Pilotasso Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 From F-16.net: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12353.html I worked on the ALQ-131 in England in 1986-87, and then I became the lead field engineer for Raytheon on the ALQ-184 from 1987 to 1998. Everything I am saying here is freely available in industry publications (I checked carefully). The ALQ-184 is a heavily modified ALQ-119. Raytheon gutted the RF bay and changed the layout. The various RF channels were standardized. The analog control section was replaced with a digital control section with 15 microprocessors. The ALQ-131 is a modular ECM system, with removable equipment racks to provide a versatile mission package. Changing equipment configurations isn't as easy as Westinghouse made it out to be, though, so the standard package is pretty closeley adhered to. The F-16 typically flies with a shallow pod configuration. A "deep" pod configuration with an equipment gondola underneath adds another octave of frequency coverage but is dangerously deep for the F-16 centerline mount. The ALQ-131 was designed with maintenance in mind, with easy access to all the RF and control sections. Cooling is provided through an evaporative freon recirculating system. The ALQ-184 incorporated the Rotman RF lens used in the Navy SLQ-32 shipboard ECM system. Reliability was increased using multiple mini-TWT's instead of single high gain TWT's like the ALQ-131 and -119. High gain antennas and a pulse processing receiver dramatically increased the effective radiated power of the system. Cooling is provided using coolanol 20 recirculated through a high pressure pump to radiating heat exchangers. The system is not as maintenance friendly, since the RF section is contained in a 9-inch tube and requires a great deal of effort to remove for troubleshooting. Both systems are designed for self-protection jamming for tactical fighter aircraft. Neither system provides enough power to deny the use of the spectrum to modern weapons systems, so the objective is to achieve an acceptable miss distance by spoofing the threat radar. This is done through a variety of techniques that I won't discuss. There is no doctrine to choose one pod over another based on the mission requirement. Active units do not employ more than one type of pod. The ALQ-184 has been proven to be more effective than the ALQ-131, and doesn't have as big an impact aerodynamically, so is the pod of choice for combat units. The ALQ-187 has nothing to do with the ALQ-184. .
tflash Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Interesting read! Thanks for sharing! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
RedTiger Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Just an observation; have you ever noticed that, at least in the US military, they always say "I won't discuss" or "I'm not going to discuss" rather than "I can't"? Is this a conscience thing they are trained to do? It may seem like semantics, but there is a big difference. "I won't" communicates an active stance of not giving away any info even if you actually could. "I can't" almost infers that the speaker wouldn't mind doing so, but his superiors won't let him. Its easy to see why they would prefer the former. Am I right that about the intentional word choice or is it just conincidence?
Pilotasso Posted July 29, 2009 Author Posted July 29, 2009 (edited) Just an observation; have you ever noticed that, at least in the US military, they always say "I won't discuss" or "I'm not going to discuss" rather than "I can't"? Is this a conscience thing they are trained to do? It may seem like semantics, but there is a big difference. "I won't" communicates an active stance of not giving away any info even if you actually could. "I can't" almost infers that the speaker wouldn't mind doing so, but his superiors won't let him. Its easy to see why they would prefer the former. Am I right that about the intentional word choice or is it just conincidence? I work in the industry and I understand that, that kind of semantics come from people who are not sure if their info is classified but are fearfull that anything they might say could indeed go somewhere against their contracts or lead to reprimands. Often people wont comment even if the info is released publicaly. Laboral ethics Edited July 29, 2009 by Pilotasso .
RedTiger Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 (edited) I work in the industry and I understand that, that kind of semantics come from people who are not sure if their info is classified but are fearfull that anything they might say could indeed go somewhere against their contracts or lead to reprimands. Often people wont comment even if the info is released publicaly. Laboral ethics Hmm...well, the context I've heard that in doesn't really support the notion that they are unsure. Two examples I can think of off-hand; I was watching a show about stealth technology and the SR-71 was briefly discussed. A man who worked at Lockheed's skunk works mentioned that they experimented with low-observability technology. Besides shape, he said that there were other methods which he "wasn't going to talk about" because they were still classified. Another dealt with Pablo Escobar. One of the US operatives (who had his identity masked, btw) said that they had technology onboard their civilian aircraft that could very accurately track location based on phone calls via methods he "wasn't going to go into". Neither of them sounded unsure, especially the guy tracking Escobar. I would think that you wouldn't just be unsure, you'd also be afraid of being thrown in prison. IIRC, I think I've even read posts here from Rhen, who is an F-15 pilot, where he chooses the same type of phrase when something is classified. Sorry for the derail. That was a cool bit of info there in the post, thanks for sharing! I've been meaning to ask this here before but never actually did. Maybe a moderator will move this to a different thread. Edited July 29, 2009 by RedTiger
AlphaOneSix Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 I don't know, I think it's more of a show of independent will, for example. That is, "I choose not to tell you because it would be wrong to do so." Instead of "I can't tell you because my boss said so." Just an example. Nobody likes to think that they don't have control over what they say and do. For example, saying "I can't" to anything just makes my brain scream out "Oh yeah! Well watch this!", whereas saying "I won't" implies that I've made a personal choice. My employer is crazy about secrecy, and I could easily lose my job and my security clearance if I divulged too much info. But I would never say that "I can't tell", because as an adult, I can do whatever I want, I just have to be prepared for the consequences. So I usually say "I'd rather not say" when it comes to releasing sensitive information. Besides, in my experience, when someone says "I can't tell you", they don't actually have anything worth telling, they are just stirring up drama. 1
RedTiger Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 I don't know, I think it's more of a show of independent will, for example. That is, "I choose not to tell you because it would be wrong to do so." Instead of "I can't tell you because my boss said so." Just an example. Nobody likes to think that they don't have control over what they say and do. For example, saying "I can't" to anything just makes my brain scream out "Oh yeah! Well watch this!", whereas saying "I won't" implies that I've made a personal choice. My employer is crazy about secrecy, and I could easily lose my job and my security clearance if I divulged too much info. But I would never say that "I can't tell", because as an adult, I can do whatever I want, I just have to be prepared for the consequences. So I usually say "I'd rather not say" when it comes to releasing sensitive information. Besides, in my experience, when someone says "I can't tell you", they don't actually have anything worth telling, they are just stirring up drama. Yeah, very well put! It's like you're taking the initiative to uphold your honor on the secret. Why? Because YOU want to because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because mommy and daddy told you not to. :D
CE_Mikemonster Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Plus it sounds cooler. As if you're with Them. ;) Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T
AlphaOneSix Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Plus it sounds cooler. As if you're with Them. ;) "Them" aren't nearly as cool as they're made out to be. ;)
Recommended Posts