Jimmy

Actually I didnt know that about the F-18, that's pretty damn cool.

Normally just jamming the missile wont cut it though, because an active missile also has a semi-active capability. The shooter will just support it until it hits, or until its close enough to burn through, if that tiny radar ever can. Or it just switches to a home/track on jam mode, which is less than ideal but can still ruin someone's day.

Jamming is a pain in the ass, but as someone said its just a game of cat and mouse.

urmomma158

Lets not forget the F 16 B60 jammer which would make mincemeat of double digit sam radars. The UAE must be really about about those AC.

__________________

GGTharos

I agree with your last sentence completely.
I'd like to elaborate some on the previous paragraph:

An AMRAAM (I'll stick to that missile for now, but I really refer to 'all ARH missiles') is designed to pick up its own radar signal, not that of its carrier aircraft, IIRC (and I might be wrong here).
Once the AMRAAM goes active, it also inhibits the datalink (at least up to the C version, the D version will be the -first- missile to not do so completely, in my knowledge) so wether you have the target locked or not does not actually matter.

On to what this means for the missile: Once HoJ is activated, we have experienced loss of certain data, be it closure, range, or whatever else - or even combinations of these. This causes the proportional navigation algorithm to become equivalent to that of a sidewinder ... because you're missing some terms in the math. In other words, your kinematic capability has just been dimished. An opponent can take advantage of this and destroy the missile's ability to kinematically attack him at this point.

So like you said, cat and mouse: Jamming is definitely -not- useless, otherwise it would not be used. It makes your life a touch easier, and if your jammer's better than his ECCM, and your ECCM is better than his jammer, what you end up with is more kills on your side, which I think is the point.

GGTharos

I call BS
When grumble's in town, the planes stay down

hello

Unless the planes are F-22s or B-2s. And if they have SDBs, that grumble wil be silenced. I'm pretty sure that the APG-77 can burn through any current jammer, at least up to the point of the B-1's jammer.

urmomma158

The US has gotten its hands on double digit sams so its not BS.
http://www.missilethreat.com/news/200411221146.html

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...0/phifal00.htm

You can sk Highsea for more info he said there's an S300 (simulator I believe) at edwards.

GGTharos

I'm aware of S300 in US hands. It doesn't really matter.

I don't recall tornadoes or hornets dodging Patriots (which is essentially the same type of system), and as I recall their RWR's were probably not even warning them about those. Not fun, eh? Those are some -nasty- SAMs out there.

No jammer pod's gonna keep you safe.

urmomma158

The tornadoes and hornets had no ECM pod like the F16B60.Please counter my statement with some actual proof it doesn't work onthe S300.

GGTharos

Please provide proof that it does. You can't? Darn ...

TVM guidance enables a two-sensor (or three of four, if you want) configuration for looking at the target. The target will jam the emitter happily enough, or it'll try to, but what about the missiles that the radar is steering? It's just providing loads of signal for them to home in on - better yet, with all these sensors, the entire system has a good idea of where the target is ... it is a NASTY SAM.

Hornets, by the way, don't need a pod 'like the F16B60'. They have a very good built-in, reprogrammable jammer. In any case, it doesn't matter how many jammers youhave if you don't get a tracking warning.

urmomma158

You can't either but tis highly likely the US knows how to jam it since they have already accquired the system.

TVM basically combines SARH with radio command guidance.The radar illuminates the target(which will be sifficult since it's being jammed)and then the misisle picks up the refected energy however the misisle doesn't compute the interception info. Instead the datais relayed back tothe sam site via data link.The ground station processes the info for interception and then sends the data for interception.However the data link can be jammed and if something interferes with the radar such as an obstacle like a hill or is juammed the misisle won't be able to continue the engagement.

GGTharos

I agree it is quite likely they know how to degrade it. I am also quite certain Russians proceeded to reprogram a boat load of stuff to get around that little problem.

... since when does a monopulse radar have trouble illuminating a jamming target? If you think the HoJ present on fighters is any indication, wait until you see the equipment and processing power a big SAM site can throw at you ...

The missile *always* does something. It likely does proportional navigation at the very least, with backup command guidance. This isn't NIKE.

Up to a point, and in cooperation with the missile's own seeker.

I really doubt the datalink is particularely easy to jam ... with an electronically scanned radar tracking the missile, this is much easier said than done.

It might cause the operators some trouble, it might confuse the automatic tracking routines, but all you need is a little reprogramming and voila, it stops working - but sure, for the 'first strike' if the old stuff is kept, the pod might be effective in reducing the numebr of aircraft shot down.

urmomma158

And im sure new jamming pods we're alos reprogrammed. There's no evidence for this so we're just goign around in circles with this.



Especially when the jammer has features that can throw off monopulse radars. Ever hear of MAJIC and CROSS EYE.



The missile is doing nothing but receiving reflections and communicating with the SAM about interception inofrmation. The misisles own active seeker whould be much easier to jam than the SAM radar itself and lets not forget the datalinks.



Which will also be jammed.



Well a datalink is one of the things that can be jammed. nothing is easy to JAM but everything can be jammed.

Well you will also need to the jammer being reprogrammed intoa ccount as well. How many times will you copletely update your sam radars and at what cost?

It's a game of cat and mouse...............

GGTharos

Reprogrammed based on -what-?


Yeah. I also heard 'cross eye works poorly when it does work'. And you can't do it with a pod either, IIRC, you need two *widely* spaced emitters.

Why thanks for that information - and how did you know? I pretty much know for a fact the seeker on that missile is passive so ... how exactly were you going to jam it when the pod doesn't know where it is?
The missile does minimum work, but it does enough work to hit the target so long as it is illuminated. Can you jam the missile's seeker? You could, I suppose, by emitting in a broad azimuth and elevation, killing your power density and allowing the targetting equipment to burn through quickly.

Maybe. Again ... how do you know? Besides which, you might end up fighting several missiles, all on different frequencies (and their datalinks, too) ... the SAM can shoot more than one missile at you, you know, and it is procedure to do so under certain circumstances.

I've not heard of datalinks being jammed. It isn't impossible, but somehow I don't see it happening, especially when it is frequency agile (and hey, you program your pod to match the freq sequence, i program my emitter to change it ... what do you do then? No, reprogramming won't do - you don't know my new sequence)

No I don't; you don't know my new methods, and all I need to update my SAMs is a floppy. Although, we could get into a whole discussion about the logistical feasibility of this - reprogramming the patriot was a slow process ... but it wasn't a *technially difficult* process, nor do I think it was particularely expensive in terms of the system price. And FYI, I only need to reprogram *once* and I can do so before the shooting begins. I can have a second load ready for when the shooting -does- begin in case the first load is compromised.

No ... jammers are a speed bump. Not cats and no mice, not when you're playing with systems of the S300 caliber.

hello

Gosh. Everytime the SA-10, 12 and 20 are mentioned, some long drawn out arguement begins. It hasn't been tested that any stealth/jammer/electronic countermeasure has worked on them and vice versa. If there is a war between a force with stealth/advanced jammers/advanced electronic countermeasures and a force double-digit SAMs, the results will show. If the first of those forces is the U.S, F-22s and B-2s(and F-35s, if they're there) will probably get the job of kicking down the door with the S-300 and other advanced SAMs. Its unlikely that F-16s, F/A-18s and F-15s will face these. However, it has been tested that stealth aircraft have been able to penetrate dense and complex(if obsolete) air defences without a scratch(F-117 and B-2), have been able to beat conventional fighters 108-0(F-22) and have even simulated the destruction of an E-3 Sentry AWACS(again F-22).

Has anyone been able to fool a group of SAM sites by sending in small swarms of target drones in which Wild Weasels/anti-SAM aircraft are hidden?

GGTharos

There are actually standard loadouts for wild weasels which include TALDs, IIRC - the F/A-18E can deploy them.

Yep, jamming and stealth are a different things altogether, but a little jamming pod on your F-16 won't be more than a speed bump. Lastly those SAMs aren't going to sit there radiating like crazy for you - they'll be cued by IADS, and they're mobile - you might find you don't know where they are till its too late. In some situations you can even catch stealth aircraft unawares, but that is all situational.

Jammers are but a speed bump for SAMs. SAMs are but a speed bump for air power. It's all about who can delay whom more.