Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Share
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  Mike E on Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:55 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:
    Mike E wrote:That's not what I'm saying... Jamming signals also weaken at long range, so it is an all around tradeoff. Also, in general, what makes an aircraft easy to jam is how advanced its radar system really is. With AESA now popping up in all sorts of jets, jamming just got that much harder...

    What on earth are you talking about, what tradeoff?  Smile 
    Yes, jamming signals weaken over distance, but do you realize that at the same time radar signals must travel TWICE the distance?
    And that's not even taking into account RCS of illuminated objects, which never reflects energy waves 100 percent.



    You know what, maybe you should just (re)learn a thing or two about ECM in the first place.
    I'd suggest reading Tom Clacy's "Red storm rising". The chapter "Dance of the vampires" nicely provides a basic understanding on how jamming works. Good luck Smile

    A Jamming signal is a radar signal! As such, both "jamming signals" and "radar signals" weaken over distance. That is all I was trying to say.
     - What the heck are you talking about? Like I (just) said, radar signals are jamming signals and vice-versa. The only real difference is that so called "jamming signals" are typically very "powerful and focus", whereas radar signals are "weaker and spread out".
    I still don't get what your trying to say, RCS has little or nothing to do with jamming.

    Suggesting that I read Clancy novels is equal to recommending the Onion...
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5589
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:02 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Suggesting that I read Clancy novels is equal to recommending the Onion...

    The Onion is satire...
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  Mike E on Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:26 am

    That is the whole point... Basing ECM knowledge on some old fiction book is a joke.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5589
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:05 am

    Mike E wrote:That is the whole point... Basing ECM knowledge on some old fiction book is a joke.

    Well, some base their history education on fictional books, too.

    Like George Carlin said

    There are religious people who believe there is an invisible man living in the sky but when they see park bench with a sign on it which says "WET PAINT" they have to touch it to believe it is still wet.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:26 am

    As far as I know, it's the other way around, jammers become more effective with increased range, because radar signal becomes weaker.

    The purpose of the jammer is to blind the radar... not so much to conceal the signal from the jammer aircraft. If you want to conceal the signal from the jammer aircraft... you start by not jamming.

    And, if you think about it, stealth coating also weakens the return signal, so stealth aircrafts, vehicles, ships are not only more difficult to detect, but they can use their ECM more effectively too.

    Replace radar emissions with light. If every target was painted white on a black background then stealth is painting your aircraft black... you can still pick it out but only at much closer distances.

    A black painted target shining lights at the guy with the search light will only attract attention. It would only make sense if you flew in close with an intense and powerful beam and tried to blind the searchers... which is likely to get you shot down by an S-300 battery.

    Remember a SAM battery has a range of assets it can use to find and engage targets and its ESM support vehicles can easily detect jamming and locate the source for targeting with SAMs.

    That makes no sense at all. RAM doesn't help ECM countermeasures in any way, all it does is absorb signals.

    Not strictly true... send in some B-2 bombers and a few jammer aircraft to put up general noise jamming and the B-2s will become harder to spot... but against a competent enemy with the right equipment and you can pretty much kiss those jammer aircraft goodbye.

    As far as I know there are 122mm calibre decoy rockets that can be carried in a five tube launcher by Soviet and Russian aircraft. Normally used to penetrate hardened aircraft shelters the S-130 rocket launcher can be used by SEAD aircraft to send decoy "aircraft" into danger areas with the launch aircraft monitoring which radars turn on and the locations and types of radars and SAMs etc etc.

    Weaker radar return signal= easier to jam.

    Using stealth you are trying to remain unnoticed. By jamming you reveal your presence immediately and over a few seconds your location could be triangulated fairly accurately.

    I'd suggest reading Tom Clacy's "Red storm rising". The chapter "Dance of the vampires" nicely provides a basic understanding on how jamming works. Good luck

    Perhaps we could follow that with reading Mein Kampf to learn about the Jewish religion?

    Like George Carlin said

    A great philosopher of our time...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  Mike E on Thu Aug 14, 2014 3:35 am

    GarryB wrote:
    As far as I know, it's the other way around, jammers become more effective with increased range, because radar signal becomes weaker.

    The purpose of the jammer is to blind the radar... not so much to conceal the signal from the jammer aircraft. If you want to conceal the signal from the jammer aircraft... you start by not jamming.

    And, if you think about it, stealth coating also weakens the return signal, so stealth aircrafts, vehicles, ships are not only more difficult to detect, but they can use their ECM more effectively too.

    Replace radar emissions with light. If every target was painted white on a black background then stealth is painting your aircraft black... you can still pick it out but only at much closer distances.

    A black painted target shining lights at the guy with the search light will only attract attention. It would only make sense if you flew in close with an intense and powerful beam and tried to blind the searchers... which is likely to get you shot down by an S-300 battery.

    Remember a SAM battery has a range of assets it can use to find and engage targets and its ESM support vehicles can easily detect jamming and locate the source for targeting with SAMs.

       That makes no sense at all. RAM doesn't help ECM countermeasures in any way, all it does is absorb signals.

    Not strictly true... send in some B-2 bombers and a few jammer aircraft to put up general noise jamming and the B-2s will become harder to spot... but against a competent enemy with the right equipment and you can pretty much kiss those jammer aircraft goodbye.

    As far as I know there are 122mm calibre decoy rockets that can be carried in a five tube launcher by Soviet and Russian aircraft. Normally used to penetrate hardened aircraft shelters the S-130 rocket launcher can be used by SEAD aircraft to send decoy "aircraft" into danger areas with the launch aircraft monitoring which radars turn on and the locations and types of radars and SAMs etc etc.

    Weaker radar return signal= easier to jam.

    Using stealth you are trying to remain unnoticed. By jamming you reveal your presence immediately and over a few seconds your location could be triangulated fairly accurately.

    I'd suggest reading Tom Clacy's "Red storm rising". The chapter "Dance of the vampires" nicely provides a basic understanding on how jamming works. Good luck

    Perhaps we could follow that with reading Mein Kampf to learn about the Jewish religion?

    Like George Carlin said

    A great philosopher of our time...

    Ok, thanks for correcting me! Very Happy 

    That is another thing, stealth aircraft + jamming = "stealth" becomes useless.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  Mike E on Thu Aug 14, 2014 3:38 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:That is the whole point... Basing ECM knowledge on some old fiction book is a joke.

    Well, some base their history education on fictional books, too.

    Like George Carlin said

    There are religious people who believe there is an invisible man living in the sky but when they see park bench with a sign on it which says "WET PAINT" they have to touch it to believe it is still wet.
     - That is unfortunately true... I know some people myself that believe anything they are told, from anywhere!

    I'm a christian myself, but I perfectly agree with that quote.  Neutral

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  etaepsilonk on Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:04 pm

    Well, all I can say is " Rolling Eyes ".

    If you purposefully ignore such simple arguments, like highschool grade subjects on EM wave properties, then I'm afraid this discussion is over.

    --------------------

    Mike E wrote:That is another thing, stealth aircraft + jamming = "stealth" becomes useless.

    Gee, I wonder why F-35 is having a jammer, isn't it supposed to be stealth or something?  Rolling Eyes
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:46 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:Well, all I can say is " Rolling Eyes ".

    If you purposefully ignore such simple arguments, like highschool grade subjects on EM wave properties, then I'm afraid this discussion is over.

    --------------------

    Mike E wrote:That is another thing, stealth aircraft + jamming = "stealth" becomes useless.

    Gee, I wonder why F-35 is having a jammer, isn't it supposed to be stealth or something?  Rolling Eyes

    Jammer to compliment radar. So it may not be active the whole time the f-35 is flying but only when its radar is turned on. Since passive sensors can pick up pretty much any kind of radar signal from 100's of km away and thus making stealth pointless. Majority of jammers are using radiowavepulses in a specific ghz band in order to jam or screw up the enemies radar frquency by distorting what the return information from the radar sees.

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  etaepsilonk on Thu Aug 14, 2014 4:03 pm

    sepheronx wrote:Majority of jammers are using radiowavepulses in a specific ghz band in order to jam or screw up the enemies radar frquency by distorting what the return information from the radar sees.

    Precisely Cool

    -------------
    BTW, stealth is not a revolution, it's evolution. That means, fundamental operating procedures, for example, for 4 and 5 gen aircrafts remain essentially the same.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  Mike E on Thu Aug 14, 2014 5:39 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:Well, all I can say is " Rolling Eyes ".

    If you purposefully ignore such simple arguments, like highschool grade subjects on EM wave properties, then I'm afraid this discussion is over.

    --------------------

    Mike E wrote:That is another thing, stealth aircraft + jamming = "stealth" becomes useless.

    Gee, I wonder why F-35 is having a jammer, isn't it supposed to be stealth or something?  Rolling Eyes

    Never said that they shouldn't have "jamming functionality", but rather that it "exposes" them. - One of the main reasons the F-35 was built in the first place...
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  Mike E on Thu Aug 14, 2014 5:41 pm

    sepheronx wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:Well, all I can say is " Rolling Eyes ".

    If you purposefully ignore such simple arguments, like highschool grade subjects on EM wave properties, then I'm afraid this discussion is over.

    --------------------

    Mike E wrote:That is another thing, stealth aircraft + jamming = "stealth" becomes useless.

    Gee, I wonder why F-35 is having a jammer, isn't it supposed to be stealth or something?  Rolling Eyes

    Jammer to compliment radar. So it may not be active the whole time the f-35 is flying but only when its radar is turned on. Since passive sensors can pick up pretty much any kind of radar signal from 100's of km away and thus making stealth pointless. Majority of jammers are using radiowavepulses in a specific ghz band in order to jam or screw up the enemies radar frquency by distorting what the return information from the radar sees.
    Here I thought that jamming signals had to be on a similar (or the same) frequency in order to have any effect.... Is that true?

    Anyway, AESA and other technologies are much more effective against jamming in the first place. I've heard that with modern technology, radar systems can/will be able to tell if found signals are so called "jamming signals" or not.

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  etaepsilonk on Thu Aug 14, 2014 6:24 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Never said that they shouldn't have "jamming functionality", but rather that it "exposes" them. - One of the main reasons the F-35 was built in the first place...

    And which platform jammers DOESN'T expose?

    "For both sides, the fundamental choice was whether or not to radiate, to use their radar
    transmitters. Either choice carried benefits and dangers, and there was no "best" solution to the
    problem. Nearly every American ship carried powerful air-search radars that could locate the raid
    two hundred or more miles away. But those radar signals could be detected at an even greater
    range, generating a return signal, that would potentially allow the Soviets to circle the formation,
    pinpoint it, then converge in from all points of the compass.
    The game was hide and seek, played over a million square miles of ocean. The losers died."

    That's a quote from "red storm rising", a book you so detest.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  Mike E on Thu Aug 14, 2014 6:30 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Never said that they shouldn't have "jamming functionality", but rather that it "exposes" them. - One of the main reasons the F-35 was built in the first place...

    And which platform jammers DOESN'T expose?

    "For both sides, the fundamental choice was whether or not to radiate, to use their radar
    transmitters. Either choice carried benefits and dangers, and there was no "best" solution to the
    problem. Nearly every American ship carried powerful air-search radars that could locate the raid
    two hundred or more miles away. But those radar signals could be detected at an even greater
    range, generating a return signal, that would potentially allow the Soviets to circle the formation,
    pinpoint it, then converge in from all points of the compass.
    The game was hide and seek, played over a million square miles of ocean. The losers died."

    That's a quote from "red storm rising", a book you so detest.

     - That is true, but I was talking about stealth aircraft in general. "Regular" aircraft aren't trying to hide, "stealth" aircraft are.

     - I LOVE Clancy books (Red October is still my favorite, and the movie one of the best ever IMO.), don't get me wrong. However, they are called fiction novels for a reason. I can go look for some books that accurately talk about ECM tech etc.

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  etaepsilonk on Thu Aug 14, 2014 6:32 pm

    Mike E wrote:
     - That is true, but I was talking about stealth aircraft in general. "Regular" aircraft aren't trying to hide, "stealth" aircraft are.

    That's where you're wrong.
    Ever heard about EMCON discipline?


    - I LOVE Clancy books (Red October is still my favorite, and the movie one of the best ever IMO.), don't get me wrong. However, they are called fiction novels for a reason. I can go look for some books that accurately talk about ECM tech etc.

    LOL. You think I don't know that clancy books are pages upon pages of "america fuck yeah" ramblings?
    Just as I said, books like "red storm rising" are good introduction into real life military units and and their approximate use.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  Mike E on Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:18 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
     - That is true, but I was talking about stealth aircraft in general. "Regular" aircraft aren't trying to hide, "stealth" aircraft are.

    That's where you're wrong.
    Ever heard about EMCON discipline?


    - I LOVE Clancy books (Red October is still my favorite, and the movie one of the best ever IMO.), don't get me wrong. However, they are called fiction novels for a reason. I can go look for some books that accurately talk about ECM tech etc.

    LOL. You think I don't know that clancy books are pages upon pages of "america fuck yeah" ramblings?
    Just as I said, books like "red storm rising" are good introduction into real life military units and and their approximate use.

     - Never heard of it... However, my point still stands. I've simply been saying that a stealth aircraft that uses its jammer gives up its "stealth" advantage.

     - I get your point, but I'm one who would rather listen to someone who has worked in that industry, versus reading a 80's novel.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 15, 2014 12:55 pm

    If you purposefully ignore such simple arguments, like highschool grade subjects on EM wave properties, then I'm afraid this discussion is over.

    Point out the simple arguments you are referring to...

    Gee, I wonder why F-35 is having a jammer, isn't it supposed to be stealth or something?

    The F-35 has a jammer because it has an X band AESA radar that has a jamming function.

    As described in this article posted on the thread about the F-35:

    The US’s newly developed radar-evading F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will not be able to escape Russian radars.

    “The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter... is not, in fact, stealthy in the eyes of a growing number of Russian and Chinese radars,” the Aviation Week said.

    It said the jet, which the Pentagon hopes would be stealthy, is “having all sorts of shortcomings.”

    The report said the jet is not even effective in “jamming enemy radar”, adding the US Defense Department is spending “hundreds of billions of dollars” for a “fighter that will need the help of specialized jamming aircraft.”

    It said the F-35 is even “susceptible to detection by radars operating in the VHF bands of the spectrum.”

    The report said Russian armed forces have been armed with a “highly counterstealth radar system” – unveiled at an air show near Moscow last August – that is able to “track small targets once the VHF radar has detected them.”

    The F-35 has not been equipped with “onboard jamming,” the report said.

    “Had the JSF requirements been tightened by one iota since the program started, its advocates would be blaming that for the delays and overruns,” it said.

    The new US fighter’s “jamming is mostly confined to the X-band,” the report said.

    Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/29/360578/us-stealth-jet-cant-evade-russia-radars/

    Precisely

    Except that the AESA X band radar on the F-35 does not operate and cannot detect the signals of the VHF radars that will be detecting the F-35... just the same as an AM band radio cannot pick up or jam signals in the FM band.

    "For both sides, the fundamental choice was whether or not to radiate, to use their radar
    transmitters. Either choice carried benefits and dangers, and there was no "best" solution to the
    problem. Nearly every American ship carried powerful air-search radars that could locate the raid
    two hundred or more miles away. But those radar signals could be detected at an even greater
    range, generating a return signal, that would potentially allow the Soviets to circle the formation,
    pinpoint it, then converge in from all points of the compass.
    The game was hide and seek, played over a million square miles of ocean. The losers died."

    That's a quote from "red storm rising", a book you so detest.

    Yeah... crap.
    By that stage the Soviets had their satellites to detect US carriers... there was no need for cat and mouse games with radars.

    One SAM site scanning for air threats gives its position away to all those who listen... but a modern mobile radar can shut down and move in a matter of minutes and some SAMs can actually fire while moving.

    Emissions in a net centric system act differently too an S-400s air search radar has a specific range for different targets and the radar waves travel that range x 2 because they go out and come back. the max effective range for a specific target is based on a calculation... but what if that radar is emitting and other radars of the same type all around the place are just listening... an S-400 system 300km away scanning the sky for targets... what if there is another S-400 unit near the border but not emitting and just listening that is only 100km from the target... if it can detect the target at 200km then it might detect the reflected emissions... especially when the target is stealthy and is designed to deflect signals in different directions but not back at the emitter... what if a listening radar is in the path those emissions is deflected to?

    What if there is a VHF radar next to the emitting S-400 system and it detects the F-35 anyway?

    If the F-35 jams the original emitter then the S-400 system sitting much closer will detect that jamming signal too. The F-35 doesn't have anything that operates in VHF except possibly its radio so it will have no idea the VHF system is painting it... let alone any option to jam.

    - That is true, but I was talking about stealth aircraft in general. "Regular" aircraft aren't trying to hide, "stealth" aircraft are.

    Well... technically regular aircraft have been hiding from radar since radar was invented using chaff which reflected the radars own signal and filled the screen with returns to hide the aircraft. Jamming is another way to hide conventional aircraft from radar.

    That's where you're wrong.
    Ever heard about EMCON discipline?

    Emission control is practised by everyone... stealthy or non stealthy... but much more critical for stealthy... they spent trillions making your plane difficult to detect so turning on a radar or having long radio conversations is a no no. There is a reason the F-117 doesn't have a radar.

    Just as I said, books like "red storm rising" are good introduction into real life military units and and their approximate use.

    Yeah, like Mein Kampf is a good introduction to ... anything.  Rolling Eyes 

    - Never heard of it... However, my point still stands. I've simply been saying that a stealth aircraft that uses its jammer gives up its "stealth" advantage.

    Emission control is what the US Navy practised to make their carrier groups hard to spot. the ocean is huge and a carrier group is a serious concentration of firepower... so if the enemy stumbles upon it and is not ready for a fight the carrier group should be able to defend itself rather well.

    If however the group goes around broadcasting radar noise in every direction the enemy will quickly work out their position... mass up an attack force and overwhelm the carrier group.

    Of course there is plenty of room for tactics... a single vessel broadcasting lots of noise could turn out to be a trap... especially when we translate this back to land... a single S-300 turns on its radar and Israel goes nuts and loads up a few dozen fighter bombers and heads in to take that S-300 battery out. As they approach, however, they find S-300 missiles coming up to meet them from a dozen different locations and the munitions they do fire at all the S-300 positions they spot seem to explode a km or so before impact due to TOR or Pantsir-S1 systems...

    There are measures and countermeasures... the problem with Clancy is that he is not a real expert on Soviet equipment.... he was an expert on US navy doctrine which was based on the Soviets acting in a specific way with certain technologies. It totally ignored the fact that the Soviets knew their Tu-142s would have trouble spotting US carriers and had started sending up satellites to do the job remotely...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  etaepsilonk on Fri Aug 15, 2014 1:31 pm

    GarryB wrote:Point out the simple arguments you are referring to...

    My argument on unequal tradeoff between jammers and radars while increasing range, for example.

    The F-35 has a jammer because it has an X band AESA radar that has a jamming function.

    As described in this article posted on the thread about the F-35:

    I think title "presstv" says it all isn't it?

    Yeah... crap.
    By that stage the Soviets had their satellites to detect US carriers... there was no need for cat and mouse games with radars.

    Except those sats had low earth orbit, so weren't expected to survive for very long.


    Emission control is practised by everyone... stealthy or non stealthy... but much more critical for stealthy... they spent trillions making your plane difficult to detect so turning on a radar or having long radio conversations is a no no.

    You know, there have been some studies ragarding arab-israeli tank battles, if I remember correctly. And those concluded that initial detection while remaining undetected yourself had a critical importance in the outcome of the battle.
    You think it's somehow different for aircraft?  Wink


    There are measures and countermeasures... the problem with Clancy is that he is not a real expert on Soviet equipment.... he was an expert on US navy doctrine which was based on the Soviets acting in a specific way with certain technologies. It totally ignored the fact that the Soviets knew their Tu-142s would have trouble spotting US carriers and had started sending up satellites to do the job remotely...

    Those naval and air actions were based on Larry Bond's "Harpoon", a game where many settings were tweaked to create artificial tension, BTW  Wink 
    If you read "red storm rising" you'll quickly notice that USA's enormous refueling tanker fleet is omitted.
    Soviet subs aren't targeting convoys with 100km range wake homing torpedoes.
    Soviet takeover of Iceland is completely unrealistic.
    Soviets weren't using any foreign bases not in Europe.
    CIWS tearing through multiple kh-22s? Suspect 
    Ticonderoga's arm-launchers were given a launch speed of VLS  jocolor

    As you can see, there's plenty of inaccuracies, because it's not meant to be an accurate description of ww3 in the first place.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 16, 2014 11:41 am

    My argument on unequal tradeoff between jammers and radars while increasing range, for example.

    You were talking about stealth aircraft using jammers... they don't.

    You were the one that brought up emission control as a means of hiding carrier groups... do you think they would give away the location of their difficult to find stealth aircraft by having their stealth aircraft operating jamming equipment?

    I think title "presstv" says it all isn't it?

    Which part of the article is wrong?

    Except those sats had low earth orbit, so weren't expected to survive for very long.

    In the early 1980s what was going to kill them exactly?

    You know, there have been some studies ragarding arab-israeli tank battles, if I remember correctly. And those concluded that initial detection while remaining undetected yourself had a critical importance in the outcome of the battle.
    You think it's somehow different for aircraft?

    Of course not being noticed increases your life expectancy in combat... do you think a sniper in the dark shining a torch at every one trying to dazzle other snipers looking at them through sniper scopes is being inconspicuous? there are lots of different ways of jamming enemy sensors but all of them involve transmitting a signal that to a third party betrays your presence... even the system used by the Rafale results in listening radar detecting signals from the original emitter and the jammer on the Rafale and each signal needs to be synchronised by the radar on the Rafale so the emitter thinks it is receiving anti signals that cancel out its own signal... from any different direction of course the signal and anti signal will never be synchronised and the jamming signal should allow detection and indeed triangulation of position.

    As you can see, there's plenty of inaccuracies, because it's not meant to be an accurate description of ww3 in the first place.

    So what you are saying is that it is bollocks and we shouldn't treat it seriously... isn't that what we are trying to tell you?



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  etaepsilonk on Sat Aug 16, 2014 2:20 pm

    GarryB wrote:You were talking about stealth aircraft using jammers... they don't.

    You were the one that brought up emission control as a means of hiding carrier groups... do you think they would give away the location of their difficult to find stealth aircraft by having their stealth aircraft operating jamming equipment?

    If they're detected, yes. Jamming would furtherdegrade radar performance.
    Non-stealth aircraft also don't emit at all times, in case you don't know that.

    Which part of the article is wrong?

    This one:
    "The report said the jet is not even effective in “jamming enemy radar”, adding the US Defense Department is spending “hundreds of billions of dollars” for a “fighter that will need the help of specialized jamming aircraft.”"


    Of course not being noticed increases your life expectancy in combat... do you think a sniper in the dark shining a torch at every one trying to dazzle other snipers looking at them through sniper scopes is being inconspicuous? there are lots of different ways of jamming enemy sensors but all of them involve transmitting a signal that to a third party betrays your presence... even the system used by the Rafale results in listening radar detecting signals from the original emitter and the jammer on the Rafale and each signal needs to be synchronised by the radar on the Rafale so the emitter thinks it is receiving anti signals that cancel out its own signal... from any different direction of course the signal and anti signal will never be synchronised and the jamming signal should allow detection and indeed triangulation of position.

    Once the sniper is detected, that dazzling becomes quite useful I'd say.

    In the early 1980s what was going to kill them exactly?

    Sat killers. Technology for them was available not even in early 80-ties, but 70-ties  Wink


    So what you are saying is that it is bollocks and we shouldn't treat it seriously... isn't that what we are trying to tell you?

    Yes, you shouldn't treat battle actions seriously, but not involved units and systems themselves.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:45 am

    If they're detected, yes. Jamming would furtherdegrade radar performance.

     Rolling Eyes The method of detecting stealth aircraft at long range is either incredibly powerful radar in X band or large VHF band radar.

    Jamming is pointless against a powerful X band because the power of any jammer on an aircraft sized platform would be weak compared with the sort of equipment you could base on a truck mounted AESA X band radar plugged into the local power supply.

    Against a VHF band radar a fighter sized target can't carry an antenna big enough to jam its signal... it likely wouldn't even know it was being detected... which means jamming in X band would actually reveal your position to all the X band radars around the place.

    Non-stealth aircraft also don't emit at all times, in case you don't know that.

    When using its jammer it does... which is why they don't have them.

    This one:
    "The report said the jet is not even effective in “jamming enemy radar”, adding the US Defense Department is spending “hundreds of billions of dollars” for a “fighter that will need the help of specialized jamming aircraft.”"

    So what is the name of the jamming system on an F-35 that can jam VHF radar?

    Once the sniper is detected, that dazzling becomes quite useful I'd say.

    Except that while the sniper using the dazzler is looking for targets all the snipers in the area can see him very clearly and any one of them can kill him... or they can plot together to team up on him.

    Sat killers. Technology for them was available not even in early 80-ties, but 70-ties

    Sat killer weapons never reached service and were illegal under the ABM treaty... anything that could shoot down a satellite could be used against an ICBM and that was banned by the 1972 ABM treaty.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  etaepsilonk on Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:29 am

    GarryB wrote:The method of detecting stealth aircraft at long range is either incredibly powerful radar in X band or large VHF band radar.

    Jamming is pointless against a powerful X band because the power of any jammer on an aircraft sized platform would be weak compared with the sort of equipment you could base on a truck mounted AESA X band radar plugged into the local power supply.

    Against a VHF band radar a fighter sized target can't carry an antenna big enough to jam its signal... it likely wouldn't even know it was being detected... which means jamming in X band would actually reveal your position to all the X band radars around the place.


    But what about short range? Do you think stealth aircraft won't ever put themselves in harm's way, for low altitude bombing runs, for example?


    So what is the name of the jamming system on an F-35 that can jam VHF radar?

    F-35 is supposed to receive a podded version of "next generation jammer" I think.
    Although I'm not sure whether it can jam metric bands. But then again, VHF radar doesn't usually provide fire solution, so wouldn't you have to use usual FC radars to fire anyway? Wink


    Sat killer weapons never reached service and were illegal under the ABM treaty... anything that could shoot down a satellite could be used against an ICBM and that was banned by the 1972 ABM treaty.

    How about kamikaze satellites?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:00 pm


    But what about short range? Do you think stealth aircraft won't ever put themselves in harm's way, for low altitude bombing runs, for example?

    The benefits of reduce detection ranges enjoyed by stealthy aircraft would be totally wasted if you want to overfly targets and bomb them with conventional bombs.

    getting very close so they could use their jammers would be stupid because there are SAMs that are much shorter range that don't use radar guidance that can't touch stealth aircraft at more than 50km, but by getting close the stealth aircraft is flying within range of all those other systems that can deal effectively with both stealth aircraft and any ordinance they might try to deliver.

    Using stealth aircraft in close is like trying to use snipers in close... you only do it if you really really have to because their best feature is firing at long range where the enemy can't see or reach them.

    F-35 is supposed to receive a podded version of "next generation jammer" I think.
    Although I'm not sure whether it can jam metric bands. But then again, VHF radar doesn't usually provide fire solution, so wouldn't you have to use usual FC radars to fire anyway?

    VHF radar will detect the presence of stealth aircraft and give target data precise enough to get a radar or IR guided missile within detection range of its seeker. Modern digital VHF AESA radar are quite accurate and can locate a modern stealth aircraft to within a few kms... which is more than enough.

    How about kamikaze satellites?

    Hahaha... very funny. Even if it were possible the Soviets had the capacity to launch new satellites fairly rapidly... it was the only advantage of the shorter operational life of the Soviet satellites that meant the Soviets were able to rapidly replace satellites.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  etaepsilonk on Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:16 pm

    GarryB wrote:The benefits of reduce detection ranges enjoyed by stealthy aircraft would be totally wasted if you want to overfly targets and bomb them with conventional bombs.

    getting very close so they could use their jammers would be stupid because there are SAMs that are much shorter range that don't use radar guidance that can't touch stealth aircraft at more than 50km, but by getting close the stealth aircraft is flying within range of all those other systems that can deal effectively with both stealth aircraft and any ordinance they might try to deliver.

    Using stealth aircraft in close is like trying to use snipers in close... you only do it if you really really have to because their best feature is firing at long range where the enemy can't see or reach them.
    How about F-117s and B-2s, who bombed serbia in 1999? Weren't they "totally wasting their stealth capabilities"?

    VHF radar will detect the presence of stealth aircraft and give target data precise enough to get a radar or IR guided missile within detection range of its seeker. Modern digital VHF AESA radar are quite accurate and can locate a modern stealth aircraft to within a few kms... which is more than enough.

    That's the case for ARH missiles, for example. But what about much more numerous SARH systems?


    Hahaha... very funny. Even if it were possible the Soviets had the capacity to launch new satellites fairly rapidly... it was the only advantage of the shorter operational life of the Soviet satellites that meant the Soviets were able to rapidly replace satellites.
    Soviets were able to rapidly launch 20 ton, nuclear powered RORSATs?  Rolling Eyes 
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:47 am

    How about F-117s and B-2s, who bombed serbia in 1999? Weren't they "totally wasting their stealth capabilities"?

    Serbia didn't have any digital AESA radars operating in VHF frequencies, and as far as I am aware even the stealth aircraft in that theatre and every theatre operated with escort jammers.

    The escort jammers would give away their own position, but help conceal the stealth aircraft. The old model SAMs the Serbs had could be jammed by the escort jammers and the SAMs they used could not reach the jamming aircraft.

    Works against old generation stuff developed before stealth aircraft were a reality... would not work now against Russia... as Russia rearms will be even less effective.


    That's the case for ARH missiles, for example. But what about much more numerous SARH systems?

    Very few SARH missiles in the Russian inventory... most are TVM or ARH, or command guided.

    Soviets were able to rapidly launch 20 ton, nuclear powered RORSATs?

    Faster than the US could launch a satellite on a collision course to hit all the satellites in orbit... other satellites would not be in close orbits to prevent accidental collision so it would require a new launch or a lot of manouvers to get a collision... both of which will be detected and seen as an act of war... and of course the US Navy was riddled with spies who would have tipped the Soviets off... use it before you lose it.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: ΕCMs against S-300 / S-400

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:26 am