from SA 18 when this entered in service in 1983 it has been included two modes in the trigger from the launcher that the operator could choose against the threat : the first mode were against fast targets (attack jets) and the second against slow targets ( helicopters).
As the missile were the same into the SA 18 launcher, this choice of ways by the it has seems a bit pointless, after all the rocket solid from the missile are also the same, however the difference between those two modes are about the fire solution that will be adopted by the missile after its launch.
In the case of the fast targets ( attack jets) the SA 18 will fly directly against the target as inherent in all previous soviet MANPADS ( SA 7 ,SA 14 and SA 16) .
But the second mode against slow targets ( helicopters) the images available from SA 18 and SA 24, that it has been show against at mock up targets both stationary or at low speed, the SA 18 and SA 24 has apparently been described an erratic trajectory away from the target, but subtly its changes the trajectory and hits the target.
SA 18
SA 24
In the case of AH 1W apparently in my humble opinion the missile SA 18 did not make such straight flew against the target, but it first climbing in the sky , and then already with the solid rocket off , the same its had headed against AH 1W.
This trajectory apparently erratic could have been put the SA 18 beyond the range or even confused the algorithms of the MAWS from AH 1W while the missile was climbing with the rocket on after the launch, but when it was dive against the target already with the rocket off the MAWS could have been unable to locate the SA 18 and launch the flares or even the to active jamming system in the top of the main rotor.
The problem with this seemingly erratic trajectory from the SA 18 and SA 24 against slow targets are that: it has been deliberately developed over many years to hit targets as attack helicopters from NATO since the early 80s by the former Soviet Union.
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 20th May 2016 at 11:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am not in the business of making 'claims' – I cite facts. And if unsure of my facts, I qualify them with words such as "To the best of my knowledge" or "If my memory is correct".
The AH-64 versus SA-24 incident was mentioned in a technical presentation made during last week's EW Europe conference in Rotterdam. I do not have a copy of the presentation (cameras and recorders were forbidden), but do have the notes made by someone who attended the conference.
A bold claim! But there is a lot more to modern flare technology than the layman or enthusiast appreciates.
According to the presentation, the threat was positively identified as an SA-24.
Posts: 330
By: Sigma4 - 20th May 2016 at 12:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Widely accepted fact. A flare is no more likely to fool IIR than it is to fool the human eye. Unless there's such thing as a holograph-generating flare that creates an image of a fake plane/helo in IIR.
How the hell did they do that exactly? Helicopter systems definitely can't distinguish one MANPADS from another, let alone between two that are virtually identical but for missile internals. I'd sure like to see this presentation you mention and how they identified it so specifically.
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 20th May 2016 at 13:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That something is 'widely accepted' on enthusiast fora does not make it correct!
Is there evidence that the SA-24 seeker is of the IIR type? Even if it is, flares can be used to upset IIR seeker operation, and I have seen seeker-derived imagery that illustrates this.
I do not know how the threat was identified, having only the information contained in the notes. I will probably get my hands on a copy of the presentation eventually, but it may not be cleared for public release.
Perhaps other assets had noted the presence of an SA-24 vehicle in the area, and the launch was made from the system's known location.
Posts: 330
By: Sigma4 - 20th May 2016 at 14:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's widely accepted will beyond enthusiast fora, if it weren't, then there wouldn't be much point in IIR over IR.
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-410.html
At present it seems very, very sketchy. SA-24 identified by a photo of a truck with it mounted on it. That in itself is dubious. SA-24 vs SA-18 differentiation from a photo. At what range? Then helo has passive missile fired at it that is somehow identified as an SA-24, rather than an SA-18, or SA-18 or even an RPG, which would still have set the MAWS off.
Well I think we need more than that before we can determine that a dual waveband IIR seeker was defeated by flares. Don't AH-64s have IR jammers too? ALQ-144? That would be more plausible.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 20th May 2016 at 14:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lots of speculation here.. It could have been simple failure to detect a rocket launch..Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 20th May 2016 at 15:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Of course an IIR seeker is more difficult to defeat than the non-imaging type. But it is not invulnerable to flares, which is what you were claiming.
Who or what is http://militaryrussia.ru? Is it an official outlet of the Russian defence industry or defence ministry?
The incident was reported as just one small part of a 20 minute technical presentation. But whether "we" can or cannot determine what happened is unimportant. According to a senior engineer working the field of platform protection, the UK MoD has made that determination, which seems to have been accepted by the appropriate NATO working group. That is what I reported on this forum. If you have problems with the MoD's conclusion, or NATO's apparent acceptance of it, you will have to take it up with them.
Posts: 645
By: Scar - 20th May 2016 at 15:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Igla, as well as its further development - Verba, has no imaging sensors.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 20th May 2016 at 18:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And you have seen inside the seeker for domestic and export versions. Missiles are now country specific.
Posts: 330
By: Sigma4 - 20th May 2016 at 18:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Err... yes it is invulnerable to flares. Would you confuse a bright ball for a helicopter? No, and neither would IIR.
You asked for evidence of guidance system. I gave it.
You haven't provided proof of either, only unfounded assertion.
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 20th May 2016 at 19:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I said before, I've seen seeker imagery that shows how an IIR seeker can be distracted by modern flares. How well would your eyes cope at following a helicopter if I released several dozen "bright balls" near simultaneously into the general line of sight between you and the helicopter?
Flare manufacturers are not going out of business just because IIR seekers have been developed. They are rising to the challenge. It is not a matter of fooling the human eye, but of fooling the algorithms of a the seeker's software. That is an easier task.
You have given a link to one site whose origin and expertise is unclear, and which contains a Russian-language phrase that *could* be taken as meaning an IIR device. Meanwhile, every other source I've seen states that the seeker is not of the IIR type.
I was not trying to provide what you may or may not regard as proof. All I was doing was 'leaking' some relevant information from a closed conference that I thought forum members might find interesting. Whether or not an individual forum member accepts this information is immaterial to me.
Posts: 330
By: Sigma4 - 21st May 2016 at 09:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where's the evidence showing any of this? If you want to go against what I've heard industry experts and pilots say, then please provide proof. Flares are a physically different shape, there is no mistaking them for the the IIR image of an aircraft. Gravity takes the flares down. If they actually stopped in the line of sight, the technology of the flare would be irrelevant, but they don't. And if they did, the missile would still be on the right course until they moved a short period later.
Flares are still manufactured because there are plenty of non-IIR missiles still widely in circulation. That is all. The algorithms are based on shape comparison, so no it isn't.
You have given no links to anything in order to back up some pretty massive allegations. And even taken on your word, the evidence alleged doesn't amount to proof as I've already pointed out. There is no definitive proof in your own allegations that it definitely was an SA-24, only that there were some in the country and a rocket powered something was fired at an AH-64. Hardly proof.
So you can 'leak' that much, but no actual proof. How extraordinarily convenient.
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 21st May 2016 at 11:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Convenient for what? I do not work for Key Aero Networks, so anything I post here is done simply as a hobby. It earns me neither fame, glory, or cash. I have worked as a self-employed defence analyst since my 50s, and to date none of my clients has ever asked me for "proof" or "links" to justify the content of my reports. (Their response is normally to pay my fee, and start thinking about future assignments.)
As for my 'pretty massive allegations" - all I have done is to report briefly on a brief combat engagement from the Libyan campaign. Hardly earth-shattering stuff, and obviously of little interest to most other forum members. You seem to be the only person who feels impelled to argue with me.
But it is the weekend. Time to abandon what has become a pointless discussion, and focus on enjoyment...
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 21st May 2016 at 11:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Based on the pics showing the AN/AAR-60 MILDS UV-sensors it looks like they have had the AMPS-M suite made by BIRD Aerospace, Israel..
http://www.birdaero.com/en/contents/page.asp?contentPageID=29
Posts: 330
By: Sigma4 - 21st May 2016 at 11:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well there are types who like to claim superior technology and you may be one of them.
It is quite Earth-shattering because IIR is widely acknowledged to be invulnerable to flares. This is the opinion of a well-respected pilot on the matter:
http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1030026&postcount=5
Well yeah, when you make a wild assertion and back it up with fresh air, it's always a pointless discussion. Even taken on your word, there is insufficient evidence to confirm that 1) it was definitely an SA-24, or that 2) the miss was definitely due to flares. It's entirely possible the missile was another rocket-propelled device given the evidence, and/or that it missed due to range, no lock, incorrect operation.
Posts: 612
By: ijozic - 21st May 2016 at 14:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which pics exactly? From the photo on the previous page, it doesn't look like AN/AAR-60 sensors to me - the frame is different. They also don't mention Cobras here:
http://www.deagel.com/Helicopter-Warners-and-Sensors/ANAAR-60-MILDS_a001597001.aspx
Did the USMC Super Cobras have some MAWS system installed? E.g. these photos are claiming to show the ones bought from USMC, but I'm not sure if they came with MAWS or it was subsequently installed.
http://defence.pk/threads/us-to-give-super-cobra-helicopters-to-turkey.132270/
Posts: 932
By: Andraxxus - 22nd May 2016 at 02:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
System is not AMPS-M. It is Aselsan HEWS. In short, its a combined defense suite for RWR, MAWS, Laser Warning, and RF Jammer:
http://www.aselsan.com.tr/en-us/capabilities/electronic-warfare-systems/electronic-warfare-self-protection-systems/helicopter-electronic-warfare-system-(hews)
According to undersecretariat for defence industries, 309 systems were manufactured in 2002, with integration was proceeding by then:
http://www.ssm.gov.tr/anasayfa/projeler/Sayfalar/proje.aspx?projeID=68
MAWS sensors do like AN/AAR-60 to me: Here's one of the sensors from the crash:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246047[/ATTACH]
Casing is slightly different, but screw positions and small extruded component in the side/bottom part is exact match:
MILDS AN/AAR-60:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246048[/ATTACH]
Turkish militiary acknowledged the missile is shot down by a missile of unknown type. Also, they -indirectly- confirmed protective suite was on board; it was standard procedure to set system on auto before take-off, (can be set auto, semi-auto, manual, off or bypass) and investigation is ongoing as to why system failed to react to the missile (whether pilot forgot to turn it on, maintenence problem, defect, malfunction etc)
As for recent ex-USMC Cobras mentioned, they had no MAWS when they were transferred; They are refitted with HEWS as well, however:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246049[/ATTACH]
Those units have different engine exhausts when compared to standard Army Super Cobras, easy to identify.
Edit:
AH-1W in the back is the one shot down (tail number 10608 matching the wreckage pictures), picture from 2+ years ago:
Posts: 612
By: ijozic - 22nd May 2016 at 12:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's a very comprehensive reply. I searched, but I couldn't find any article on MAWS used on the Turkish Super Cobras, so thanks for clearing that out.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 22nd May 2016 at 14:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks, looks I was right on the AN/AAR-60 part but not on the AMPS. Interestingly, the HEWS looks like a standard system for many TKK platforms, including T129, S-70A, AS532UL, AH-1W, AH-1P
Posts: 593
By: Sanem - 22nd May 2016 at 15:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Erdogan loyalist has been elected as the new Turkish PM
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/erdogan-loyalist-elected-akp-leader-turkey-160522051504462.html
it's not clear why previous PM Davutoglu resigned, although the news came just a day after him publically declaring that Turkey was willing to invade Syria if need be
so it seems not unlikely that a military operation into Syria was the cause of the rift
from what I understand the PM acts as a balance to the Turkish President's power
with a newly elected loyalist, Erdogan now has pretty much free reign to do whatever he wants, whatever that my be
meanwhile the US is stepping up official operations in Northern Syria, with a general making a visit
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/21/politics/top-u-s-commander-completes-day-long-secret-visit-to-syria/index.html
the goal is said to be the defeat of ISIS, however we all know the US and its allies aren't too keen on Assad either
the fact that Aleppo is edging closer to falling back into Assad's hands could be another reason for the US's increased efforts
and it certainly would be a motivator for Turkey, a staunch Assad opponent, to launch an invasion
with the excuse of fighting ISIS of course
but it seems more likely that the operations will focus on pushing back the Kurds and relieving pressure on the rebels in Aleppo
just as Russia came in to "fight ISIS" and then mostly focussed on the rebels
seems like everyone goes to Syria to fight ISIS, but no one really does...
Posts: 516
By: maurobaggio - 22nd May 2016 at 15:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In fact this is a realistic possibility, after all there are no systems with 100% reliability.
Among the various novelties from SA 18 when this entered in service in 1983 it has been included two modes in the trigger from the launcher that the operator could choose against the threat : the first mode were against fast targets (attack jets) and the second against slow targets ( helicopters).
As the missile were the same into the SA 18 launcher, this choice of ways by the it has seems a bit pointless, after all the rocket solid from the missile are also the same, however the difference between those two modes are about the fire solution that will be adopted by the missile after its launch.
In the case of the fast targets ( attack jets) the SA 18 will fly directly against the target as inherent in all previous soviet MANPADS ( SA 7 ,SA 14 and SA 16) .
But the second mode against slow targets ( helicopters) the images available from SA 18 and SA 24, that it has been show against at mock up targets both stationary or at low speed, the SA 18 and SA 24 has apparently been described an erratic trajectory away from the target, but subtly its changes the trajectory and hits the target.
In the case of AH 1W apparently in my humble opinion the missile SA 18 did not make such straight flew against the target, but it first climbing in the sky , and then already with the solid rocket off , the same its had headed against AH 1W.
This trajectory apparently erratic could have been put the SA 18 beyond the range or even confused the algorithms of the MAWS from AH 1W while the missile was climbing with the rocket on after the launch, but when it was dive against the target already with the rocket off the MAWS could have been unable to locate the SA 18 and launch the flares or even the to active jamming system in the top of the main rotor.
The problem with this seemingly erratic trajectory from the SA 18 and SA 24 against slow targets are that: it has been deliberately developed over many years to hit targets as attack helicopters from NATO since the early 80s by the former Soviet Union.