It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Airplane Jammers!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   


YOU have a .00000000000000000001 chance of hitting an AWACS or anything for that matter with an unguided missle.


Not really ectually, thats how the F117 got shot down in Kosavo it is believed and Intergurl said so..
!




posted on May, 1 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Missiles get picked up on radar too, just because the may not emit anything they are still detected an AWAC‘s radar has a range mor than 400km.
All the AWAC’s has to do is change its course or increase it speed and your unguided missile hits nothing as it is not tracking the AWAC‘s.


[edit on 1-5-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu


YOU have a .00000000000000000001 chance of hitting an AWACS or anything for that matter with an unguided missle.


Not really ectually, thats how the F117 got shot down in Kosavo it is believed and Intergurl said so..
!

"Unguided" is not the term I used, (in the "Radar" thread).
The SA-6 system that is suspected of downing the F-117 ( as well as the SA-3 and others) can be fed coordinates and fired without use of radar, it can also be guided to it's target optically with a plugin device.

Neither of these methods can be considered "unguided".

Natalie~

[edit on 1-5-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
All missiles are guided. If it's unguided it's a rocket.

That anti-AWACS missiles sounds pretty good, but the AWACS will detect it a long way out, a lot longer than 400km. When the AWACS detects it far out, if it simply does a 180 and flys away from the missile the missile will run out of fuel before it reaches the AWACS.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I think too many of you are taken by all the "hype" of the military builders.

First, back to the main subject, you have passive ECM which are receivers monitoring known enemy frequencies. Next, you have active ECM which are transmitters used to transmit on enemy frequencies and confuse their systems. ECCM is monitoring active ECM and can be considered "jammers" to ECM devices.

There are many frequencies being used by today's aircraft from radio, navigation, GPS, radar altimeters, radars, IFF, etc. Most ECM boxes are made for a certain range of frequencies. It takes many passive ECM boxes to monitor every frequency out there. And even then, you have to determine if it's from an enemy aircraft, a ground military source, a civilian source, etc.

What is rarely mentioned in all this "hype" is the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) of these devices. Many of these devices have MTBF measured in hours which means failures every flight. Passive or Active devices don't last forever.

Next, most of these boxes work on a theory of a theory on how the enemies system works. As an example, you suspect the enemies radar has capabilities of operating 10-18 GHZ and switching frequencies every 10 milliseconds. So you build an ECM system to transmit on jam these frequencies at this switching rate. But you have no proof of the frequencies their radar uses or their switching scheme. So your jamming theory could be totally wrong. Or, their radar might completely change frequencies or switching speeds once it thinks it's being jammed. Only way to prove it is in war.

And ECCM is theory upon theory upon theory, assuming nothing has failed in the meantime. This is all a complex game of strategy constantly changing and being upgraded (yes, radar systems are upgraded on existing aircraft). Are you starting to see how easy it is to print up capabilities that they have no way to prove or dis-prove?

As far as the F-117 that was shot down, who can say what was working and what wasn't when it was shot down?

[edit on 5/2/05 by Qwas]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   
So your saying that these jammers FAIL easily or something? aren't they made for it meaning they won't fail?!


about the theory's, I'd say spies give the intelligence the right info about these radar systems, thats why there called spies!



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
So your saying that these jammers FAIL easily or something? aren't they made for it meaning they won't fail?!


about the theory's, I'd say spies give the intelligence the right info about these radar systems, thats why there called spies!


There is allot to go wrong in a jammer but it's weakest component is the transmitting tube, usually a BWO (Backwards Wave Oscillator) or TWT (Traveling Wave Tube). Many active ECM devices had a MTBF of less than 20 hours. The newest stuff out there boasts of MTBF around 200-300 hours. The BWO and TWT have very short MTBF and must handled carefully. They are used because of their high output power and high bandwidth in microwave frequency band.

When you consider a typical fighter flies 4 hour per flight and bombers do 10-14 hours per flight, that's not many flights.

I will also say you are right about the spies giving good information, but please remember the manufacturers of ECM are still overselling their products. Also, not all pilots are trained as well as the factory test pilots.

I found a good web page that gets into the details of ECM during the Gulf War. It's quite long and detailed but worth the read if you want to learn about ECM systems. It has 3 parts to the story. Read all 3 parts.

Gulf War ECM Review



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
That anti-AWACS missiles sounds pretty good, but the AWACS will detect it a long way out, a lot longer than 400km. When the AWACS detects it far out, if it simply does a 180 and flys away from the missile the missile will run out of fuel before it reaches the AWACS.

You don't shoot the missile from 400km away, missiles need to be shot well within maximum range so the target doesn't get a chance to run away. While for MRAAMS like AMRAAM or R-77 you have to close in to ~40-50km before launching the missile and expect a good chance of kill, 300km would probably be enough for a KS-172.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
And what would launch the KS-172? Is it launched form Air or Sea platforms?
I think that fighters escorting or protecting an AWAC's would have a bubble around it of more than 300km.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Wouldn't it be possible to make a stealth missile or something?
Reduce the heat sig a little bit, make sure its radar (if it has one on-board) doens't give its position away, maybe even paint if with RAM, shape it sexy
(you know what I mean)!



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
187onu, why are you refusing to give any evidence, links or further data to support your assertions?

Either you have some knowledge or you don't. Inasmuch as you won't provide any links, it's hard for me to take your assertions seriously any more.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
links, does it state anywhere that I hold back info/refuse or links? NO it doesn't
....does it say anywhere that one HAS to post links?

This is very simple, you dont need links or whatever!

an engineer like you, SHOULD understand right away where Im going with this!

[edit on 3-5-2005 by 187onu]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And what would launch the KS-172? Is it launched form Air or Sea platforms?

Look at this link again.
en.wikipedia.org...
The weapon is planned for carriage by Su-27/Su-30, Su-35, and Mikoyan MiG-31 aircraft

I think that fighters escorting or protecting an AWAC's would have a bubble around it of more than 300km.

They'll be flying close to the AWACS to be escorting it. If something comes, they'll have to fly towards the threat and close in enough to launch missiles. AT 300km the KC-172 will just bypass those fighters and head right for the AWACS, then the launching fighter can turn and scoot while the missile does the talking.
I don't think AWACS escorts usually orbit the AWACS at 300km radius. 300km is pretty far. For you imperial unit users that's about 180 miles.
Now if there are fighters that just happen to be flying around the theatre maybe they'll do something, but AWACS escorts, no.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   
The answe lies again with DRONES!!
YES DRONES!!


Lousy 4ft X 1ft drones..



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
187onu says:



links, does it state anywhere that I hold back info/refuse or links?


Earlier in this thread, onu, you made some rather interesting claims, which led WestPoint to ask if you have any hard evidence or if you'r just speculating. You said:



NO that is DEFINATELY not what system I ment..... my picture is a jeep! very small and easily mobiele! I got alot of info about it but cant give it to you all now but will in a short periot of time! sry


And you never did. Instead, you continue to make more unsupported claims.



NO it doesn't ....does it say anywhere that one HAS to post links?


No; not unless you want people to believe you and think you know what you're talking about.

It's really up to you.


an engineer like you, SHOULD understand right away where Im going with this!


I don't know where you're going with anything, 187onu. However, if you make claims that no one has heard, say you will provide some backup for your claims, and then don't, I doubt if many people will take what you say very seriously.

But it is your call, of course; you can post pretty much whatever you want to here.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Oh thats what you ment
...sry for my being harsh
!!
I will post it, its a little bit more complicated then you think, but as I said I WILL POST IT LATER!!!

Btw, i made a threat about tamara and kolgubra (or whatever) earlier, rather a long time ago by now but...

just wait a little bit longer!



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
That's cool. Actually, I hadn't heard about those two passive systems before, so I'm learning a lot, too! Take care.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
oh ok, so we cool??


You know, you had me working on that from the morning tell night and Im still going on looking for it!!! of course I know where it is but have pc problem!!



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Forget missles use high powered lasers.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
QWAS,
You're right about the Mean Time Between Failure, especially with the TWT's. What you're forgetting is that a jammer isn't lit off when the plane is powered up and turned off after the plane is parked. It's only used for a few seconds at a time, a couple minutes tops. Any more than that and you're going to get hit by a HARM or three.

For a true EW aircraft like an EA-6B identifying all the signatures is easy. That's one way we can tell what kind of targets are out there if they aren't squawking IFF. Have you ever listened to a radar before? Most good electronic warfare techs can identify a target by listening to the radars. Most of them can look at the displays from there equipment, identify the frequency bands of the radars, comm gear, etc., and know exactly what type of aircraft or ship it is. If they don't know it off the top of their head they have a nice reference manual that tells them.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join