Stealthy F-35 Is Visible To Thermal Imagers

[Zarvan]

Screenshot of FLIR image of F-35
defence website said.

The much-touted ‘stealth’ features of the Lockheed Martin F-35 making it nearly invisible to radar, could be negated by a pronounced ability to be detected by infra red devices.

The heat signature released by the aircraft engines and other power consumption devices such as the radar could negate gains main by its stealthy characteristics aimed at remaining invisible to radar.

Fighter aircraft add-on devices such as the infra-red scan and track (IRST) sensor which several European and Russian aircraft are equipped with for certain missions, can easily detect the F-35 in beyond-visual range engagements, a defence website said.

A video released by FLIR Systems which specializes in the manufacture of infra-red sensors shows the heat signature of the plane in clear detail. The sensor used is theFLIR Star SAFIRE 380-HDc and tracking the heat signature has been done from a rather close range.

Nevertheless, it could be a potential chink in the armor for the US Air Force and other countries which have put billions of dollars in buying the F-35 whose main USP is its stealth capability.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/16822/Stealthy_F_35_Is_Visible_To_Thermal_Imagers#.V63nvyNRXqB

 

[C130]

this isn't new, but I believe IRST is best at seeing you when you are in full afterburner. way to limit being detected by IRST is to fly at angle so the IRST FOV doesn't pick you up.

if IRST is such a counter to stealth then I don't see why China and Russia would bother building their own.

 

[Penguin]

Yawn. So, whats new?

Or

Or

IRST is a generalized case of FLIR ( forward looking infrared), i.e. from forward-looking only to all-round situation awareness. Unlike naval ships, I don't believe combat aircraft currently have true IRST systems (no all round coverage), even if they have clearly moved beyond (fixed FoV) FLIR systems.

How do you look to the rear arc?

 

[That_engineer_guy]

The aircraft is like 2km from the FLIR , no amount of IR suppression can help in that case. And even radar will see it at that distance too. What surprise me is that the airframe is very dark , almost blend in with dark sky background. Even a tank look brighter than that

 

[Skull and Bones]

IR has serious limitations.

 

[forsigmar]

Everything has a heat signature but FLIR systems can be blinded by lasers, flares, and other decoys.

 

[Penguin]

The aircraft is like 2km from the FLIR , no amount of IR suppression can help in that case. And even radar will see it at that distance too. What surprise me is that the airframe is very dark , almost blend in with dark sky background. Even a tank look brighter than that

It's probably not been flying long (looks like vertical landing/take off testing). It may be different after a longer duration horizontal flight (air friction). You don't know whether the plane has been inside or outside a climate controlled hangar prior to flight, or whether the tank in the above pics has been sitting out in the field baking in the sun all day. So, that complicates the comparison.

See this article: http://defense-update.com/20160812_f35_thermal.html

The most intriguing view is the forward flight, showing the aircraft from a forward 3/4 view, in very high contrast to the sky but low contrast between the hot air and cold aircraft – note that the camera shows minimal difference between the aircraft and hot air plume of the engine exhaust. In the flight phases where the engine runs in high power, the contrast between the air exhaust and aircraft, especially around the engine, is striking.

The IR image maps the hot areas inside the wheels and weapons bays, which are covered in forward flight. Particularly impressive are the rear vertical engine doors – one side is boiling hot, the other side is as cool as the rest of the aircraft. Photo: FLIR Systems

Everything has a heat signature but FLIR systems can be blinded by lasers, flares, and other decoys.

I can still see the C-130....

 

[forsigmar]

It's probably not been flying long (looks like vertical landing/take off testing). It may be different after a longer duration horizontal flight (air friction). You don't know whether the plane has been inside or outside a climate controlled hangar prior to flight, or whether the tank in the above pics has been sitting out in the field baking in the sun all day. So, that complicates the comparison.

See this article:

The most intriguing view is the forward flight, showing the aircraft from a forward 3/4 view, in very high contrast to the sky but low contrast between the hot air and cold aircraft – note that the camera shows minimal difference between the aircraft and hot air plume of the engine exhaust. In the flight phases where the engine runs in high power, the contrast between the air exhaust and aircraft, especially around the engine, is striking.

The IR image maps the hot areas inside the wheels and weapons bays, which are covered in forward flight. Particularly impressive are the rear vertical engine doors – one side is boiling hot, the other side is as cool as the rest of the aircraft. Photo: FLIR Systems

I can still see the C-130....

FLIR/IRST systems are very effective. But IR countermeasures are cheap and have favorable cost effectiveness against investments in FLIR/IRST systems. Increasing and improving magnesium/thermite/flare emitters is cheaper than increasing sensor quality/resolution. Dedicated drones that jam and constantly emit IR countermeasures can defeat thermal imagers on a cost basis.

 

[Penguin]

FLIR/IRST systems are very effective. But IR countermeasures are cheap and have favorable cost effectiveness against investments in FLIR/IRST systems. Increasing and improving magnesium/thermite/flare emitters is cheaper than increasing sensor quality/resolution. Dedicated drones that jam and constantly emit IR countermeasures can defeat thermal imagers on a cost basis.

You're totally outside the ongoing discussion, thank you. I think you may be confusing with ways to defeat infrared seekers found in short (or not so short) range AAMs.

There's a good discussion here https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/airborne-irst-properties-and-performance/

Two relevant excerpts:

"Major advantage [of IRST] over the radar is that it cannot be easily jammed. As a result, actual tracking and engagement range of IRST can be expected to be greater than that of radar, even if latter has a major advantage in initial detection range. Jamming IRST with an infrared laser is a possibility (in theory), but it is very difficult if not impossible to pull off against a maneuvering aircraft. Operating modes are similar to radar: multiple target track (permitting engagement of multiple targets; similar in nature to radar’s track while scan), single target track and slaved acquisition (where IRST is slaved to another sensor, such as radar or RWR)."

"IRST is the best solution for engaging stealthy aircraft and cruise missiles. As it can be seen from the previous section, it is impossible to significantly reduce IR signature of a high-speed, highly maneuverable aircraft, and even low-performance aircraft that do have very extensive IR signature reduction measures are still detectable at large distances by new QWIP imaging IRSTs. Even against “legacy” aircraft its is a better choice than radar, as radar cannot separate valid contacts from decoys except at very short range – especially if it is being jammed. As a result, only IRST-equipped fighters can effectively engage modern fighters at beyond visual range."

See also http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA566304
Aircraft Infrared Principles, Signatures, Threats, and Countermeasures
by Jack R. White EO and Special Mission Sensors Division Avionics Department
SEPTEMBER 2012
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION
POINT MUGU, CA 93042

Also relevant is the concept of sensor fusion, where different target data sources are combined into a single tactical picture). This makes jamming a comprehensive job, as the (temporary) loss of one sensor does not preclude the continued use of another and hence a good target picture (even with radar off, and IRST blanked out, you still have ESM and data sharing via Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS)).

Counterstealth technologies, intended to reduce the effectiveness of radar cross-section (RCS) reduction measures, are proliferating worldwide. Since 2013, multiple new programs have been revealed, producers of radar and infrared search and track (IRST) systems have been more ready to claim counterstealth capability, and some operators—notably the U.S. Navy—have openly conceded that stealth technology is being challenged.

These new systems are designed from the outset for sensor fusion—when different sensors detect and track the same target, the track and identification data are merged automatically.
...
The bulk of Western IRST experience is held by Selex-ES, which is the lead contractor on the Typhoon’s Pirate IRST and the supplier of the Skyward-G for Gripen. In the past year, Selex has claimed openly that its IRSTs have been able to detect and track low-RCS targets at subsonic speeds, due to skin friction, heat radiating through the skin from the engine, and the exhaust plume. The U.S. Navy’s Greenert underscored this point in Washington in early February, saying that “if something moves fast through the air, disrupts molecules and puts out heat . . . it’s going to be detectable.”

http://aviationweek.com/technology/new-radars-irst-strengthen-stealth-detection-claims

The EOTS comprises a third generation FLIR, a laser, and a CCD-TV camera providing target detection and identification at greatly increased standoff ranges, high resolution imagery, automatic tracking, infrared search and track IRST, laser designation, laser rangefinder, and laser spot tracking.
http://www.deagel.com/Navigation-and-Targeting-Systems/EOTS_a001541001.aspx

 

[forsigmar]

You're totally outside the ongoing discussion, thank you. I think you may be confusing with ways to defeat infrared seekers found in short (or not so short) range AAMs.

There's a good discussion here

Two relevant excerpts:

"Major advantage [of IRST] over the radar is that it cannot be easily jammed. As a result, actual tracking and engagement range of IRST can be expected to be greater than that of radar, even if latter has a major advantage in initial detection range. Jamming IRST with an infrared laser is a possibility (in theory), but it is very difficult if not impossible to pull off against a maneuvering aircraft. Operating modes are similar to radar: multiple target track (permitting engagement of multiple targets; similar in nature to radar’s track while scan), single target track and slaved acquisition (where IRST is slaved to another sensor, such as radar or RWR)."

"IRST is the best solution for engaging stealthy aircraft and cruise missiles. As it can be seen from the previous section, it is impossible to significantly reduce IR signature of a high-speed, highly maneuverable aircraft, and even low-performance aircraft that do have very extensive IR signature reduction measures are still detectable at large distances by new QWIP imaging IRSTs. Even against “legacy” aircraft its is a better choice than radar, as radar cannot separate valid contacts from decoys except at very short range – especially if it is being jammed. As a result, only IRST-equipped fighters can effectively engage modern fighters at beyond visual range."

See also
Aircraft Infrared Principles, Signatures, Threats, and Countermeasures
by Jack R. White EO and Special Mission Sensors Division Avionics Department
SEPTEMBER 2012
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION
POINT MUGU, CA 93042

Also relevant is the concept of sensor fusion, where different target data sources are combined into a single tactical picture). This makes jamming a comprehensive job, as the (temporary) loss of one sensor does not preclude the continued use of another and hence a good target picture (even with radar off, and IRST blanked out, you still have ESM and data sharing via Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS)).

View attachment 326328
The EOTS comprises a third generation FLIR, a laser, and a CCD-TV camera providing target detection and identification at greatly increased standoff ranges, high resolution imagery, automatic tracking, infrared search and track IRST, laser designation, laser rangefinder, and laser spot tracking.

yeah I read defense issues too, Picard likes the Rafale, and using guns and IRST for air to air combat. I'm not trying to saying that it is easy to jam IRST, but that with better IR countermeasures, the IRST based identification can be fooled enough that a fighter can survive better. The more countermeasures the better. I imagine that supersonic maneuverable drone IR decoys that can simulate fighter patterns would be effective in distracting fighter aircraft.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

yeah I read defense issues too, Picard likes the Rafale, and using guns and IRST for air to air combat. I'm not trying to saying that it is easy to jam IRST, but that with better IR countermeasures, the IRST based identification can be fooled enough that a fighter can survive better. The more countermeasures the better. I imagine that supersonic maneuverable drone IR decoys that can simulate fighter patterns would be effective in distracting fighter aircraft.

The first problem is to detect the presence of a stealth fighter.
Deploying flares will not help You there.
Instead, that is screaming loudly that you exist.

No aircraft on patrol is continuously deploying flares, the supply is very limited.

The second problem is how to attack a stealth fighter once detected with IRST.
That might be more difficult.

The big problem with IRST is that it does not work well in cloudy/bad weather conditions.
That said, it os certainly better to have IRST, than to not have IRST.

 

[forsigmar]

The first problem is to detect the presence of a stealth fighter.
Deploying flares will not help You there.
Instead, that is screaming loudly that you exist.

No aircraft on patrol is continuously deploying flares, the supply is very limited.

The second problem is how to attack a stealth fighter once detected with IRST.
That might be more difficult.

The big problem with IRST is that it does not work well in cloudy/bad weather conditions.
That said, it os certainly better to have IRST, than to not have IRST.

I'm not talking about detecting stealth fighters but preventing detection of stealth fighters. Using IR countermeasures to counter IRST on 4th gen fighters.
I'm thinking about mass drones simulating fighters to counter IRST fighters and airdefenses.

 

[Penguin]

yeah I read defense issues too, Picard likes the Rafale, and using guns and IRST for air to air combat. I'm not trying to saying that it is easy to jam IRST, but that with better IR countermeasures, the IRST based identification can be fooled enough that a fighter can survive better. The more countermeasures the better. I imagine that supersonic maneuverable drone IR decoys that can simulate fighter patterns would be effective in distracting fighter aircraft.

I am aware of e.g. the AIM-160 MALD missile decoy, but this is primarily for use in the suppression of enemy air defence.

The ADM-160A carries a Signature Augmentation Subsystem (SAS) composed of various active radar enhancers which cover a range of frequencies and this SAS can simulate any (US) aircraft. There is also a jamming variant called MALD-J* with four electronic warfare payloads. July 2016, Raytheon received a contract to develop an evolution of the MALD-J called the MALD-X, incorporating an improved electronic warfare payload, the ability to fly at low-altitude, and an enhanced net-enabled data-link. The company hopes to transition the MALD-X into the MALD-N for the U.S. Navy
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD

As you can see, these MALD variants all deal with the radar spectrum.
What - if any - decoys specifically deal with IR/Thermal?

* Sidenote: In July 2015, Raytheon revealed it had developed a new composite missile body for the MALD-J in partnership with the Dutch company Fokker Aerostructures and Italian race car manufacturer Dallara that is 25 percent cheaper to produce; Fokker adapted robotics to wind the carbon fiber fuselage instead of the conventional manual process and Dallara applied its lightweight structural technologies to airframe accessories such as air inlets and covers.

 

[Penguin]

As these naval applications of thermal decoy shows, the decoy lures a missile with a thermal imager / IR homing head away, but does not conceal the ship from view.

http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/article.aspx?articleid=1568361

 

[forsigmar]

As these naval applications of thermal decoy shows, the decoy lures a missile with a thermal imager / IR homing head away, but does not conceal the ship from view.

View attachment 326444

View attachment 326442

View attachment 326440

they only launch some thermal decoys in a small set pattern, if they increased thermal decoys along the whole ship or use dedicated expendable platforms for releasing a large amount of decoys they may be able to cover the whole ship. I'm thinking like expendable aegis platforms that only launch countermeasures. I don't think any military has built these kind of decoys or missiles yet. Its kind of like a fireworks ship or airplane/drone. There are missile radar jammers, but im thinking more along the lines of a supersonic drone that emits IR fireworks in massive numbers. Stealth fighters would then hide behind the cloud of IR decoys. The drones would be carried by c130s or b52s. or launched from carriers.