Kula66 Posted February 27, 2005 Posted February 27, 2005 Anyone know the figure ... I'm sure I had a doc with it in somewhere and can't find it. Reason I'm asking is that I'm wondering why the Sov radars seem to get lock through jamming sooner than the 15s ... this isn't a Russian technology bashing thread - just wondering! In the new manual the 27/29 is rated at 1000W ... I know I'm never going to get jammer performance, so what is the 15s figure? Thanks, James
britgliderpilot Posted February 27, 2005 Posted February 27, 2005 Re: Power output of APG-63v1? Anyone know the figure ... I'm sure I had a doc with it in somewhere and can't find it. Reason I'm asking is that I'm wondering why the Sov radars seem to get lock through jamming sooner than the 15s ... this isn't a Russian technology bashing thread - just wondering! In the new manual the 27/29 is rated at 1000W ... I know I'm never going to get jammer performance, so what is the 15s figure? Thanks, James I'd suggest that burn-through isn't directly related to the power output of the radar - it'll be a function of the power of the radar, the power of the jammer, and the ability of the radar to filter out noise 'n stuff. Could just be that the Russkies have better jammers? The Sorbitsya is supposed to be pretty darn good . . . . http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
GGTharos Posted February 27, 2005 Posted February 27, 2005 'Better' is highly subjective. The problem is, you couldn't possibly guess since it's all classified. There are ways to filter out some jamming, as suggested by some sources (SK is gonan jump me on this one ... but we've already discussed this before so let's not get into it! ;) ) ... but keep in mind that this isn't a perfect solution - on the other hand, it can certianly allow you to make a far more accurate attack than if you didn't apply any ECCM at all. In effect, it's a speed bump. Also, jamming equipment is far more automated and smart than what we have in LOMAC right now. EG. the jamemr will turn on when the aircraft has been locked onto to break the lock, then turn off once the lock has been broken. It doesn't pay to be running around with your jammer on all the time ... The Sorbitsiya is certainly 'different' expecially since it can use dual emitters and perform some interesting forms of jamming, but it is by -no- means the end-all be-all. Keep in mind that a whole bunch of jammers out there need to have moduels 'swapped' to match expected threats so they may not be able to cover evetyhing that's thrown at'em. There are some crappy jammers out there, too. For example, the B-1B ECM project has been a dissapointment. I imagine that it outperforms fighter SPJ's fiercely though. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kula66 Posted February 27, 2005 Author Posted February 27, 2005 Re: Power output of APG-63v1? I'd suggest that burn-through isn't directly related to the power output of the radar - it'll be a function of the power of the radar, the power of the jammer, and the ability of the radar to filter out noise 'n stuff. Could just be that the Russkies have better jammers? The Sorbitsya is supposed to be pretty darn good . . . . I know there's a whole load of factors in the calculation and much classified info ... That is why I was after something simple like operating power. Assume the Rus jammers are similar to the US ones, assume that the maths/theory behind it is as good on one side as the other (Russian have some of the best mathmaticians in the world ... and the KGB was second to none) ... so compare raw output ... If it's 600W then hey, I can understand why the 27 burns through quickier ... but what is it? James
GGTharos Posted February 27, 2005 Posted February 27, 2005 All the mathematitians in the world won't help you when nature says 'stop'. Besides, I know some quite brilliant mathematitians right where I live, so please, let's dispense with the 'x has some of the best whoevers in the world' commentary okay? ;) The KGB can very well be second to the NSA, too ;) Back on topic, simple power output will get you the burn through values for radar versus jammer based on power output alone, but this is probably not really a correct representation of what's happening. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kula66 Posted February 27, 2005 Author Posted February 27, 2005 Can I asume you don't know the answer to the question then? James
GGTharos Posted February 27, 2005 Posted February 27, 2005 I think the best person to ask is SK if you want the numbers. He's even done the math on burn through ranges, I think. EDIT: AFAIK, I'm not even certain wether he has them or not ... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
D-Scythe Posted February 27, 2005 Posted February 27, 2005 Well, the AN/APG-63/63v1/70 also had special, but highly classified modes, built into the radar to allow it to defeat ECM at longer ranges than the conventional modes (e.g. RWSI, TWS, etc) could. So in most cases, 'burn-through' (for the lack of a better term) is not actually achieved at burn through, and is more a question of the ability of the F-15's computers and their programming to filter out all the noise and stuff rather than the brute power of the radar itself. The real AN/APG-63/70 is far less vulnerable to ECM than Lock On's, and probably most radars in its class because of these classified modes specialized in defeating jamming in mind. Problem is, it's sorta like NCTR; we know that they exist, but have no idea what they do and how it's called upon on the VSD.
Kula66 Posted March 2, 2005 Author Posted March 2, 2005 So nobody knows? Also, in the manual, it says the 27s radar burns through at 27km ... surely this should be variable depending on whichjammer its facing, aspect of the target etc. James
Guest DeathAngelBR Posted March 2, 2005 Posted March 2, 2005 lmao@tharos I find it hilarious. When it's about russian tech, he's like "it's not the end-all be-all stuff", "everything is classified", trying to make people believe he's right about everything he says. Then when it's about merrikan junk he's like "our stuff is betterer!!!11! because we have more money!!!11! and because I say so and I'm god!111!! although I can't prove or back up anything I say11!!!" :roll: Jump off a bridge.
Alfa Posted March 2, 2005 Posted March 2, 2005 Hi Kula66, My experience is that, unlike with Russian radars, it is very difficult to find that level of information (such as power output) on US radars. I suspect it is classified, but I could be wrong....sometimes it is just a question of looking in the right places. Cheers, - JJ. JJ
Starlight Posted March 2, 2005 Posted March 2, 2005 I just saw on the F-15 manual that I own that it runs with 24 1,5 V AAA batteries :) One of the black boxes behind the pilot is said to carry the spares and/or the recharger :)
Alfa Posted March 2, 2005 Posted March 2, 2005 Aha! Now lets see 24 x 1.5V that makes.... Cheers, - JJ. JJ
SwingKid Posted March 2, 2005 Posted March 2, 2005 The "power" of a radar is expressed in different ways. For example, the "peak power" of the MiG-29 is up to 6.5 kW, but the "average power" (more useful for such calculations) is normally 900 W. I think I've heard figures of 8 kW for the F-14 and 5 or 6 kW for the F-15, but these will also be "peak" powers and not necessarily applicable to jamming equations. The "short" story is that regardless of the exact radar and jammer power levels, for the purposes of a fighter duel, ECM burn-through is effectively a myth. The jammer should overpower the radar easily down to guns range. -SK
23rd_Drago Posted March 2, 2005 Posted March 2, 2005 lmao@tharos Every forum has a clown… to educate the rest of us on how things truly are. :roll: GGTharos happens to be on this one.
olaleier Posted March 2, 2005 Posted March 2, 2005 840 ft :shock: :shock: I believe you posted something this on Ubi once: (paraphrased beyong recognition no doubt) "Air combat between two technically matched opponents? I don't think it would work at all." :D
Dmut Posted March 3, 2005 Posted March 3, 2005 lmao@tharos Every forum has a clown… to educate the rest of us on how things truly are. :roll: GGTharos happens to be on this one.from my point of view, you did a personal attack on forum member. DON'T! "There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: recklessness, which leads to destruction; cowardice, which leads to capture; a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble." Sun Tzu [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic2354_5.gif[/sigpic]
Kula66 Posted March 3, 2005 Author Posted March 3, 2005 The "short" story is that regardless of the exact radar and jammer power levels, for the purposes of a fighter duel, ECM burn-through is effectively a myth. The jammer should overpower the radar easily down to guns range. I guess the radar signal has got to hit the target and return, whereas the jamming signal only has a one way trip ... and I assume its one of those inverse square relationships ... By the way SK, what book does your diagram come from? Thanks Guys .. James
GGTharos Posted March 3, 2005 Posted March 3, 2005 The "short" story is that regardless of the exact radar and jammer power levels, for the purposes of a fighter duel, ECM burn-through is effectively a myth. The jammer should overpower the radar easily down to guns range. I guess the radar signal has got to hit the target and return, whereas the jamming signal only has a one way trip ... and I assume its one of those inverse square relationships ... By the way SK, what book does your diagram come from? Thanks Guys .. James it's a little worse that that. Inverse of the square for the jammer, inverse of the quartic (to the power of four) for the radar ... so the jammer's power is related to the radar's power as the inverse of the square of the distance, with the jammer having the power of the radar squared given a jammer with the same output power. You can see then that jammers can use less power and be quite successful (or in other words, they can easily overpower the radar in theory ... I'm sure output power depends on a number of other things though, like cooling issues, size of the antenna etc as well) So you can probably see how the huge Sorbitsia's with their alleged ability to operate in some interesting modes can be quite a problem on the battlefield. ANyway, look for the Nike Hercules stuff ... it pretty much explains that jamming, in the end, is just a speed bump. Useful, but it doesn't make you immune to anything which is why all airforces uses it as just a part of their defensive/offensive tactics. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
SwingKid Posted March 3, 2005 Posted March 3, 2005 By the way SK, what book does your diagram come from? Stimson's "Introduction to Airborne Radar". Highly recommended! -SK
crazyleggs Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 Probably because it's not modeled in LOMAC, people fail to realize that technique generation by the jammer is more important than it's power (for SPJs anyways). A jammer powered by wheel and hamster can still defeat "burn through" from a high ERP radar like the APG-63/70 as long as it's jamming technique is efficient at exploiting a certain vulnerability. The only instance that high power output from a jammer is required is when it's using pure dumb noise techniques and/or in SOJ. From what I've seen, that's what LOMAC models. LOMAC would be a lot more interesting if it also modeled smart noise, range, velocity and angle walk offs. You would be able to walk around all day with your SPJ on and defeat a lot of BVR shots.
GGTharos Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 Except there are ways (IIRC) to defeat that, too. Jammer=speed bump when similarely capable (in terms of technology) oppoents face off insofar as I've seen. Anyway, Chizh has mentioned that they would have liked to model such things (in the Russian Forums I think..i visit them aeevery now and then) but that this is too complex, so the range-based jammer is the compromize they were able to implement in this case. It'd be neat to see gate-stealers, etc etc ismplemented though, no doubt about it. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kula66 Posted March 5, 2005 Author Posted March 5, 2005 Interesting article about 1/2 way down ... http://www.protonriver.com/archives/airforce/af_2.html James
Recommended Posts