Talk:Directional Infrared Counter Measures

message: I have to agree with the above. DIRCM is system sold by Northrop in the US and by BAE systems (now Selex) in the UK. The AN/AAQ-24 has a rotating turret that fires a laser at incoming missels. DIRCM is basically a US programme coming out of USSCOMS programme office. 
It would be better if all these counter measures, warners and alike were grouped under the heading of Defensive Aids. A good portion (but by no mean all) of the airframers integrate these systems as part of a Defensive Aid Suite (DAS). This can often, but not exclusivly, supplement ESM. As radar warners can often form part of DAS systems. Apacheeng lead 14:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DIRCM is not the right heading

message: Perhaps a better title would be "Random Collection of Mistruths About IRCM Systems".
Or perhaps, the title of the article is the only thing that is correct.  This is classic:
"Modern missiles are now programmed to differentiate between thermal sources, such as the sun and ignore obviously powerful thermal blooms.  As the DIRCM works it blinds the seeker apparatus by mimicking a large thermal signature such as the sun."
So let me get this staight, modern missiles are smart enough to ignore the sun... and DIRCM works by mimicking the... sun?
----
If the missile ignores the sun, making the target look like the sun seems like a good countermeasure to me. --131.181.251.66 09:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Title Suggestion... 

message: This article is a collection of half truths and errors, and shows a lack of understanding of the subject matter, and the specific fielded products in this field. Though several sentences are not necessarily wrong, they are not fully correct either. Even a casual perusal of the available literature would do better. For example, http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=14930, where a discussion about the completion of the initial DIRCM Program is discussed, and then http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/06/mil-070620-northrop-grumman01.htm, where discussions about one of the more recent installation programs is discussed. In between, there are dozens of major published releases that actually describe the system. In fact, just including a link to the public release position (http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/nemesis/) is a better idea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joat23 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article misses the point 

message: There is German System by Diegl BGT Defence it actually carries the name DIRCM.
What to do about it? It is mentioned in the Wiki article "Active Protection System" 
For reference check http://www.diehl-bgt-defence.de/index.php?id=547&L=1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.45.48.253 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  German System 

message: It was edited by some IP address that seems related to ITT, which develops one of these systems. The main problem is that it appropriates the now generic term DIRCM for AN/AAQ-24, a specific implementation, which might have been the first, but even that is unclear. It also refers to the more general article on IRCM as being about only the "1st generation", which isn't the case. Please refer to the "Infrared Jammers" (last section) of "Defending the Attacker" article for a more accurate discussion. I'm quoting the most relevant part:
<quote>
Fortunately, advances in missile approach warning systems have made possible directed infrared countermeasures (Dircm), which concentrate power to blind the weapon's seeker.
One example is the BAE Systems ALQ-212(V) Advanced Threat IRCM, which includes the AAR-57(V) Common Missile Warning System. The Atircm is operational in Iraq on the fixed-wing aircraft of <<a classified customer>>, according to BAE Systems. The Northrop Grumman AAQ-24(V) Nemesis is now in service on all UK and some US Air Force aircraft in Iraq, using the company's AAR-54(V) warning system, with the Mims as a future alternative.
Those two companies have largely dominated the US Dircm field, but the Raytheon Scorpion has been developed from the Aim-9X missile seeker, and ITT is reportedly working on a rival system.
Diehl BGT Defense, EADS and Thales are collaborating on the Flash Dircm for the A400M. France's Cilas has recently announced the receipt of a DGA contract as part of the latter's Cesam programme to develop a jamming laser to protect future transport aircraft. Spain's Indra is reportedly co-operating with Russian companies on a Dircm for large aircraft.
Elbit Systems' Elop is working with Elettronica on Dircm systems for helicopters and wide-bodied aircraft. Elop is also collaborating with Rafael, to combine technology from their Music and Britening IRCMs. Darpa and the US Air Force Research Laboratory are developing the Medusa system, with a range of applications that includes drones. 
</quote>
Clearly DIRCM is used generically for many systems from different manufacturers. Here's another example of generic use, the Jane's article about the Russian MANTA DIRCM: http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Radar-and-Electronic-Warfare-Systems/MANTA-Russian-Federation.html Etc. Not surprizingly, the AN/AAQ-24(V) is also described by Jane's as a DIRCM, but it's obviously not the only one of this kind, as it was incorectly claimed above by an editor that did not sign his post. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: NEMESIS is not the correct word, term or (Mil-Std-196 joint electronics type) designation.
Nemisis was a contractor's unofficial "nickname" for the (family of) systems, program/project.
The correct designation is AN/AAQ-24(V) Direct Infra-Red Counter-Measures (DIRCM) system.
The (V) denotes that there are Variants of the system - for various aircraft types.
For example, AN/AAQ-24(V)25 DIRCM is for USN C-40A (BCA-737) and ANG KC-135.
(V)25 implies that there are many variants - for many aircraft configurations.
AAQ-24 DIRCM is now part of the 2004 Advanced Technology Support Program (ATSP3) family of contracts.
Currently, the Defense Micro-Electronics Agency (DMEA) is the U.S. government (DoD) procuring office.
Northop Grumman alone is the prime contractor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several Variants, History