Red Flag Su-30 MKI Lectures Video

[GGTharos]

That's pretty strange given that there have been accounts of the F-22 already using T/R as mini-AWACS on Link-16.

[Steve Davies]

GG

 

Those accounts are inaccurate.

 

The F-22 uses a narrow-beam Intra-Flight Data-Link that is very limited in range (a function of the strength of the signal transmitted) in order to limit emissions. Link 16 is highly susceptible to SIGINT intercept, and would therefore broadcast the Raptor's position. That is why it is not used.

 

TTNT (Tactical Targeting Network Technology) and Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN), which are both in development, are being tested at the moment as a means to get the F-22's 'picture' into other cockpits. The F-22's sensor data downloads to either the CAOC or a similar ground station, which then relays the data over Link 16 to everyone else on the net.

[Steve Davies]

A quick Google search offers a pretty descriptive overview. It is almost a year old, but other than the fact that TTNT has now been succesfully tested on the F-22, it remains accurate:

 

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/DTINETS.xml&headline=F-22%20and%20F-35%20Suffer%20From%20Network%20Gaps

[GGTharos]

Aha! Thanks Steve, I wasn't aware of this.

[Mugatu]

That's not true at all. Link 16 signal basically looks like noise and you'd be lucky to find it at all.

 

 

Link- 16 uses the Time-Division Multiple Access (TDMA) principle of data communications. Using this architecture with time interlacing provides the system with multiple and apparently simultaneous communications nets. Instead of assigning each unit a PU number, Link-16 assigns each unit a JTIDS Unit number, or JU. The JU identifies the units and determines a preassigned set of time slots that designate when the unit transmits and receives data. Each time slot is 1/128 of a second, or 7.8125 milliseconds, in duration. When a JU transmits data, the frequency that the data is transmitted on is changed every 13 microseconds (µsec), according to a predetermined pseudo-random pattern. Link-16 uses 51 different frequencies for data exchange. This frequency hopping adds to the security and integrity of the system by making it nearly impossible to jam.

http://www.tpub.com/content/et/14088/css/14088_141.htm

 

I believe the 22 is being upgraded to Tx, I'll try and find the ref.

 

GG

Link 16 is highly susceptible to SIGINT intercept, and would therefore broadcast the Raptor's position. That is why it is not used.

[Mugatu]

^^

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_/ai_n28869883

[Steve Davies]

Mugato

 

Just because Link-16 uses spread-spectrum ECCM techniques does not mean that it cannot be detected by SIGINT platforms. I am not an RF engineer by any stretch of the imagination, but respected industry sources (Aviation Week, et al) have stated that one driving reason for ditching plans to integrate Link-16 TX capability on the F-22 is this very premise.

 

I just spent a couple of days at the 90th FS in Elmendorf, and they did not once mention Link-16 TX as something they are working on. Indeed, the very recent demonstration of F-22 TTNT between pseudo CAOCs at Langley and Nellis, and participating F-16s, would seem to support this.

[Steve Davies]

^^

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_/ai_n28869883

 

You need to work with current data: that article is 7 years old.

 

Plans to integrate Link-16 TX were abandoned in 2007 in favour of the stealthier TTNT.

 

I would suggest you have a read of the following, up-to-date articles:

 

http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/3184

 

http://www.defense-update.com/features/2008/may08/F22_datalink_gateway.htm

[Mugatu]

I guess you would have a much better chance of finding the Link16 signal than the TTNT signal if it's using pencil beams, but again Link-16 is no easy signal to find not only due to the spread-spectrum but at the rate it hopes and the manner it hopes, can't say more.

 

http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/December/12132007/12132007-18.htm

Edited November 10, 2008 by Mugatu

[Mugatu]

I think this is the video that was mentioned in the brief, look around 8:50?

 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcl6oa-Cz98

[Groove]

Here is an article about Link-16, maybe thats why they dont want it on the F-22 in Tx mode:

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Warpac-Rus-PLA-ESM.html

[Kula66]

Kula

 

I don't buy that as an explanation: you don't travel half way around the world and then embarrass yourself in front of a host nation you have worked hard to convince that they should let you attend.

 

My belief is that if they had had the capability, they would have used it.

 

I'm sure the Russians/Indians have war reserved modes and features just like us ... it would be stupid to go play the USA backyard with all that intel gathering around and user all you toys just to look big. I'm sure the Indians are far too smart for that ... like the French ;)

Edited November 11, 2008 by Kula66

[RedTiger]

Wasn't there a thread around here and some articles talking about it was hoped (in a sort of unadmitted, no one comes out and says it sort of way) the MKI's would use their radar so some ELINT could be done but they ended up only using some sort of simulation or training mode?

 

I know that I'm missing something important, since I don't see how you can even operate at Red Flag without using your radar.

[GGTharos]

What you're missing is that what was said publicly is not what happened. ;)

[wasserfall]

Here is some video footage of the Indian experience of Redflag

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-705642758122432671&ei=SDkTSamAIY6I_QGKk9TlDg&q=2008+Red+Flag

[Cosmonaut]

Here is some video footage of the Indian experience of Redflag

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-705642758122432671&ei=SDkTSamAIY6I_QGKk9TlDg&q=2008+Red+Flag

 

Nice video Thx for sharing :) .

 

Good explanation from the IAF regarding the reasons they sent a very young and some what inexperienced flight crew.

[Steve Davies]

I'm sure the Russians/Indians have war reserved modes and features just like us ... it would be stupid to go play the USA backyard with all that intel gathering around and user all you toys just to look big. I'm sure the Indians are far too smart for that ... like the French ;)

 

You have to differentiate between technical and software capabilities - wartime-only modes are technical and can be 'snooped'; that's precisely why they are reserved for wartime. Software routines, like onboard EID (at least, some EID capes), are not.

 

In retrospect, they may have an autonomous EID capability, but with red and blue forces being played by the same a/c types it may not have been much use to them without Mode 4 IFF capability to help tick the boxes of the ROE matrix.

 

Whatever the case, using onboard EID techniques isn't about 'looking big'. The whole point is that you can declare a bogey as hostile or friendly without telling the other guy how you did it - provided that you don't frat, that's an accepted part of how Red Flag works.

Edited November 15, 2008 by Steve Davies

[Steve Davies]

Wasn't there a thread around here and some articles talking about it was hoped (in a sort of unadmitted, no one comes out and says it sort of way) the MKI's would use their radar so some ELINT could be done but they ended up only using some sort of simulation or training mode?

 

I know that I'm missing something important, since I don't see how you can even operate at Red Flag without using your radar.

 

RT

 

I would be massively surprised if the IAF had not made some effort to keep their most classified capabilities offline (this is something that everybody does), but realise that they spent 18 months spinning up for Red Flag; that they wanted to be invited back, so they had to impress; and that they actually had learning outcomes of their own that needed to be satisfied. With that as a basis for their participation, it would have made no sense to have handcuffed their young guys with draconian restrictions on what they could/could not do.

 

Also, the Indians are smart people. They would have known that there would have been ELINT gathering at Red Flag, and they would have balanced the likelihood of having some of their capabilities compromised with the training benefits of attending. So long as they did not reveal wartime-only capes, I would bet that the benefits outweighed the negatives.

[Vekkinho]

 

I know that I'm missing something important, since I don't see how you can even operate at Red Flag without using your radar.

 

Perhaps Su-30MKI played a role of radarless fighter at RF. It has EOS onboard so all WVR engagements are not compromised!

[GGTharos]

It used the radar. That much was clear from the brief.

[Mugatu]

The other point of view if you believe it?

 

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2008/11/livefist-column-vishnu-som-first-hand.html

[GGTharos]

Yeah, I believe it ... one's a debrief that wasn't meant to be public, your link is public stuff, though he's claiming to be debunking certain things.

 

I don't see why the guy in the debrief would lie - makes no sense to me, but stuff doesn't have to make sense to be true.

[RedTiger]

There are some things in that article that directly contradict that video. Interesting. Reading over the comments, its clear that the people commenting have also seen that video.

 

Who should you believe, the layperson journalist reporting in a public story who is making an effort to be impartial but also wants to debunk? Or should you believe the expert who is speaking candidly in private who also tried to give credit where credit's due but pulled no punches about the outcomes?

[tflash]

Anyway, the leaked video is not a valid basis for an assessment of Red Flag. First of all the speaker discredits himself by making controversial and undiplomatic statements that go far beyond the scope of assessing the exercise. What he said about the French, in general and in particular, was certainly more than bargained for ;).

 

Second, we are unclear about the motives for "unintentionally" leaking this video on youtube.

 

Third, when individuals in my IT-organisation make such "candid" remarks, and there are a lot of them who feel free to do so, mostly unsollicited, I often:

 

- know in advance what their remarks will be, simply by character judgement and the fact many open-hearted people have a consistent bias

- mostly have strong and good reason to doubt whether they are qualified to overview the whole picture. Many very professional people can only see part of what is hapening in today's complex working environments, and I suppose Red Flag IS a complex enivroment.

 

So, a "candid" assessment is not always a completely reliable assessment.

Edited November 22, 2008 by tflash

[Pilotasso]

The truth may lie between what the indians say and what the US personel say. It is clear to me that both sides like to present the most glorious side of their part. All in all this middle term seems to indicate that pilots were making the mistakes, and the strengths of the hardware in cause have not been put in evidence as werent their weaknesses (specialy the russian missiles effecteviness has never been demonstarted against weel equiped western planes).