Jump to content

A couple questions about laser warning receivers


Recommended Posts

I was wondering if there's any chance that vehicles will be smart about not lasing enemy vehicles if they don't have to, since laser warning receivers are used by every side. i.e. an engagement at only a couple hundred meters. It seems silly to give away their ambush at a range where they could probably hit without the aid of the FCS and I was kind of surprised that the stryker MGS in ChrisND's recent stream lased the T-90 at relatively short range. 

 

Also, wondering if lasing for Russian/Ukrainian precision artillery rounds would warn the vehicle? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair question. I hope not as it will really degrade the precision rounds v US, to a point where there only use will be to get them to back them up to where you need them to be. Interested to see if you get an official reply. That MGS episode was pretty ugly, spectacular but ugly. Showed off the effectiveness of US precision arty and the value of  not letting a target know you are about to shoot. Defeating the US will require a fair bit of skill to hit them in the flank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if there's any chance that vehicles will be smart about not lasing enemy vehicles if they don't have to, since laser warning receivers are used by every side. i.e. an engagement at only a couple hundred meters. It seems silly to give away their ambush at a range where they could probably hit without the aid of the FCS and I was kind of surprised that the stryker MGS in ChrisND's recent stream lased the T-90 at relatively short range. 

 

I'm surprised the already established technique of lasing the ground under/to the side of the vehicle rather than the vehicle itself isn't implemented in some fashion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Defeating the US will require a fair bit of skill to hit them in the flank.

 

My concern is that flanking or surprise won't just be about skill and tend to be unnecessarily difficult if your units insist on always announcing their presence by directly lasing the enemy before firing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is that flanking or surprise won't just be about skill and tend to be unnecessarily difficult if your units insist on always announcing their presence by directly lasing the enemy before firing. 

 

Agreed, this is a concern for me as well.  Especilally after that MGS situation you mentioned :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the already established technique of lasing the ground under/to the side of the vehicle rather than the vehicle itself isn't implemented in some fashion.

 

Laser warning detectors are built to detect in a wide area around the vehicle, not just precisely on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any chance of lasing a vehicle just to make it shift or take evasive action - even if you don't have anything capable of killing it in the current postion?

The kind of lasers these systems detect are already attached to weapons that can threaten the vehicle. If you have the ammo, use it. Most receivers also face the turret towards the threat, so if you already can't hurt it then you're going to have a bad time if you lase it.

As for lasing near a target, there is enough diffusion of the energy in a laser beam for the warning receiver to detect any shot nearby.

Edited by Codename Duchess
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any chance of lasing a vehicle just to make it shift or take evasive action - even if you don't have anything capable of killing it in the current postion?

I don't think so.

 

Modern systems can find out from what direction they are being lased. That means that they will probably spot you if you lase them. So, unless you can kill it fast, lasing something is a complicated way of committing suicide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This brings us to the topic of device selectability. How automated are the procedures in tank gunnery? Can you selectively choose not to laze or is it all automatically built into the operation of the gun? I come at the question from the hobbyist end, never actually sat in a tank that wasn't a museum relic.

Edited by MikeyD
Link to post
Share on other sites

This brings us to the topic of device selectability. How automated are the procedures in tank gunnery? Can you selectively choose not to laze or is it all automatically built into the operation of the gun? I come at the question from the hobbyist end, never actually sat in a tank that wasn't a museum relic.

 

The gunner or commander in the Abrams has to press a button to laze a target, it is not automatic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there's been some sort of major change, the 1980s period Kladivo FCS used an LWR which sensed only the threat quadrant, not precise azimuth and elevation. As such, the LWR's capabilities mimicked those of RWRs (Radar Warning Receivers) commonly fitted to tactical aircraft. The information at this link, which deals with the technical capabilities and, if correct, remarkable capabilities of Shtora vs laser guided weapons, weapon designators and such, appears to indicate the ability to locate laser emitters has drastically improved, though the page doesn't give precise figures.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so.

 

Modern systems can find out from what direction they are being lased. That means that they will probably spot you if you lase them. So, unless you can kill it fast, lasing something is a complicated way of committing suicide.

 

I think giving specialist squads a M203-swap simple laser 'illumination'-module (mounted under a rifle witch has also a sufficient optics to aim the laser) to fool tanks in the far out to exhaust their smoke and to disrupt them would be a good tactic.

Of course you do it out of a "Wechselstellung" ! or an observation spot that will be vacated then

Edited by MikeGER
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lasing generally precedes a killing shot by a second or three. The target reaction is generally swift. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

Infantry "spoof" lasee against autocannon or 120/125mm airburst is a good way to lose that infantry.

shtora is 4 degree azimuth (istr).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lasing generally precedes a killing shot by a second or three. The target reaction is generally swift. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

Infantry "spoof" lasee against autocannon or 120/125mm airburst is a good way to lose that infantry.

shtora is 4 degree azimuth (istr).

It just cries out for a little remote controlled widget you could plant in front of your position.  Heck just lay the beam across the avenue of approach with no remote at all.  Its non lethal and will only work until the battery runs down  Just turn it on and bug out when they are a few kilcks out.  Preregister the mortar battery and FFE the second you see the smoke.  It surely wouldn't improve their day.

Edited by dan/california
Link to post
Share on other sites

It just cries out for a little remote controlled widget you could plant in front of your position.  Heck just lay the beam across the avenue of approach with no remote at all.  Its non lethal and will only work until the battery runs down  Just turn it on and bug out when they are a few kilcks out.  Preregister the mortar battery and FFE the second you see the smoke.  It surely wouldn't improve their day.

Nonlethal, but incredibly effective!

 

Everytime someone mentions this all I can think of is a tank in the middle of multiple of those devices. You turn the first one on, the turret auto-rotates to face it, you turn the first one of and enable the second one. The turret auto-rotates to face it. Repeat.

 

The turret keeps rotating. After some time the crew becomes to dizzled to continue the fight. I don't think that any crew is combat effective if all their vehicle does is make them sick.

 

Is there anything to prevent this from happening? If not, when will we see our first rotating tank?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apocal,

 

A provocative reply, to be sure, but would you please elaborate and supply technical specifics? I'd love to know more and see how much the situation has improved from when I first saw a Warsaw Pact LWR on a tank.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

I think currently there are precision direction finding sensors available to Shtora, allowing rotation of turret in the direct of the threat emitter. How accurate those are I am not quite sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apocal,

 

A provocative reply, to be sure, but would you please elaborate and supply technical specifics? I'd love to know more and see how much the situation has improved from when I first saw a Warsaw Pact LWR on a tank.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

 

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3786.html

The threat display consists of 32 LEDs and a digital readout in the centre. Threat direction is indicated by illumination of the LED closest to the detected angle, while the threat angle is also numerically displayed in the readout. The laser warning sensors are normally mounted on the turret.

 

While it may be less exact in practice, we've come a long way from quadrant threat displays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...