Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
…I don’t know what “NATOPS” you’re reading…
Most likely the right ones. I think he can be trusted on this.
Will we get over IFF some day ? :mrgreen:
-
I would imagine, one which applies to very few F-16s.
-
Most likely the right ones. I think he can be trusted on this.
:mrgreen:
…not if this is any indicator…
-
-
Im no expert, but aren’t NATOPS documents supposed to apply to the USN? My point was just that there are not too many F-16s covered by NATOPS docs.
Also Im not seeing the relation of the KIV document you linked, to the discussion at hand? Perhaps I missed something there?
-
I interpreted this as NATO procedures, not the naval ops manuals. Can misinterpret what DJ said though
-
Ah, I thought it stood for Naval Aviation Training and Operations Procedures. Alternatively it could be just as easily taken to mean Not Applicable To Our Present Situation, I think.
-
It does, indeed. I’m just not into the navy thing enough to have thought about it in the first place
-
… You guys (many of you), are still forgetting that, when air superiority and is not achived, IFF is switched off beyond the FLOT. If IFF is implemented one day, it will follow this NATOPS rule and IA will not reply after passing the SWITCH OFF line.
Even mode 4?
-
But AI cheats now , it always knows if target is enemy. Maybe red and Blue AI should ID targets visually too, when awacs is not avaible.
-
…I don’t know what “NATOPS” you’re reading…I just hope IFF happens…and that it happens realistically - at least for the F-16 case.
Typed too fast on my small tablet … NATO OPS (… You in fact, nothing to do specifically with the navy). Post edited, sorry about the mistake.
-
But AI cheats now , it always knows if target is enemy.
Yes … But as you said, it is AI => more or less dumb more than 80% of the time.
Even mode 4?
Yes. IFF is a transponder, a transponder is emmiting … so, not discreet. Unless you want to warn the enemy about your presence. M4 interrogation/reply is crypted, yes, but not stealth.
-
This post is deleted! -
Doesnt it only xmit on receive?
-
Doesnt it only xmit on receive?
I do not know. But to recieve, you have to xmit, so you are not passive. And if you interogate your team mate, he will reply … so no more passive either and an entire package might be compromised. What our SILENT/QUIET switch does in the F-16 ? …
I am not engeneer, and I did not written the procedures. I won’t tell you more as we are entering into sensitive subject …
Just to say: forget about IFF if some of you think that it can replace the AWACS’s declare and all other ID means. As said in the past, it is not THE solution for SA, it is just one more ID mean working in some specific cases. Nothing more.
-
Im no expert, but aren’t NATOPS documents supposed to apply to the USN? My point was just that there are not too many F-16s covered by NATOPS docs.
Also Im not seeing the relation of the KIV document you linked, to the discussion at hand? Perhaps I missed something there?
Yes, you are correct in NATOPS only applying to the USN…and even then, those pubs do not cover tactics, as a rule. But what I was really getting at was this part -
"The Commander in Chief (CINC) rules of engagement specify that positive identification of an airborne target is required before employing air-to-air weapons beyond visual range. "
This implies that IFF is always on and in use, no matter where you are in the mix.
-
Doesnt it only xmit on receive?
IFF is a transponder - yes, it only transmits when interrogated (receives a ping) and there are several modes of transmit/receive. What the fighter system has is an airborne transponder/interrogator - which is the big difference from a civilian ground based air traffic system where the most common modes are 3 and 3C which I use all the time as a private pilot myself, I just lack the ability to interrogate. The fighter IFF system doesn’t replace AWACS, it augments it.
-
Yes, you are correct in NATOPS only applying to the USN…and even then, those pubs do not cover tactics, as a rule. But what I was really getting at was this part -
"The Commander in Chief (CINC) rules of engagement specify that positive identification of an airborne target is required before employing air-to-air weapons beyond visual range. "
This implies that IFF is always on and in use, no matter where you are in the mix.
No, only that you need positive ID. And IFF does not actually provide positive enemy ID, it can provide positive friendly or lack of friendly.
Do note that there is a lot of technique in those docs, even if they take care not to stray into tactics.
-
…and that’s really the point isn’t it - prevention of fratricide?
-
It is also in this case preventing blue on green and blue on white - LoF is not alone sufficient to even prevent blue on blue reliably.
Good examples of PEI would be confirmed as a hostile type by NCTR, or by VID. Awacs could correlate emissions with a group to get an electronic ID which could be PEI if it confirmed hostile type.
If you are fighting similar airframes - such as Egyptian vs Israeli F-16s - then PEI starts to require VID or observation of a hostile act.