ECM-jamming
-
The document dates from 16 july 1997.
Page 216(1-197), there is where it starts.
It clearly shows indications about what is jammed at the moment.Guys, it is wonderful to hear that ECM-jammer actually does something, but It’d be awesome if I could see on my RWR what is jammed at the moment.
And does anybody have more intel that he/she can share about ECM-jamming ? I’d like to learn more about it.http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/
Check out the link, Fundamentals of Electronic Warfare.
The RWR in BMS does not show what signals the ALQ-181 is responding to. Its worth noting that the depicted RWR is the ALR-66, which I dont think is in any of the BMS cockpits?
Specifics of how the ECM works on the real jet are very limited, in that a lot of it is classified. The document discussed actually does not detail anything about how the ECM works, just a little note on how some information is displayed on the RWR.
-
It clearly shows indications about what is jammed at the moment.
if I could see on my RWR what is jammed at the moment
In real, what is jammed is what is in priority on the RWR and what is “positioned” to the proper angles so the jammer sensors to be able to jam it.
In bms it will need exe code edits, and since some stuff are not known I am not sure at all these would be available one day.
-
http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/
Check out the link, Fundamentals of Electronic Warfare.
The RWR in BMS does not show what signals the ALQ-181 is responding to. Its worth noting that the depicted RWR is the ALR-66, which I dont think is in any of the BMS cockpits?
Specifics of how the ECM works on the real jet are very limited, in that a lot of it is classified. The document discussed actually does not detail anything about how the ECM works, just a little note on how some information is displayed on the RWR.
Thank you very much BlueWolf
-
How can I make the jammer work at the Block 40 or 50 ?
-
How can I make the jammer work at the Block 40 or 50 ?
???
If you have ECM pod just turn on and works. Block 40/50 do not have internal jammer. -
Read the manual on the CMDS and it should cover it. Broadly speaking, consent to emit with CMS aft, cancel consent with CMS right.
-
http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/
Check out the link, Fundamentals of Electronic Warfare.
The RWR in BMS does not show what signals the ALQ-181 is responding to. Its worth noting that the depicted RWR is the ALR-66, which I dont think is in any of the BMS cockpits?
Specifics of how the ECM works on the real jet are very limited, in that a lot of it is classified. The document discussed actually does not detail anything about how the ECM works, just a little note on how some information is displayed on the RWR.
Bluwolf I came across your site not through the BMD Forum. The Fundamentals of EW is a brilliant document and brought together a lot of stuff I had read elsewhere on the web. Excellent and thanks.
-
I agree, it does work. It will not work very long. As you get closer to the SAM radar it eventually will lock you up. Try and head for an SA2 or SA5 with jammer off with the HTS pod installed. As soon as the SAM radar comes up on your HAD as a solid red turn on jamming and it will break lock. Eventually the radar will burn through.
I have an interest in ECM, specifically the EA-18G Growler. There is not a lot out there but I posted some of the links I have found.
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/SE-16.pdf
https://www.quora.com/What-tactics-and-techniques-do-electronic-jamming-pods-use
Basically, there are two types of jamming - noise and deception jamming. The first is used to block particular frequencies with waves of energy coming from the jamming aircraft. The second uses various techniques to deceive the radar as to the targets location. Self protection pods typically use deception techniques as they are not powerful enough to effectively noise jam radars.
Cyberwarfare is a related specialty. Supposedly the Israelis used network attack to take down the Syrian air defense system when they attacked their nuclear site.
http://www.defensetech.org/2007/11/26/israels-cyber-shot-at-syria/
-
Basically, noise jamming is antiquated. You need to cover a band of frequencies, and the fact that modern radars are quite powerful means your jammer needs to be much more powerful again - and then in addition your noise jammer can be found with a direction finder. Repeater jamming on the other hand can cover a wide range of frequencies, needs less power than the radar, and often needs no power.
-
Basically, noise jamming is antiquated. You need to cover a band of frequencies, and the fact that modern radars are quite powerful means your jammer needs to be much more powerful again - and then in addition your noise jammer can be found with a direction finder. Repeater jamming on the other hand can cover a wide range of frequencies, needs less power than the radar, and often needs no power.
I maybe wrong, but I do believe specialized jets like the EA-18G and EA-6B still use different methods of noise jamming. Frequency agile radars make it more difficult. Podded self protection jammers also do not have the generating power to effectively employ noise jamming and come with the disadvantage of announcing the route of the strike package. But the pods like the ALQ-99 carried by the Grolwer and Prowler can generate more electromagnetic energy and have the ability to counter frequency agile systems. They are typically used in the stand off role when supporting strikes by stealth aircraft like the B-2 and F-117 in order to disrupt the decision cycle of the enemy air defense network. Stealth aircraft are optimized against the shorter wavelength air defense radars. Noise jamming focused on long range search radars - even if only useable for a short while - can provide stealth bombers and fighters the time they need to get in and get out the MEZ.
-
Are we talking about the 90s then? F-117 is retired…
Noise jammers as a concept have issues. To spread it out over a frequency range decreases effective power for that frequency, or drives up total power consumption. There is a limit to how effective that can be.
Noise jamming EWRs is a bit pointless. It announces your presence, but doesnt conceal it any more than the stealth aircraft do.
-
Are we talking about the 90s then? F-117 is retired…
Noise jammers as a concept have issues. To spread it out over a frequency range decreases effective power for that frequency, or drives up total power consumption.
And that’s the exact reason, noise jammers, and other related noise deception techniques utilizes AM(Amplitude Modulation).
C9
-
Which doesnt work so well if the victim radar is for instance, only listening for photons of a different frequency than that selected to jam.
-
I though that the ECM also used techniques such as range gate pull-off etc.
-
I though that the ECM also used techniques such as range gate pull-off etc.
Comes under the heading of repeater or deception jamming. RGPO is a specific technique within the category of deception jamming.
-
There is a cockpit hud vid out there on YT from a Turkish viper, trying to (illegally) intercept some Israel Sufa’s that were officially exercising above Cyprus, and while heading on to them the pilots report to their GCI that their FCR’s & RWR’s are lighted up with target emissions all over the place, while the GCI sees none.
Yeap, the Sufa has the stronger jammer between all viper fleet.
-
Unusual that they would demonstrate that capability where it could be observed. I am given to understand the US has a different set of programs for their jammers for exercises vs the real deal.
As opposed to recent actions by Turkish fast jet pilots as I am, intercepting an aircraft is not illegal unless hostile actions are involved.
-
There is a cockpit hud vid out there on YT from a Turkish viper, trying to (illegally) intercept some Israel Sufa’s that were officially exercising above Cyprus, and while heading on to them the pilots report to their GCI that their FCR’s & RWR’s are lighted up with target emissions all over the place, while the GCI sees none.
Yeap, the Sufa has the stronger jammer between all viper fleet.
Pls. post it.
-
Are we talking about the 90s then? F-117 is retired…
Noise jammers as a concept have issues. To spread it out over a frequency range decreases effective power for that frequency, or drives up total power consumption. There is a limit to how effective that can be.
Noise jamming EWRs is a bit pointless. It announces your presence, but doesnt conceal it any more than the stealth aircraft do.
Which does not matter. Even the n+1 generation of S-300 and older systems in Russia workwed with dm-m search radar, S-300 with CW Calsm Shell low level search radar and separate fire control radar. If you supress the EW radar the capability of the SAM system is only a fraction of the original and much, much more vulnerable to SEAD.
Regardless S-300 have 105 fire arc with Flap Lid and later PESA (or AESA) radar they does not have seach capability. With information of 360 deg. EW radar is determined the fire arc and also the protection against incoming ARMs outside of 105 deg fire arc. HARM can use side and even backlobe.
Downing the F-117 would not be possible if the jamming would be this strong. The 25-30 km detection range and exact info made possible to make the lock with SNR-125 and guide just in time within the very narrow time window.
This is light jam…
Which became serious…
And total blindness…
-
Unusual that they would demonstrate that capability where it could be observed. I am given to understand the US has a different set of programs for their jammers for exercises vs the real deal.
ALL aerial jammer platforms (which 95% of currently available systems ARE US-made) have 2 modes of operation, decided during the system startup: WAR & PEACE (might be named differently in some systems, e.g. trainings vs peace). It is self-explanatory what each mode offers in regards to output power and some other stuff…
As opposed to recent actions by Turkish fast jet pilots as I am, intercepting an aircraft is not illegal unless hostile actions are involved.
Nop.
As per NATO standards, which I guess covers most international actions, (thus don’t care what North Korea for example translate these actions and standards), “interception” can ONLY be performed by specific fighters (not type-specific, but certified down to s/n…) by specific crews (trained), and for specific cases, like a civilian is not answering the comms, diverted without clearance (renegade / air-hostage / simple problems to radio / systems etc) entered an unauthorized area, or not published a flight plan to the appropriate agencies about the flight and intentions.
So “intercepting” an aft which is not hostile, does not move hostile, and has approved flight plans for an official exercise, by officially approved agencies, is not “legal”, specially if not even warned about. Personally, knowing the IAF reactions to “threats”, and talked to some IAF pilots trained here, I think the “interceptors” were very lucky that day, considering and the Israel-Turkish relations those days…
I don’t want to point the discussion to this, but you should be very careful when using the words “unless hostile actions are involved”, because this is what is happening here the past decades, by our friends Turks. So please let’s stick to the ECM-jamming topic.