ECM-jamming
-
For the sake of argument, I’ll refer to the R-27 (AA-10) P/EP. It’s not HOJ, nor is it an active missile. It’s kind of in the middle, passively tracking on any (specific) active radar unit… kind of like an air-to-air version of the HARM or ALARM. It’s the one AAM that does track (airborne) radar emissions. The USN messed around with this on a modified AIM-7, but the project wasn’t pursued.
-
Did I ever mention a word about HOJ? CTRL + F my post and see if HOJ ever appears. It does not.
No you didn’t, you made a comment about missiles homing on emissions then provided a link to Active Homing missiles as your body of proof. But you never said HOJ–
-
You stated that if someone saw you with a passive detection device they would see you first with their radar. This was the whole argument that you missed wholesale. This is not true. How do you think the HTS pod works? And I can promise you without talking about ranges (again because they’re classified), that the HTS pod picks up ELINT a lot farther out than the radar can send and pick up radar returns.
Wrong, the passive systems can filter and identify certain signals further out based on signal signature and RF analysis. But RF is RF is RF–it all travels LOS, at least at the frequencies we’re talking about without accounting for atmospherics. HTS pods have better fidelity at longer ranges because there is less distortion from a stronger active signal than a reflected signal (A SAM is pushing electrons, not reflecting them–but even reflected electrons continue to move until they can’t). The software in your FCR decides what to paint and not paint on the display based on algorithms for filtering suspected false positives and ambient noise. But this all beyond the point of my post. The point I was making is that PASSIVE detection and tracking is not a one-stop shop for any combat system. If it was, then there wouldn’t be any need for radar to exist. And in the BMS world (Remember we’re talking about a game here…) the argument that EMCON plays such a huge role in the game engine is either false, or overly simplified in it’s implementation.
-
Wrong, the passive systems can filter and identify certain signals further out based on signal signature and RF analysis. But RF is RF is RF–it all travels LOS, at least at the frequencies we’re talking about without accounting for atmospherics. HTS pods have better fidelity at longer ranges because there is less distortion from a stronger active signal than a reflected signal (A SAM is pushing electrons, not reflecting them–but even reflected electrons continue to move until they can’t). The software in your FCR decides what to paint and not paint on the display based on algorithms for filtering suspected false positives and ambient noise. But this all beyond the point of my post. The point I was making is that PASSIVE detection and tracking is not a one-stop shop for any combat system. If it was, then there wouldn’t be any need for radar to exist. And in the BMS world (Remember we’re talking about a game here…) the argument that EMCON plays such a huge role in the game engine is either false, or overly simplified in it’s implementation.
Unfortunately I have to leave it at that. I know you know what you’re talking about. And I wish we could carry on this convo, but it terms of where it’s headed, a vault would be needed.
-
Actually, in the BMS world, because of its oversimplification of the real world, EMCON plays a larger role, I would argue.
Whether passive detection is a one stop shop depends on the assumptions made of the system. A great example would be CMNO, a simulation that has great emphasis on EMCON. Its systems work very well passively, often detecting fighters through radio emissions. BMS conversely one rarely worries about EMCON, either using the active systems available to their greatest extent, or occasionally trying to do a mission or attack with complete radar silence.
Still, its an axiom that photons spread out as they travel from the emitter, and its an axiom that photon density is what triggers RWR, or allows the radar to display a target. Photons must travel r, the range from the emitter to the RWR, or 2r, the distance from the emitter, to the target, back to the receiver. For any given power setting, photon density at the target is much higher than density at the emitter/receiver.
Gets a little more complicated when you consider that the antenna size for the RWR may demand a higher photon density than would be required by the emitters receiver, and that the RCS of the target likely will strongly affect the photon density at the emitter/receiver. Then you get frequency and polarization effects… but broadly speaking, if you have a passive system, it ought to be able to detect the presence of an active system, at a greater range than the active system can detect the target, for virtually any specific example.
-
Great conversation to read. in BMS what does the RWR actually detect? Any sweep of a radar or a lock?
-
Great conversation to read. in BMS what does the RWR actually detect? Any sweep of a radar or a lock?
Both, even search radars when you enable that mode.
-
In BMS, what is the order in which a lock will trigger the enemy in various radar modes? I’m assuming STT most likely but then what, SAM or TWS?
-
SAM is much more likely to trip RWR than TWS is…
-
That’s why RADAR works–YOU generate the signal and it bounces back to your receiver. Now, actively transmitting in the same freq range as a radar system out there searching (IE from your own radar) WILL produce a bigger return to the system searching (In RL anyway) if it is in the same freq range, but RF is RF whether it’s reflected from an aircraft or generated by an aircraft it will travel the same. Someone has to be listening to the right freqs for it to make a difference. So unless IADS has magically been implemented in a way more advanced way than anything else in the game–there should not be any passive detection or increased visibility from ECM. SHOULD being the keyword.
If ECM transmits on the same freq as the radar it is trying to defect, it does effect amplitude. However, if the two RF wave are 180* out of phase the two waves will cancel each other. This condition can corrupt the track file or break lock and put the radar back into search mode.
Even if the return freq’s amplitude is increased the radar would not know when the return duty cycle starts and ends. This screws up the radars target ranging and altitude. But radar would still have bearing and the b-scope put chevrons on the targets b-line when it cant compute range.
I guess its possible a passive radar to DF an ECM the radar is narrow band and the ECM broadband. Again chevrons on the b-line.
Doppler and ECM <shrug>Can a ECM make your aircraft to look like a tree? There’s no closure speed on a chevron contact when b-line is active detected.
F4 has used simple rule of freq. Im sure both side have their tricks to win the RF battle ex. modulating data code on the radars RF.</shrug>
-
Its a tad more complicated than that.
-
Both, even search radars when you enable that mode.
OK that is always what I assumed. Thanks
-
Great discussion! Is there any value to bringing along an EA-18g other than yo perform SEAD? It would be neat if you could set it up in an orbit and jam a particular site.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Why not? Put his ECM patrol route within 40nm of any AD units you want jammed out, worked perfectly for me with EF-111s.