Issue Brief #16
February 5, 2004

Aircraft Countermeasures and the Dual Spectral Threat

Since the Vietnam War, Infra-Red (IR) seeking missiles have accounted for more than 50 percent of all aircraft losses in action (this figure was 78 percent during the Gulf War in 1991). As missile systems get smaller, cheaper and more man-portable, the need for effective Infra-Red Countermeasures (IRCM) has never been greater.

More recently and of great concern is the threat posed by the proliferation of shoulder-launched missiles generically known as MANPADs. Such was the concern over these weapon systems that during the air campaigns over the Balkans and Afghanistan, operations below 10,000 feet were severely restricted.  Consequently, we conceded the highly prized low-level airspace to the enemy. These concerns were entirely justified: many UAV's were lost to the IR threat and helicopter aircrews had to pioneer some advanced tactics in order to minimize their exposure to the lethal SAM rings. 

There are estimated to be nearly 500,000 MANPADs worldwide.  No matter how intense and successful SEAD/DEAD and ECM operations have been in hindering enemy air defenses, the IR threat remains the most hidden and the most potent. In addition, the recent development of seeker technology has emerged from the stables of missile designers and manufacturers. From the initial appearance of early first generation, through the newest third generation of seeker technology, flare manufacturers have been asked time and again to design and produce an effective countermeasure against these latest threats. 

Currently, the EW community has turned its attention to the very latest dual spectral IR seeking MANPAD of which there is significant proliferation, particularly in geographical areas of major concern. This generation of weapon uses a dual sensor system that can discriminate between the low energy IR output of an aircraft and the high energy IR output of a classic magnesium based countermeasure flare. This ability to compare target energy with flare energy has provided the weapon with a counter-countermeasure (CCM), which is extremely effective. Further, the quality and reliability in the manufacturing of this dual seeker is so variable that its CCM trigger level against flares is equally as variable. In other words, for each level of discrimination an aircraft would need a flare of matched performance. One wonders if this is the "weapon too far." 

Once again the flare manufacturing community has risen to the challenge in providing the answer.  The manufacture of dual spectral flare countermeasures is already here and in all of the usual formats, deployed by our warfighters. These new flares are already being flown and successfully deployed by the coalition forces operating in Iraq. 

However, the development of these next generation spectral flares has been a hard fought battle. If it were not for the continued liaison between the flare manufacturing industry, government officials, and (ultimately) the warfighter, this successful result may not have been achieved.

As threat systems become ever more sophisticated, the development and deployment of countermeasures must keep pace to ensure that our warfighters have the necessary capabilities to carry out their mission, defeat the enemy, and protect themselves. It is therefore of utmost importance that the defense industry, the federal government, and the warfighter continue to strengthen their working relationship in countermeasure development.

John S. Tanner
Member of Congress

Electronic Warfare Working Group

Congressman Joe Pitts, Founder and Co-Chairman

420 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

202 225-2411 phone    202 225-2013 fax