Blaze1
-
Posts
516 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Blaze1
-
You're 5 years too late I'm afraid.
-
He mentions the panoramic scope at 8:47: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or5VQdM2bag&t=527s
-
When in the Homing mode, the analysis display works pretty much like the last video at 22:07. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQe-CLI2Zpw&t=1327s
-
Nice photos, particularly the one showing the rear cockpit. Where did you manage to find that? It's the only picture I've ever seen of the rear cockpit showing both the APR-36 warning display and APR-35 attack display, both of which look exactly the same as I mentioned in an earlier post. I think the APR-36/37 replaced the APR-25/26 and the APR-35 replaced the ER-142, but don't quote me on that. So I think the descriptions of the rear cockpit in that picture are incorrect.
-
Okay, there's quite a bit to unpack in those google drive illustrations. Analysis Display: 1) The band selector switch is used to select the frequency band of interest. 2) The correlate button is used to compare a signal on the analysis display, with those on other displays. When pressed, signals displayed on the APR-36 warning display will dim or blank, with the exception of the strobe having parameters matching those of the analysis scope signal. The APR-36 threat warning lights will also illuminate indicating the type of threat. Two of the three signals on the panoramic display will dim or blank (that is to say, two of the three bands will be suppressed somewhat) and the signal in the band that matches the analysis display's tuned parameters, will remain lit. 3) The 'SWEEP RATE' knob shown, is used to vary the speed at which the bands are scanned by the analysis receiver. It works a little bit like a radars scan rate, where a lower speed can help pick out faint signals. A faster rate can be used to, for example, increase the probability of intercepting low prf signals. The panoramic display has its own set of controls to the left, that aren't included in any of the illustrations, but can be seen in the USAF Museum's rear cockpit photos of the F-105G. 4) The attenuation knob controls the sensitivity of the analysis receiver. It's usually set to maximum sensitivity to detect signals at longer ranges, but can be tuned to eliminate weaker signals etc, depending on the tactical situation. 5) The tuning knob is used to select a specific frequency for the analysis receiver to scan. It will look like a step up in the noise floor and moves left to right or vice versa, as a frequency is tuned in. On the panoramic display, the signal would typically look 'pointy'/more triangular or like a mound.
-
I believe the sweep rate knob adjusts how fast the receiver scans/listens to the selected band from end to end. The antennas can't really be directed like that, they should be automatically directed by the system. I think there's a little bit of info on the AN/ALR-66 in the P-3 NATOPS. It's described as an RWR. The P-3's AN/ULQ-16 is perhaps closer in function to the APR-35 than the ALR-66.
-
That looks good. The position of the trace on the panoramic display (the larger square display) shouldn't change as a function of the direction of the emitter, as it's just a frequency vs amplitude display. Also the analysis display (the one with the dot), is not a b-scope. I don't believe is should have a sweep line on it. EDIT: I've just read the textual descriptions that were attached to the three edited images. You described the panoramic display as depicting range, rather than azimuth (which I previously thought you had described), this isn't quite right, it's just a frequency vs amplitude display. The analysis display can also show this for a specific threat/signal, when in the 'OMNI' or 'Video' modes.
-
Yes, that's how it works. I mentioned a circle before, but that's wrong, it's a dot. The circle, vertical and horizontal lines on the analysis display are inscribed, but there is a dot that represents the position of the targeted signal, the aim of which is to place inside the circle. The aiming dot also appears on the pilots gunsight.
-
Okay, I have that photo. It's from the USAF museum website.
-
RWRs in real life can differentiate between different radars and ID them as F15, F18, F4 etc, but they're subject to ambiguities, so on occasion may not actually be what the system says they are.
-
I believe the larger screen on the left (part of the APR-35 is called the panoramic display) works as you drew it, with the three separate sections of the display to show signal traces in the three bands. The smaller, right-hand display (analysis display also part of the APR-35) can be used to show a number of things depending on the mode selected. When tuned to a signal, it will present info on that signal as a trace, but by changing modes it can show homing, with the circle 'shown' which indicates the direction of the emitter. There is also a direction finding mode, with two vertical strobes representing signal strength from the left or right of the aircraft in relation to the signal or a trace display option, where an increase or decrease in signal strength from the left or right of the jet, is proportional to the length of the trace and a simultaneous increase or decrease in strobe length, is an indication of signal strength. The blank panel next to the APR-36/37 warning scope, should be fitted with another APR-36/37 scope (Attack Scope Display). This second scope is used to select targets via a cursor, however, unlike the warning scope, this scope only displays targets which both the APR-36/37 & APR-35 are tuned to.
-
Yup that' what I thought. Humint plays a huge role in creating the library describing the 'thumbprint'. The system/sensors then know what to look for, but also have to be pretty sensitive and discriminating.
-
The man had taste I can see. Going back to what you mentioned before about IDing emitters, I get it now. I've been re-watching a Starbaby video (former F-4G EWO) and he mentioned Specific Emitter Identification needing good intel and really only working with older systems. I looked this up and yes, it's just like you mentioned. The articles touch upon what I suggested as well (imperfections in each specific system within a model, giving it a unique fingerprint). Google AIs Overview: "Specific emitter identification (SEI) is a technique for identifying the unique characteristics of a transmitter by analyzing the imperfections in its emitted radio signals. These imperfections, often referred to as radio frequency fingerprints (RFFs), are unique to each transmitter due to manufacturing variations. SEI is valuable in various applications, including wireless network security, cognitive radio, and identifying the source of interference." Also: Specific Emitter identification for Radar Signals Really interesting stuff and makes me wonder about the intel side (human aspect as well) even more.
-
Ah okay. I asked (about which version of the P-3) because I was looking up information on the P-3 yesterday and recalled an incident you must be very aware of, in which a Chinese fighter collided with an EP-3E Aries II over the South China Sea in 2001, with the damaged Aries landing in China, after which much of its SIGINT equipment onboard was heavily compromised. P-3C is a really interesting aircraft, from the missions it performs to the very numerous and sophisticated, integrated sensor suite.
-
What version of the P-3 were you assigned to and as part of the learning, was it a requirement for you to memorise the audio characteristics of many many signals, as was done in the past at EWO school?
-
Sounds like acoustic NCTR.
-
What does that mean?
-
By Block number and manufacturing date, I assume you must be describing EW features that may differentiate an upgraded version of a model, e.g. SA-8 Mod 0 vs SA-8 Mod 1. You couldn't tell the difference between two SA-8 Mod 1's, unless the manufacturing tolerances were incredibly poor or they were purposely designed to have very slight, individual variations in signal characteristics.
-
Interesting that you mentioned microwaves and cell phones, I would assume there were options to blank microwave oven and cell phone frequencies, but if you didn't, wouldn't there be far to much clutter on the scope to pick out a specific microwave or perhaps they're not used as simultaneously (across different households, offices and building) as I'm thinking. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we're taking about a modder making a best guess, well they'd be free to do so, but it wouldn't be a particularly accurate module, in fact nowhere close, but if people were interested in using it, more power to them. AI Wild Weasel assets would be fine.
-
That may be part of the issue, but from what I've seen from 3rd party devs, I can't envision them struggling with any of the cockpit functionality or displays, the issue is that those panels and displays, along with their functionality, are inextricably linked to a sophisticated EW environment. RAZBAM's Strike Eagle radar design, is a prime example in terms of the level of detail that can be achieved under the hood by a 3rd party and demonstrates indirectly that creating an EW display shouldn't be an issue. AGM-78 STARM capes may require coordination with ED however.
-
I understand your position, but I'm of the opinion that if a developer is going to put in the hard graft to create a module, they may as well focus on one that can be modelled to a high standard from the get go, rather than putting in all the effort, then crossing their fingers praying for ED to come through sooner rather than later.
-
Very valuable, even just talking about basic theory and comparisons between ASW electronic equipment and Wild Weasel electronic equipment.
-
That would need to be considered, but even it there was, the EW systems would be 90% redundant.
-
It is, based on the four parameters listed, however given the lack of EW in DCS, I still don't really see the point. The end product would be pretty far removed from an actual F-105G's systems, so much so that it wouldn't really matter how range is supplied, because almost everything else can't be/would be wasted modelling.
