Countermeasure effectiveness against a

man-portable air-defense system

containing a two-color spinscan
infrared seeker
James Jackman
Mark Richardson
Brian Butters
Roy Walmsley
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
Optical Engineering 50(12), 126401 (December 2011)
Countermeasure effectiveness against
a man-portable air-defense system containing
a two-color spinscan infrared seeker
James Jackman
Mark Richardson
Craneld University
Defence Academy of the UK
Department of Informatics and Systems
Engineering
Shrivenham, Swindon, SN6 8LA
United Kingdom
E-mail: j.jackman@craneld.ac.uk
Brian Butters
Roy Walmsley
Chemring Countermeasures Ltd.
High Post
Salisbury Wiltshire, SP4 6AS
United Kingdom
Abstract. Man-portable air-defense (MANPAD) systems have developed
sophisticated counter-countermeasures (CCM) to try and defeat any ex-
pendable countermeasure that is deployed by an aircraft. One of these is
a seeker that is able to detect in two different parts of the electromagnetic
spectrum. Termed two-color, the seeker can compare the emissions from
the target and a countermeasure in different wavebands and reject the
countermeasure. In this paper we describe the modeling process of a
two-color infrared seeker using COUNTERSIM, a missile engagement and
countermeasure software simulation tool. First, the simulations model a
MANPAD with a two-color CCM which is red against a fast jet model and
a transport aircraft model releasing reactive countermeasures. This is
then compared to when the aircraft releases countermeasures through-
out an engagement up to the hit point to investigate the optimum are
ring time. The results show that the release time of expendable decoys
as a countermeasure against a MANPAD with a two-color CCM is critical.
C
2011 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (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 employ
infrared (IR) seekers to lock-on to and track target aircraft.
They are shoulder red, quickly operational, and offer
re-and-forget capability. Coupled with the large numbers
proliferated worldwide and relatively lowcost, they currently
represent the most serious threat to all types of aircraft.
1, 2
To combat the threat of IR guided missiles, aircraft have
been tted with expendable decoys, i.e., ares, as a counter-
measure. These proved very effective against rst generation
MANPADs that had no countercountermeasures (CCM)
ability incorporated into their IR seeker. This led to devel-
opments in MANPAD design to give the missile the ability
to discriminate between a are and the target and continue
tracking the aircraft.
3, 4
In this paper we investigate whether
pre-emptive ares can prove more successful against a
MANPAD with a two-color CCM than reactive ares.
2 IR Seekers
The design of an IR seeker consists of the dome, an optical
telescope, some formof scanning technique, the detector, and
the electronics for signal processing. The scanning technique
looked at in this paper uses a reticle as a spatial lter to discern
the target from the background and optical modulation to
give target tracking.
4, 5
The purpose of spatial ltering is
to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio of the target with regard
to the background radiation. As the target is a hot point source
its signal will be a series of pulses with a chopping frequency
of
f
c
= nf
r
, (1)
0091-3286/2011/$25.00 C 2011 SPIE
where n is the number of pairs of opaque and transparent
spokes of the reticle and f
r
is its rotational frequency. By
comparison, the background will cover many spokes so it
will be seen as an extended source with no chopping. The
combined signal is then amplied and electrically ltered
with a bandpass lter centered at the chopping frequency
suppressing 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 will
use this information to plot a proportional navigation (PN)
guidance course to intercept the target.
6
The PN law issues
acceleration commands, n
c
, which are proportional to the line
of sight rate,
.
, the closing velocity, V
c
, and the PN constant
k.
n
c
= kV
c
.
. (2)
As the seeker will not know the closing velocity, an estimate
has to be incorporated into the PN law. This can be based on
the known maximum velocity of the missile and likely target
velocity.
2.1 Reticle Seekers
There are two ways a reticle systemis commonly used to pro-
duce the error signal: spinscan and conical scan (conscan).
4, 5
In a spinscan systemthe optical telescope is xed and the ret-
icle rotates, as shown in Fig. 1. The reticle can have a rising
sun 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 the
wagon wheel section is proportional to the radial distance of
the target image from the center of the reticle. To measure
the phase variation, a phase reference is needed and one way
to achieve this is through a pickup at every rotation from
Optical Engineering December 2011/Vol. 50(12) 126401-1
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
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 the
seeker a eld of regard of typically 120

. These systems give

the unique position of the target within the eld of view
(FOV), but are insensitive to on-axis targets due to a loss
of amplitude modulation (AM) when the target image is at
the 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. In
this arrangement the rotating secondary mirror is tilted and
the reticle is xed. The design of the reticle can be a wagon
wheel with a checkerboard center, Fig. 2(b). When the target
image is on-axis, a nutation circle is produced centered on
the reticle pattern. In this instance the detector output is a
constant carrier frequency. When there is a tracking error the
nutation circle is no longer centered on the reticle and the
detector output is then a frequency modulated signal. This is
the case for small tracking errors when the nutation circle of
the target image is still fully on the reticle. For large tracking
errors when part of the nutation circle is off the reticle, the
output is essentially an AM signal. The magnitude of the
frequency modulation gives the off-axis distance and a pick-
off gives phase variation to yield the position of the target in
the FOV.
2.2 CounterCountermeasures
Flares proved to be very successful at decoying any IRseeker
that had no CCM capability. CCMs use the inherent differ-
ences between the signatures of an aircraft and a are.
7
When
a are is released there will be a sudden, very large increase
in the radiation incident on the detector. There will also be an
effect on the tracking caused by the are quickly separating
from the aircraft, which increases the rate of change of the
line of sight rate in the current PN guidance course. These
two events can trigger the IR seeker to apply a track angle
bias (TAB) or a track memory for a specied duration. A
track angle bias will stop the tracking and push the seeker
head forward at a preprogrammed angle at a certain rate.
When this is completed the are should have exited the FOV
and the seeker recommences tracking the target. For track
memory, the seeker will stop tracking but continue on its
current PN guidance course, i.e., applying the same rate of
turn acceleration commands. Again, this is for a xed dura-
tion, and when the tracking is turned back on the are should
have exited the FOV but not the target. Both of these CCMs
require 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 scenario
for the missile to obtain lock-on and track an aircraft is in the
rear aspect due to the greater emissions from a hot tail pipe
and an exhaust plume.
An improved CCM that was designed to be more robust
and work for all engagement geometries is two-color. In
this instance the IR seeker is able to detect in two different
wavebands where the emission from the aircraft and are do
not match. The seeker can then either compare the ratio of the
signal in the two wavebands or try and null the signal received
froma are; both of which can be incorporated into the signal
processing of the reticle tracker. Modeling a two-color seeker
allows the chance to test current countermeasures against this
type of threat. Also, a two-color CCM is more likely to be
active prior to missile launch so the use of pre-emptive ares
can 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.
Optical Engineering December 2011/Vol. 50(12) 126401-2
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
Jackman et al.: Countermeasure effectiveness against a man-portable air-defense system. . .
Fig. 3 Hierarchy of items in COUNTERSIM.
CCM, whereas in this paper we have modeled the CCM to
test the effectiveness of the aircrafts countermeasures.
3 Modeling and Simulation
The software used to model a missile engagement with an air-
craft is called COUNTERSIM, which is designed and developed
by Chemring Countermeasures, Ltd.
13
COUNTERSIMis a dis-
crete event simulation tool that is designed to be modular and
capable of being tailored to the end users requirements.
14
Figure 3 shows the list of items needed to model a MANPAD
engagement with an aircraft. The inputs depend on the type
of scenario trying to be modeled and the outputs from the
simulation can be chosen by the user. Each chosen output,
e.g., target position/missile acceleration, is logged at time
intervals in the simulation and saved in a data le.
3.1 MANPAD Model
The rst item in the MANPAD model is the tracker, Fig. 3.
This mimics the operator of a MANPAD who has to track
the target and obtain a lock-on. The designator item species
which target to track. Next, the missile system denes the
prelaunch ring sequence. First, the seeker head is uncaged,
then lead and super elevation are applied, and nally missile
launch. All these actions are dependent on the seeker main-
taining lock-on. Super elevation is needed in every scenario
as there is a half second delay to the boost thrust until the
missile 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 will
have dropped slightly fromthe initial launch angle. Lead also
has to be applied in scenarios where there is a crossing rate
between the MANPAD and aircraft. The amount of lead and
super elevation, and timings for each action, are set to enact
a ring by a real operator.
The missile body item denes its physical characteristics.
This includes the size, mass, drag coefcient, lateral accel-
eration limit, and the timings/force of the boost and sustain
motors. All the values have been taken from open source
literature so the missile is an unclassied generic model.
15, 16
The guidance unit item species guidance type and con-
stant used in the PN law. The generic seeker item denes the
maximumgimbal limits and rates, which affect the maximum
rate of turn achievable by the missile. Also, this is where the
main detector and guard band waveband limits are set for
the two-color CCM. In the simulations the main band is 4 to
5 m and the guard band 2 to 3 m. Finally, the parameters
of the optical system are set, focal length, F number, and
optical efciency.
The reticle tracker sets the scanning technique and reticle
design. In this case it is an AM spinscan seeker with a rising
sun reticle design, Fig. 2(a). In the two-color conguration,
alternate spokes in the reticle design are transparent to the
different detector wavebands.
The signal processor item is where the block diagram de-
tail is designed, Fig. 4. This allows the user to implement a
design 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 lter 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.
Optical Engineering December 2011/Vol. 50(12) 126401-3
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
Jackman et al.: Countermeasure effectiveness against a man-portable air-defense system. . .
Fig. 5 Signal processor view for (a) aircraft and (b) aircraft and are.
two signals set to the maximum signal level received from
the aircraft. Then, a full wave rectier turns both waveforms
positive. The two low-pass lters applied to each waveform
act as envelope detectors, essentially smoothing out the sig-
nal, tp1 and tp2 in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b). As the shape of
input 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. After
this, the two resulting waveforms are added together, tp3 in
Fig. 5, and another lter applied to further smooth out the
signal, tp4 in Fig. 5. Finally, another full wave limiter set to
the maximum signal level received from the aircraft gives
the tracking signal. The amplitude of the tracking waveform
gives the radial distance, r, and the phase variation the polar
angle, , in polar coordinates. The parameters for the lters
and limiters were calculated by running simulations with just
the aircraft and no ares then, just the ares with no target
signature.
Figure 5(a) shows the signal when just the target aircraft
is in the FOV and Fig. 5(b) when the aircraft and a are are
in the FOV. In Fig. 5(b), tp3 is the combined signal from the
two detectors showing the suppression of the signal tp2 from
detector 2, the guard band. This detects in the 2 to 3 m
waveband and therefore will be dominated by the are as it
burns at a higher temperature than the target. Another effect
of the suppression of the signal from the highest temperature
region in the FOV is that during the end game of an engage-
ment the missile will aim away from the hot tail pipe and
exhaust plume toward the cooler metal parts of the aircraft.
This can be a desirable result because the aircraft will most
likely suffer more structural damage and be unable to land
safely.
3.2 Target Models
The two target models are a generic transport aircraft and fast
jet, Fig. 6. The fast jet model is based on a three-dimensional
(3D) model of the AMX-A1; however, the temperature of
the metal components and plume are based on open source
literature.
5
Therefore, the results may or may not be indica-
tive of a real AMX-A1. On an AMX-A1, the are dispensers
are located on the side of the airframe. In the simulations,
the ares ejected from the dispenser nearest the wingroot,
highlighted by the largest oval in Fig. 7(a). The are model
used is a square format 2 1 8 in. magnesium Teon vi-
ton (MTV) are with a radiant intensity prole provided by
Chemring Countermeasures.
Fig. 6 The two target aircraft models shown in the 3 to 5 m
waveband.
Optical Engineering December 2011/Vol. 50(12) 126401-4
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
Jackman et al.: Countermeasure effectiveness against a man-portable air-defense system. . .
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 of
the C130. Again, temperature contours for the plume and
metal components were taken from open source literature.
There are two sets of are dispensers on the C130 model.
The rst set is located under the nose and the second set is
located on the side of the aircraft in the aft end of the main
landing gear fairings, highlighted by circles in Fig. 7(b). For
the C130 model, the are used is a 1 1 8 in. square format
MTV are, again with a radiant intensity prole provided by
Chemring Countermeasures.
3.3 Engagement Models
In the rst set of simulations the aircraft y straight and level,
on a constant bearing at an altitude of 1 km. The AMX-A1
model 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 systemand the aircraft
ranges from 1 to 5.5 km in steps of 0.5 km. Also, the aircraft
azimuth angle with respect to the missile launch position
ranges from 0 deg to 345 deg in steps of 15 Deg. An aircraft
azimuth of 0 deg represents a tail-on engagement where the
aircraft is ying directly away from the MANPAD operator
position. This gives a total of 240 simulations (24 aircraft
azimuths 10 aircraft distances). In the simulations both air-
craft release ares reactively at a detection range of 1500 m.
The AMX-A1 res two ares, one fromthe dispenser on each
side of the airframe, Fig. 8(a). For the C130 the simulations
are repeated, once for the front are dispensers and another
for the side are dispensers. In each case two ares are red
at the same time, Figs. 8(b) and 8(c).
In the second set of simulations ares are released ev-
ery 0.5 s throughout an engagement up to the hit point. The
slant range is kept constant and the aircraft azimuth varied
from 0 deg to 180 deg in steps of 45 Deg. Again, an aircraft
azimuth of 0 deg represents a tail-on scenario. The simula-
tions were repeated for constant slant ranges of 2, 3, and 4
km. A limit was set on the aircraft altitude by a maximum
launch 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 km
500 m to 2700 m and for 4 km 700 m to 3000 m. This gave
13 simulations for each are release time for a slant range of
2 km, 23 simulations for 3 km, and 24 simulations for 4 km.
In all the simulations there is no cloud background, no
atmospheric attenuation, and no noise included in the seeker
system. Modtran (Ref. 18) can be included but this greatly
increases the computational time and makes large numbers
of simulations unfeasible. This will therefore give the best
results possible for the MANPADand represents a worst case
scenario for the aircraft, which provides a good examination
for the countermeasures.
4 Results
The primary simulation output is the miss distance, which is
recorded as the smallest distance from the missile body to
Fig. 8 Flare release characteristics for (a) the AMX-A1, (b) C130 front are dispensers, and (c) C130 side are dispensers.
Optical Engineering December 2011/Vol. 50(12) 126401-5
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
Jackman et al.: Countermeasure effectiveness against a man-portable air-defense system. . .
Fig. 9 Results for the rst set of simulations where (a) is the AMX-A1 with no countermeasures and (b) is the AMX-A1 releasing reactive ares.
(c) is the C130 releasing no countermeasures and reactive ares deployed from (d) the front dispensers and (e) the side dispensers.
Optical Engineering December 2011/Vol. 50(12) 126401-6
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
Jackman et al.: Countermeasure effectiveness against a man-portable air-defense system. . .
Table 1 PEH for each IR seeker and aircraft model releasing no ares and reactive ares.
AMX-A1 C130 Reactive ares
No ares Reactive ares No ares 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.
Optical Engineering December 2011/Vol. 50(12) 126401-7
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
Jackman et al.: Countermeasure effectiveness against a man-portable air-defense system. . .
Fig. 11 PEH versus are 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).
Optical Engineering December 2011/Vol. 50(12) 126401-8
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
Jackman et al.: Countermeasure effectiveness against a man-portable air-defense system. . .
any point on the 3D model of the aircraft. A hit is dened
as a miss distance of less than 2 m, near miss between 2 and
10 m, and a miss greater than 10 m. The miss distance is
permanently logged so the results can be reassessed using
different hit/miss criteria. The results for the rst set of sim-
ulations are shown in Fig. 9 where the aircraft is at the center
of the polar plot and each point represents where the MAN-
PAD is placed in relation to the aircraft at the start of the
simulation.
Figure 9(a) shows the results for the AMX-A1 releasing
no countermeasures. Of the 240 simulations, 186 were hits,
giving a probability of escaping a hit (PEH) of 0.23. This
compares to previous simulations of a spinscan IR seeker
detecting only in the 2 to 2.7 m waveband where the PEH
was 0.19.
19
Therefore, the results are slightly worse for the
two-color seeker, but the large improvement occurs when the
aircraft deploys countermeasures. When ares are released
reactively, Fig. 9(b), the PEH is 0.38, compared to 1.00 for
the single detector IR seeker. This is also an improvement
for the IR seeker compared to previous simulations where
a TAB CCM was modeled. For a spinscan seeker detecting
in the 2 to 2.7 m waveband, the PEH was 0.53, and for a
conscan seeker detecting in the 3 to 5 m waveband the PEH
was 0.47.
7
For the C130 aircraft model when no countermeasures
are released, Fig. 9(c), there are 199 hits, giving a PEH
of 0.17. This compares to previous simulations of a spin-
scan IR seeker detecting only in the 2 to 2.7 m waveband
where the PEH was 0.27. When ares are red reactively
from the front dispensers, Fig. 9(d), the PEH is 0.63. When
ares are red reactively from the side dispensers, Fig. 9(e),
the PEH is 0.45. Again, this compares to a PEH of 1.00
for both the front and side dispensers when reactive ares
are red against a spinscan 2 to 2.7 m single detector IR
seeker.
Table 1 gives a summary of the different IR seekers mod-
eled to date; this includes one-color spinscan and conscan,
one-color conscan with a TABCCM, and two-color spinscan
and conscan. See Ref. 20 for details on the two-color con-
scan MANPAD model. The results give the PEH for each
IR seeker and aircraft model releasing no ares and reac-
tive ares. They conrm the effectiveness of reactive ares
against one-color IR seekers with no CCM capability. How-
ever, the inclusion of a CCM, either TABor two-color, greatly
reduces 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) are
for the slant ranges 2, 3, and 4 km, respectively. The graphs
show the PEH for each are release time for different aircraft
azimuths. For the 2 kmslant range there is no aircraft azimuth
of 90 deg or 135 deg because all the engagements resulted
in a miss, even when no ares were released. This is due to
the faster target having a greater crossing rate and the missile
being unable to apply the required rate of turn for a successful
PN course.
Figures 10(a)10(c) clearly show the timing of are re-
lease is critical if you want maximum protection for the
aircraft. Firing after 4 s is too late for any engagement with a
crossing rate. The worst performing is 0 deg azimuth, tail-on,
where ares need to be red prior to 2 s from the start of the
simulation. Also, in head-on engagements, 180 deg azimuth,
releasing ares before 1 s is too early. This leaves a very short
window in which releasing ares gives the highest values of
PEH. The time is around 1 s, which corresponds to the period
of missile launch, and shows that a are can still be effective
against a two-color CCM if released at this time.
The results for the C130 model are shown in Fig. 11.
Figures 11(a) and 11(b) are for a slant range of 2 km with
ares red from the front and side dispensers, respectively.
Figures 11(c) and 11(d) are for the 3 km slant range, and
Figs. 11(e) and 11(f) are for the 4 km slant range. For a
slant range of 2 km, the worst performing countermeasure is
ares red from the front dispensers in a tail-on engagement,
Fig. 11(a). Whereas for the side dispensers. there is still
the window around 1 s in which the releasing are gives
maximum protection to the aircraft, Fig. 11(b).
For slant ranges of 3 and 4 kmthere is no are release time
when the PEH is 1, irrespective of are dispenser or aircraft
azimuth, Figs. 11(c)11(f). However, the highest values for
the PEH still occur between the times of 1 and 2 s from the
start of the simulation. This stage of the simulations covers
the period just prior to missile launch and the half second
ignition delay on the boost thrust. At this time the missile is
either stationary or traveling at a low velocity. The presence
of ares in the seeker FOV at this time is likely to have
an effect on the PN guidance course implemented by the
seeker as it has to estimate the closing velocity. Overall, the
deployment ares around the time of missile launch gives
the best results for the aircraft independent of the aircraft
platform, 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 expendable
decoys against this more advanced CCM. First, reactive ares
were red at a detection range of 1500 m which resulted in
low values for the PEH, especially with the AMX-A1. Then,
ares were red throughout an engagement to nd the op-
timum release time. For all aircraft platforms, distances and
angle of attack releasing ares around the time of missile
launch gave the highest values for the PEH. Therefore, ares
can still prove to be a valid countermeasure against a more
sophisticated MANPAD with a two-color CCM capability.
Future work will be to model IR seekers with different
scanning techniques, such as rosette scan, which has bet-
ter tracking than spinscan. The aim is to develop the best
performing MANPAD model against which different coun-
termeasures can be tested.
References
1. M. Richardson, The anatomy of the MANPAD, Technologies for
Optical Countermeasures IV, Proc. SPIE 6738, 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 and M. Van Zee, Electro-optic and infrared sensors, Microwave
J. 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 with
a 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 efcient 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 infrared
counter-countermeasures for two-color spinning concentric-annular-
ring reticle seeker, Opt. Eng. 40(6), 10931099 (2001).
Optical Engineering December 2011/Vol. 50(12) 126401-9
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
Jackman et al.: Countermeasure effectiveness against a man-portable air-defense system. . .
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 infrared
counter-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 and
Applications (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 are deployment on rst
generation man-portable air-defence (MANPAD) systems, J. Defense
Model. 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.
SPIE 8187, 81870S (2011).
James Jackman is currently a PhD student at Craneld University in
the Sensors Group based at the Defence Academy of the UK. He has
a BSc degree in mathematics and physics from the Open University
and an MSc degree in astrophysics from University College London.
Mark Richardson has over 25 years experience of electro-optics and
infrared systems and countermeasures in the defense industry and
UK academia, and has written over 100 classied and unclassied
papers on these subjects. He is currently head of the Sensors Group
at the Defence Academy of the UK.
Brian Butters is the manager of Modeling and Simulation at Chem-
ring Countermeasures Ltd. He is a member of the Institute of Physics
and a Chartered Physicist who has worked in the EW industry for
more 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.
Optical Engineering December 2011/Vol. 50(12) 126401-10
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 10/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms