Effect of SOJ and SPJ in Cold War BVR Combat (circa 1980's)

[SgtPappy]

Hello, recently I've been searching the threads all over here and other forums concerning the effect on Cold War (in the late 1980's period) BVR air-to-air combat in an ECM-heavy environment.

 

Firstoff, I know a lot of information is classified but among the several threads I've read, all of them have flourished despite the lack of specific information. My curiosity comes mainly from this thread (specifically post #26): http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=10967&highlight=effect+jamming&page=3

 

In the late 80's, many planes like the Flanker and Eagle had SPJ equipment installed while being supported by SOJ aircraft, specifically designed to fool enemy radar and mask friendlies.

 

My questions are as follows and apply to BOTH Russian and US planes:

1) Are BVR shots even a viable combat option assuming equal training as well as fighter and ECM/SOJ support unit count on either side of the involved combatants? Why or why not? Does your answer differ depending on the which country's planes are being analyzed?

 

2) I'm under the impression that under ideal conditions (for the crew of an ECM/SOJ aircaft), the target is completely helpless in terms of burn-through capability until it is VERY close to the SOJ plane. If this is true, under what conditions can a fighter perform BVR shots while being focused on by an SOJ/ECM aircraft?

 

3) There are different techniques of jamming, most of which are either a subcategory of noise or deception jamming. Since many Cold War planes carry digitally-processedl SPJ's or SOJ equipment, either jamming technique may be used by a single system. How well does an SPJ compare in terms of denying the target of a BVR shot versus an SOJ? Can the effects of BOTH jammers be combined to "super-jam" a hostile target?

Edited August 14, 2012 by SgtPappy

[Vekkinho]

1) Viable enough considering that most of the BVR radar missiles intended for use in ECM/ECCM theater have HOJ option. Soviet union lagged in electronic warfare so more emphasis was given to development of IR weapons.

2) IR long range missiles ot HOJ radar missiles are the option here again...

3) I think so...

[marcos]

Nothing ever plays out exactly as per the equations in real life. There's been lots of successful BVR shots against jamming aircraft in real-life combat theatres.

 

I suspect what Vekkinho says is correct. ARMs home on radar signals, so homing on jamming signals will also be an option. There's also the possibility to home on the aircraft's radar similar to the way ARMs home on ground radar.

 

Modern radar-guided and IR-guided missiles never rely on just radar and IR guidance.

Edited August 14, 2012 by marcos

[SgtPappy]

I find all that good to know.

 

But there's also the chance of ECM and ECCM and if USSR ECM tech was indeed lagging behind Western ECM tech (which wouldn't surprise me), Russian fighters would likely have pressed as hard as they could to get to the merge while F-15s will have to do their best to keep away.

 

If implemented in FC, that would mean a lot more dogfights. In addition, the ECM blinking in the game must hurt the HOJ features of any missile. All aspects which I hope FC3 will fix.

[GGTharos]

In the late 80's, many planes like the Flanker and Eagle had SPJ equipment installed while being supported by SOJ aircraft, specifically designed to fool enemy radar and mask friendlies.

 

You're asking about something really complex, and there's no simple answer.

 

My questions are as follows and apply to BOTH Russian and US planes:

1) Are BVR shots even a viable combat option assuming equal training as well as fighter and ECM/SOJ support unit count on either side of the involved combatants? Why or why not? Does your answer differ depending on the which country's planes are being analyzed?

 

Some, yes, but more importantly it depends on the aircraft as well. Bigger, or newer aircraft and and usually do have better ECM equipment. The MiG-29A had nothing, neither did the F-16A, while their contemporary big interceptors 'had it all'.

But SPJs and SoJ's aren't perfect. In particular you can fly your away out of an SoJ's effective angles if there's nothing to stop you from doing so. SPJ's also have physical, as well as processing limitations and you can get around those as well. It starts coming down to knowledge, tactics, training, and having the right machines over the right terrain, at the right time and place.

 

2) I'm under the impression that under ideal conditions (for the crew of an ECM/SOJ aircaft), the target is completely helpless in terms of burn-through capability until it is VERY close to the SOJ plane. If this is true, under what conditions can a fighter perform BVR shots while being focused on by an SOJ/ECM aircraft?]

 

Uh ... who the heck knows? :D Is the SoJ even jamming the frequencies that this radar is operating on at all? Does this radar care? Can said radar kinematically range said target and put an ARM on it? You could also go into some form of manual guidance (I know the F-15 has it), and since the guy is playing your kind of music (ie. jamming on your freqs) that SARH missile could in theory act as an ARM, but with a somewhat lower Pk.

This is assuming you're not just flying yourself out of the SoJ's effect.

 

But hey, if you get 2-3 different radar frequencies, you can make that SoJ spread itself thin. SoJ assets aren't exactly plentiful.

 

3) There are different techniques of jamming, most of which are either a subcategory of noise or deception jamming. Since many Cold War planes carry digitally-processedl SPJ's or SOJ equipment, either jamming technique may be used by a single system. How well does an SPJ compare in terms of denying the target of a BVR shot versus an SOJ? Can the effects of BOTH jammers be combined to "super-jam" a hostile target?

 

Actually none do, AFAIK, none of that stuff was truly digital. This has only happened lately.

An SPJ will typically cause a break-lock on the target radar. As for combining both? Who knows; it's been done in RL already, mostly against SAMs ... but those were all old SAMs.

In terms of an SoJ/SPJ combo erasing BVR ... don't bet your life on it, because these systems can't cover everything. You need tactics, especially in these days of off-board guidance, high-speed digital systems and who knows what other insane thingamadoodles.

[GGTharos]

Not really. You can already have more dogfights if you know what you're doing. Most people don't have a clue. Nor is there any sort of goal to 'cause more dogfights'.

 

A better implemented SPJ on both sides will make things worse for one side, and annoy the other ... it won't balance anything like you seem to be thinking it will.

 

If implemented in FC, that would mean a lot more dogfights. In addition, the ECM blinking in the game must hurt the HOJ features of any missile. All aspects which I hope FC3 will fix.

[SgtPappy]

I'm actually preferring the BVR fight since I fly the F-15C mostly. But like you said there's currently "no goal" to dogfight even though it can obviously be done now.

 

I believe with proper ECM/ECCM (and radar as well), more people will strive for the dogfight because BVR will be more difficult, whether it be one-sided or not.

 

Also, I know that most tactical fighter radar of 4th gen design broadcast X-band waves at least in search mode (if that makes any sense). As an exampled, take the N001. Also, prior to 1988, the F-15's SPJ, the ALQ-135 covered the low and low-medium bands in which the X-band frequency range was not included. Does this mean the N001 is impervious to the ALQ-135?

[GGTharos]

X-Band is the standard fighter fire control band, and it's pretty wide (8-12Ghz). I'm pretty sure the 135 always covered it, but I could be wrong - I'd consider the Ka-Ku bands as high-frequency, rather than the X-Band ... of course, what I consider those to be is pretty meaningless :D

[SgtPappy]

Well according to the older LOMAC 1.1 manual:

 

ALQ-135 jammer tunes itself according to threat data ... coverage in its overlapping Band 1 (NATO E through G) and Band 2 (NATO G through I).

 

And I think you're right because then according to wiki (taken with a grain of salt):

The I band is the range of radio frequencies from 8 GHz to 10 GHz in the electromagnetic spectrum. This is equal to wave lengths between 3.75 cm and 3 cm. The I band is in the SHF range of the radio spectrum.

The I band lies in the X band of the IEEE classification system.

 

Band 3 was meant to give the ALQ-135 jamming ability to higher frequencies, but apparently this upgrade was plagued with glitches.

[Vekkinho]

Dogfights usually happen when somebody does something wrong...

 

If implemented in FC, that would mean a lot more dogfights. In addition, the ECM blinking in the game must hurt the HOJ features of any missile. All aspects which I hope FC3 will fix.

Yugoslav MiG-29 in '99 OAF were sent up against superior adversary who had more aircraft and 90% of it's fleet was more modern than those Fulcrums. Those MiG's were usually equipped with R-60 and ocassionaly but rarely R-73 misslies since Yugoslavian airforce (JRV) seriousely lacked Alamos (delivery of Alamos to JRV dates back to 1987/88). On the other hand, there's a probable cause since taking SARH means you have to use your onboard radar to track, lock, shoot and maintain lock up until a hit. Having radar lit in this case could only contribute against you since it's more of a beacon, emiting your position than it can help you engage any of the aircraft.

 

So the tactic was to follow the GCI, loiter in the weed and when hostile fleet approaches to pop-up and engage with IRs and guns. This is pretty much the WWII tactic from Battle of Britain period as JRV probably thought there's gonna be hundreds of aircraft flying next to each other that can be taken out with a cluster bomb exploding in midair. As you can see this tactic sucked. So keeping your hopes high pushing for WVR fight or dogfight in today's battlefield in nonsense...

 

None of those Fulcrum pilots knew what hit 'em...

Edited August 14, 2012 by Vekkinho

[SgtPappy]

That's very encouraging for me actually. BVR combat is where Modern US planes excel.

 

Going to my OP though, question 2). Other than ECM/ECCM, GG mentioned that one could reposition one's plane when being jammed. How would one avoid total mainlobe or sidelobe jamming, especially this pilot did not know he/she was being jammed?

 

I suppose maneuvering constantly (like fighter pilots should) could keep the jamming plane's crew with a heavier workload.

[GGTharos]

Sidelobe jamming can usually be burned through early, or may even be entirely in-effective against a modern radar, but that's all speculation.

 

The jammer has to 'spotlight' your emitter because otherwise it will just spread all its power all over the place - same reason why your radar has a narrow beam. That antenna has some limitation as to its emission AZ/EL, and you can position out of it. Alternatively, if you bring a bunch of radar sets that all operate in such a way as to consume the jammer's bandwidth (or number of targets it can jam), other planes will be un-affected by it.

If you bring lots of emitters, the processing of all those signals may saturate the RWR and ECM gear, resulting in what you know as 'Loss of FPS' in your favourite flight sim - so threat detections may happen slowly, along with reaction happening slowly, etc etc.

 

SoJ's don't necesarily suffer from this, but SPJs can.

 

Incindetally, if you're being jammed by an SoJ, you WILL know.

 

To add to what Vekkinho said, Iraqi AF MIG-25's have gone to the merge with F-15's after executing 'anti-F-15 tactics' (... drop chaff and notch). THey were shot down in the ensuing dogfight, something they were never really meant to do.

One MiG-29 merged (dogfight!) with F-15's and was destroyed when it hit the ground in a spiral-down, where the MiG had some advantage.

Another MiG-29 got a lock on one of two F-15's after some maneuvering at 4nm. Took a sparrow to the face from the wingman when the spiked guy went defensive. No missile was launched, but at 4nm you drop to the notch.

Edited August 14, 2012 by GGTharos

[SgtPappy]

I believe I've read almost all of those from one of Osprey's excellent books. The last one you outlined was a fight that ensued between 'Rico' Rodriguez with his wingman and that MiG.

 

It seems that historically, there have been few BVR shots and many of them have been in Desert Storm (16 shots in total). Of those fired, there are only 5 kills BVR. Below is my source, which described BVR missile shots recorded through the Cold War. Page 10 describes Desert Storm, which is considered the maturity of BVR combat before the AMRAAM. http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/06.pdf

 

That being said, if you can get the first shot before the merge and, make the enemy take a SARH to the face, then that's good enough and the merge is still avoided.

[GGTharos]

Yes, BVR has taken a long time to start happening as the rule rather than the exception, for a good number of reasons. With digital systems now, data links and better SA for pilots, as well as much better missiles, this is slowly changing. Slowly.

[marcos]

That's very encouraging for me actually. BVR combat is where Modern US planes excel.

 

Going to my OP though, question 2). Other than ECM/ECCM, GG mentioned that one could reposition one's plane when being jammed. How would one avoid total mainlobe or sidelobe jamming, especially this pilot did not know he/she was being jammed?

 

I suppose maneuvering constantly (like fighter pilots should) could keep the jamming plane's crew with a heavier workload.

I guess if you had on-board software to measure the intensity of the jamming as you moved, it could work out the source and direct you how to manoeuvre.

 

It seems that historically, there have been few BVR shots and many of them have been in Desert Storm (16 shots in total). Of those fired, there are only 5 kills BVR. Below is my source, which described BVR missile shots recorded through the Cold War. Page 10 describes Desert Storm, which is considered the maturity of BVR combat before the AMRAAM. http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/06.pdf

Sometimes I think pilots fire 2 at a single target just for good housekeeping. Could be wrong though. I know they fired 2 missiles each at a couple of Mig-23s back in the '80s. Libyan maybe?

 

Here we go. Facts different to what I remember on the news:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1989)

Edited August 14, 2012 by marcos

[SgtPappy]

Honestly, I think to fire only one Sparrow at a potentially dangerous enemy fighter and expecting to get a kill BVR is fantasy.

 

A bunch of Gulf War engagements saw the use of multiple AIM-7M's fired at one target. If the first one managed to track well, it would force the enemy to deplete energy if not kill it. As we know in FC2, if the fight is getting closer and closer, well-timed missile barrages can force the enemy to have less energy than you by the merge which has got to be the next best thing to just killing it BVR.

 

Another article here contains many sources as to what planes were shot down by U.S. planes from the Gulf War and beyond, shown missile by missile. Shown are over 15 AIM-7M's fired, many of which resulted in at least 8 kills. The article seems quite credible judging from the copious use of sources and end notes. http://www.sci.fi/~fta/score.htm

[GGTharos]

When doing missile-related things for simulation, we assume that the Pk's are what they are against non-jamming targets. That's what we want to match in FC/DCS. The Pks are what they are due to maneuvering, poor shots, poor maintenance, etc. Jamming will reduce them, and that is really all you need to understand in the large picture - ECM reduces Pk, ECCM makes sure this isn't reduced to zero.

 

Specific techniques etc ... eh. That will be implementation-dependent, both IRL and in-game.

[GGTharos]

I guess if you had on-board software to measure the intensity of the jamming as you moved, it could work out the source and direct you how to manoeuvre.

 

As of the 80's at least, AFAIK, you can just lock that jammer source and perform TMA. It takes a little time, but it works. Again, AFAIK.

 

Sometimes I think pilots fire 2 at a single target just for good housekeeping.

 

This is specific tactics. Some doctrines/tactics require shoot-shoot-look, some are look-shoot-look, etc. Missiles are volleyed because this increases the Pk in general.

[SgtPappy]

What is "TMA"? I've never heard of this before and I can't find it on the web.

[GGTharos]

Sorry, it's target motion analysis. Or if you prefer, bearing-only analysis.

[Vekkinho]

When doing missile-related things for simulation, we assume that the Pk's are what they are against non-jamming targets. That's what we want to match in FC/DCS. The Pks are what they are due to maneuvering, poor shots, poor maintenance, etc. Jamming will reduce them, and that is really all you need to understand in the large picture - ECM reduces Pk, ECCM makes sure this isn't reduced to zero.

 

Specific techniques etc ... eh. That will be implementation-dependent, both IRL and in-game.

 

I'll go back to OAF again since it happened pretty much over my head and I read, watched and heard much of the hype...Most of the JRV Fulcrum pilots experienced radar failures of some kind during their intercept sorties. I simply don't believe that each failure was due to lack of spares and poor maintenance. Radars failed to catch any contacts while airborne but were good to go while tested in shelters...

 

Thing is that ex JRV never actually faced ECM garbled airspace, latest oportuntiy was during '70s with Soviet ECM jams over Hungary...during that time most of the JRV inventory was of Soviet origin too so it was less affected by same or similar equipment.

 

So like GGT said, without modern ECCM present with JRV any chances of track, lock and guidance during OAF were reduced to zero so blaming it on a faulty radars became excuse of incompetence...

[SgtPappy]

Which begs the question, how would the best Russian equipment do against Coalition ECM/ECCM?

 

For example, the Su-27 and its G,H,I-band jamming Sorbtsiya pods must be more effective than the MiG-29 SPJ's and are likely in possession of more raw power than the F-15's SPJ's. Whether or not the extra power also means that the pods are more effective is beyond me. Apparently they've got noise and deception jamming capability but that's not saying much. The best I've got is an excerpt from Jane's Avionics from 2010.

[Weta43]

Which begs the question, how would the best Russian equipment do against Coalition ECM/ECCM?

 

I'd say the assumption would be that Western electronics would be better than Eastern...

 

That said, during the Iran-Iraq war the Iraqi airforce had SPS-141 pods on their Su-22 & faced HAWK batteries, Sparrows & AIM-54. They claim no plane carrying that pod was hit by anything radar guided during the Iran-Iraq war.

 

Don't know what the West says about that claim, but the (Hawk) MIM-23C and E missiles were built as specific responses to the effectiveness of the SPS-141 (incidentally, DCS models the MIM-23B, so the SPS-141 should be reasonably effective against Hawk batteries in game).

[VAOZoky]

I'll go back to OAF again since it happened pretty much over my head and I read, watched and heard much of the hype...Most of the JRV Fulcrum pilots experienced radar failures of some kind during their intercept sorties. I simply don't believe that each failure was due to lack of spares and poor maintenance. Radars failed to catch any contacts while airborne but were good to go while tested in shelters...

 

Thing is that ex JRV never actually faced ECM garbled airspace, latest oportuntiy was during '70s with Soviet ECM jams over Hungary...during that time most of the JRV inventory was of Soviet origin too so it was less affected by same or similar equipment.

 

So like GGT said, without modern ECCM present with JRV any chances of track, lock and guidance during OAF were reduced to zero so blaming it on a faulty radars became excuse of incompetence...

 

You are so wrong that it actually hurt me. During nato agression over SR Jugoslavia Mig29 pilots were ordered to take off with planes that have no working radar and no working MWS. Thats why there were situations where older officers take planes from younger ones even when younger ones were on duty when order came just to save life of younger pilots because they know that it will be fly to death due to faulthy equipment. To best understand state of YU Airforce at that time watch this docu (it has eng subs):

 

[GGTharos]

At some point, you could only get one set of jammers per 4 aircraft in terms of the sorbitsyja. The problem is one of practicality as well: A control panel for the equipment had to be intalled in the cockpit and the pilot trained to operate the ECM gear. The pods are powerful enough to protect an entire flight under the right circumstances, but you're adding work for a guy of your A2A flight that he really doesn't need to have.

 

By comparison, most western fighters were capable of automated self-protection, usually from multiple simultaneous threats (up to some limit).

 

Like I said, it all starts coming down to tactics.

 

And it isn't like the match of progress stops (unless you run out of money). Just before the golden eagle upgrades, you could find targets that would prevent an F-15 from ever getting a lock on them ... like the more modern chinese examples, possibly Indian flankers, etc. But it isn't like DRFM is magical, and they adapted to deal with that, too.

 

Which begs the question, how would the best Russian equipment do against Coalition ECM/ECCM?

 

For example, the Su-27 and its G,H,I-band jamming Sorbtsiya pods must be more effective than the MiG-29 SPJ's and are likely in possession of more raw power than the F-15's SPJ's. Whether or not the extra power also means that the pods are more effective is beyond me. Apparently they've got noise and deception jamming capability but that's not saying much. The best I've got is an excerpt from Jane's Avionics from 2010.