Read the forum code of contact
By: - 16th February 2001 at 19:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: ECM pods
Well apparently I have no clue as to what I'm talking about, so read at your own risk.
ECM pods usually only provide protection over a limited frquency spectrum and for a limited amount of threats. Sort of like vacinating yourself against diseases/infections that you ANTICIPATE facing. They also usually only protect against terminal threats like SAMS/AA and AAMs/AA radars operating at high frequency. I don't really know HOW well different types work against different threats. There are so many variables to cover.
The ALQ-184 pod is one of the better pods out there. Its an ALQ-119 pod with updated programs and electronics.
No pod takes the place of a dedicated jammer like the EA-6 or can cover the amount of threats of a bomber suite like on a Buff/Blackjack/Lancer. These aircraft usually have multiple systems or very large systems covering terminal threats, comms, early warning etc.
Hope this helps.
By: - 17th February 2001 at 00:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
don't leave home without one
that was the saying among USAF crews about the ALQ184 during the Gulf war!
they certainly help and with the new towed decoys which were succesfully used in Serbia they are even better but nowhere near perfect!
By: - 17th February 2001 at 00:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: don't leave home without one
I read in AW&ST that the USAF claims that the ALE 50s saved B1Bs from being shot down.
By: - 17th February 2001 at 02:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: don't leave home without one
Oh..Biff,i was asking in another post...why the "1" addition to your name...got a baby recently?
By: - 17th February 2001 at 03:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: don't leave home without one
Would you people actually want me to reproduce???
By: - 17th February 2001 at 12:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: don't leave home without one
Are all US Navy aircraft equipped with internal ECM?
By: - 17th February 2001 at 13:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is Biff actually Anna Nicolle Smith?
LAST EDITED ON 17-Feb-01 AT 01:25 PM (GMT)[p]Biff,
it's your own fault this question came to my mind; especially after your thread "Was the moon landing a hoax?" }>
But, now seriously. GZYL asked "exactly how useful are ECM pods at protecting aircraft?"
Well, the topic you touched here is an extremely complex one. There is a whole bunch of books about the theory and practice of electronic warfare (EW) alone, not to mention all those which also offer some details about electronic-countermeasures (ECM) pods. Thus, one cannot asses the efficiency of ECM pods in two or three sentences. I'll try to give you here some main lines about the newer history of ECM pods.
Basically, their efficiency depends on many points, the whole series of which depend solely on their construction. Compared to built-in ECM-devices, ECM-pods offer the advantage of being mounted under an aircraft, thus protrouding relatively far outside (foremost under) the aircraft and giving a better coverage. A single ECM-pod will have no problems detecting radar emissions all around the aircraft and jamming them. Compared to this, a built-in ECM-device will have to had several antennas and transmitters deployed around the aircraft, taking valuable space and adding the weight.
Of course, ECM-pods also add to the weight and in most cases they also take valuable weapons-stations, but most of them are also far more powerfull than lighter and smaller built-in devices.
From operational aspects, ECM pods were always a real break-through when it came to protect aircraft from radar-guided threats. Their history is actually one of success, even in protracted conflicts, during which the enemy was capable of assesing their capabilities and establishing countermeasures. Already the simple fact, that jaming - in the sence of ECM - was technically always "simplier" than establishing correct ECCM procedures helped their effeciency considerably.
Within several months of being introduced by the USAF over the North Vietnam, in 1966/67, pods like AN/ALQ-71 and AN/ALQ-82 were capable to jam the whole North Vietnamese radar net and completely disturb their SAM-operations to the point, that North Vietnamese MiGs became far more dangerous and efficient than any SA-2s. The same happened during the "Attrition War" between Arabs and Israelis, when US-supplied ECM pods helped the IDF/AF time and again.
Already during these two conflicts, there was a continuous cat-and-mouse game between guys using ECM pods and those trying to counter them: for longer periods, ECM pods were able to jam everything, for others, they were inefficient. Then, both sides would modernise what was at hand and a completely new game would be started.
Of course, ECM pods also proved "obsolete" several times, like in the case of those used by the IDF/AF early during the war in 1973. However, their adaptability helped them overcome such difficulties like jamming CW-guided weapons within days as well. Again, just like before, during that war ECM pods took another victory home.
Another good example for the efficiency is the I Gulf War, in which both sides used ECM pods extensively. Initially, Iranians used US-supplied pods (and Iraqis haven't had any). Thus, Iranians had no problems in jamming most of the Iraqi air defenses for years, while Iraqis countinuously suffered heavy losses. Then Iraqis turned the tide, with the help of French and Soviets, introducing pods unknown to Iranians. For three years, they had the advantage. In the final year, however, Iranians managed to find correct ECCM countermeasures, render most of French and Soviet technology ineffective and develop own upgrades of their pods. The result: in 1988, although better armed, trained and organized than ever before, the Iraqi air defenses and interceptors were more easily jamed than ever before. The ECM pods won the day in that war as well.
Similar "games" are now going on over Iraq since years: the US and UK develop new pods, rendering most of the Iraqi radar net ineffective. Then Iraqis find correct means of ECCM, and the Americans and the British have to find new solutions. Several weeks later, the same game will be started again.
Namely, the use of ECM pods always teached the enemy of their efficiency, and prompted the develpement of solutions against them. Most probably, Pakistanis are now intensively working on finding solutions against pods used by the IAF during the Kargil conflict as well.
In some cases, however, powerfull ECM pods, like AN/ALQ-119 and AN/ALQ-131, caused problems even to aircraft which carried them. It is believed, for example, that both of these pods have a "blind-spot" directly underneath them, while they should also be rather prone of jamming even the radar (and the RWR/RHAWs) of the aircraft which carries them: supposedly, exactly this was the reason for the loss of the F-16C flown by Capt. O'Grady over Bosnia in 1995 (and some other losses of US F-16s before that as well). Another "blind" spot of ECM pods is that "over" the aircraft: namely, they can't jam through the structure of the aircraft.
In addition one should not forget one fact: every time ECM pods are on "active", they reveal the presence of the aircraft carrying them, and a possible threat (even if the enemy haven't detected carrying aircraft at that moment). Of course, this is the case with every other part of the EW incorporating active means. Thus, the point when using the ECM devices - especially powerfull pods - is that of chosing the right moment. They are not a medicine healing all deseases, but if used properly and at the very moment, they will always be very effective.
Regards
Tom
reach out and touch
PS GZYL, the answer to your last question is: yes, the USN aircraft carry no external ECM pods, only built-in devices. That's so with them already since the Vietnam War.
By: - 17th February 2001 at 15:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Is Biff actually Anna Nicolle Smith?
Tom, the only thing I have in common with "Le Big Blonde Gold-digger" is my love of food, which she obviously shares. So stop your obvious advances and go act like a dirty old man on some other forum :D.
I don't know that pods will "always" be effective. Pods wilol continue to be used, but internal ECM is the way to go becuase of the continued emphasis on LO. With an internal suite on a LO aircraft, you won't need as much power to radiate. This gives the aircraft a less bulky jamming system and more importantly, less of a "broadcasting" effect. A pod is not really an option for LO aircraft and the pod itself will have a detrimental effect on an aircrafts RCS.
Also, with AESA coming online at cheap prices, aircraft can have their ECM built in more effectively than ever. An AESA would probably have the ability of higher power densities on a target than a pod.
Tom is right about the constant "measure-countermeasure" game. However, it seems in this country that "countermeasure" is becoming less important as indicated by the continued cancelling and cutting of ECM projects and funding. ECM must be constantly improved and updated as threats change or new threats are created (as Tom mentioned), or the ECM loses its effectiveness. The SA10/12 situation is a perfect example. Currently, its possible that no US ECM suite (or widely used one) is capable of countering these threats. In AW&ST an article about US ECM said that "the Super Hornet ECM suite will be the first system capable of countering SA10/12 threats." These systems have been out for years and are even OWNED by the US!
By: - 17th February 2001 at 17:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I knew he/she is!
LAST EDITED ON 17-Feb-01 AT 05:24 PM (GMT)[p]I knew it, right from the start, Biff, you dangerous ol' lady, that you two have at least something in common....;-)
Let me add some details.
What I meaned with "ECM pods will always be effective", is the fact, that each time they appear somewhere, they achieve a surprise. That's alrady enough. What people usually think it, that an ECM pod jams radars "whole day". That's not truth. Sometimes, it will be enough for ECM-devices (regardless pods or not) to jam some radar for 10-15 seconds. Already that can initiate an offensive, be enough for breaking some SAM-belt or doing something bad to someone.
The experience showed, that every new pod, every new ECM-device, scored this important moment of surprise and that it remained so for some time, until the enemy found out proper ECCMs. Thus, ECM pods - and all other ECM devices - will always be effective. The question is only, for how long and to which degree?
You, Biff are right, that ECM-pods are not "in" any more, foremost due to emphasis on LO. Actually, pods were initially developed foremost because the ECM-equipment of the day was too bulky to be built into the aircraft (actually, it would became at least four times as bulky). Yet, from what I know (must not be true, this is only what I heard from three different sides), built-in ECM devices are both much more expensive and more problematic to maintain. As said, this must not be true, but this is the experience from two different air forces which used pods very massively in air combat.
Now, Biff, as an "B-52 Buff" you should also not forget the need for an 360° degree coverage: don't forget the B-52s shot down over Hanoi because they masked their built-in jammers when making post-strike turns! Don't also the example of F-14A, which got only one jammer (under the chin), with a coverage of approx 90° and ahead only (only later versions got additional jamer between engine exhaust, and still, this suite never become satisfying). An ECM pod hanging under the aircraft would solve such problems.
Furthermore, we should also not forget "conformal" ECM-pods, like Northorps AN/ALQ-171, built for being mounted on the belly of F-5E and some French/British devices which can be mounted under the wing/fuselage joint of Jaguars (these are only some that came into my mind now).
I don't believe that the ECCM becomes less important. To contrary, together with proper ESM, this is today even more important. Jammers will always be capable of "bloting" something out of the screen, but ECCM will always be needed to make it visible again.
The same is the case with the ECM against such new systems like SA-10/12. Don't trust anything that is said about both the SAMs (and their radars) and jammers. More than anything else, I'm sure ECM-systems capable of jamming the S-300s are in developement since years. Perhaps they will be fielded, perhaps they already are. The question is only in which form. Namely, to saturate such powerful systems, one needs powerful jammers. More power means more size and weight, thus, we'll probably come back to pods.
If you don't believe this one, just remember the case of the SA-6 and ZSU-23-4s in 1973. Yes, they caused a considerable surprise, yet, pods capable of jamming them were already developed before that, and they arrived in Israel days after the war started...
By the way, any clue about that super-jammer built into the E-3s? I've heard it's capable of "freezing" anything...?
Well, as it seems, the "game" will be played in the future as well, just like Bob Marley's "Jamming..."
Regards
Tom
reach out and touch
By: - 17th February 2001 at 17:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: I knew he/she is!
Yes Tom, internal ECM is a b!tch to work on ;-). A pod can be carted into the shop and the problem section unloaded. I had some "pod people" friends who told me about how great it was to work on them and it must suck to be me. Great guys they were.
Interesting thing about the "full coverage" you mention for internal ECM or lack of it. After I got out, the AF started their mod to the ALQ172 system on B52H models. This added a 3rd system that faces downward to give coverage while over the target. This substantiates your claim. I guess this lack of coverage problem was discovered during GWII and it took 7 years to start fixing it. Previously we had to modify each Buff before a "real world" mission by swapping out a Xmitter that provided the proper frequency coverage in the "blind spot."
I would think with AESA these problems could be eliminated becasue of the ease of mounting tiles in different locations.
By: - 17th February 2001 at 17:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: I knew he/she is!
>You, Biff are right, that ECM-pods
>are not "in" any more,
>foremost due to emphasis on
>LO. Actually, pods were initially
>developed foremost because the ECM-equipment
>of the day was too
>bulky to be built into
>the aircraft (actually, it would
>became at least four times
>as bulky). Yet, from what
>I know (must not be
>true, this is only what
>I heard from three different
>sides), built-in ECM devices are
>both much more expensive and
>more problematic to maintain. As
>said, this must not be
>true, but this is the
>experience from two different air
>forces which used pods very
>massively in air combat.
Tom, what air forces are you talking about. Is it the IDF/AF? From waht I know, the IDF/AF relies heavily on internal ECM suits, like the ones in the F-15 and F-16.
By: - 17th February 2001 at 19:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: I knew he/she is!
LAST EDITED ON 17-Feb-01 AT 07:40 PM (GMT)[p]JJ,
the IDF/AF relied heavily on ECM-pods until the mid-'80s (even F-15s carried ALQ-131s and ALQ-119s during the fighting in Lebanon). And, I hope there is no need to explain the extensions to which Israelis used pods between 1969 and 1974. The turning point was the acquisition of the F-16D(I)s, the reason for which were US-experiences with the F-4G, but also US reluctance to share such technology with either Israelis or Iranians (basically, it was a small wonder and Nixon's vanity, which moved the USA to let Israelis purchase AGM-45s, and - subsequently - AGM-78s).
The other air force I meaned, JJ, is the only one from the same part of the world which always cooperated very closely with the IDF/AF.
Biff, an additional point which comes now into my mind, and about which I would like to ask you is: aren't pods also cheaper? I mean: if you build an ECM suite into an aircraft, it's fixed. That's it: you get them together with aircraft, have to pay for them and - basically - can't remove them that easily. In addition, their distribution throught the aircraft needs additional work on design.
But, if you use pods, you can distribute swiftly from one aircraft to the other: i.e., you don't need the same number of pods (while they are still simplier to upgrade and maintain). I know this would be pretty complicated with aircraft as large as B-52s (probably, one pod for each wing, under the cockpit and under the tail would be needed ;-)), but otherwise...
What do you think about this?
Regards
Tom
reach out and touch
By: - 18th February 2001 at 00:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
R2-D2 packs!
Elp, those ECM packages you describe are in use with the Portuguese AF's Esq301 which flies the Alpha Jet in a tactical role. These have the rear seat removed, and carry the ECM pack. I don't know the actual designation (i have it somewhere, but where?) but in service it's normally referred to as the R2-D2 pack for obvious reasons.
Alpha's flying with Esq103 don't have the packs, since they fly them as trainers. They need someone alive in the back seat.
Regards,
Arthur
By: - 18th February 2001 at 10:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ECM pods
Thanks everyone, the info really helps me. This "measure vs countermaesure thing", is it just a case of the radar changing frequency, or are the ECM pods jammed? Can you jam an ECM pod?
By: - 18th February 2001 at 11:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: ECM pods
GZYL,
basically, most modern radars can change their working frequency. That's truth. Actually, for some of most modern radars, this is the way they do their jobs. Yet, some can do it automatically, others in an "easy" manner, yet a third class will need a considerable ammount of work and recalibration (for example, the N019 radar of the MiG-29 can change frequencies between 8 and 12 GHz, but only while the aircraft is still on the ground: nothing similar is possible to do with it in the air).
The fact is, however, that all radars work in their own "bands" of frequencies. I.e.: each radar works within a certain band of frequencies, and they can't "jump" from one band to the other.
Thus, the solution for the producer of ECM devices is to produce pods - or installations (or "packs") - which can jam all frequencies within a certain band. Today, the work of such devices is automatised: i.e. they scann the working frequency of their "targets" (radars) and jump automatically from one frequency to the other just like radars change their operation frequencies.
Now, that's the point where we have to mix the answer to your first question with the answer to your second question. Namely, there are indeed some very powerfull ECM pods and installations. Apparently, some are so powerfull, they could cause some physical damage.
However, in most cases ECM devices are limited to only one band. Exactly this is a reason for such an efficiency of the EA-6B: the plane carries up to five containers, plus the pack on the fin, each of which works in a different band of frequencies, thus it can cover all eventualities. Furthermore, it equipment is highly automatized, and it is much smaller than such beasts like RC-130s and RC-135s (thus, one can take it everywhere, even send it together with attacking aircraft into the danger zone).
The simpliest possible answer against such threats, however, is to build radars with a power output larger than that of any possible jammers (the radar of the MiG-25 was such one). Such radars can "burn through" the jamming.
A more sophisticated method, however, is to develop radars like the SPY-1 of the Aegis system, or the similar mount guiding the S-300 (the designation is so complex, I forget it every time; something with "64" in it;-)), which work over a "broader" band of frequencies and do nothing else but continuoulsy change their working frequencies (every milisecond or so), thus - probably - evading all possible jamming, or at least making it very problematic.
Thus, in summary, one could say, that except for the ECCMs, nothing can literally "jam" ECM devices: one can overpower them, or - the case with most western systems - one can weaken their influence considerably by developing radars capable of continuous change of working frequencies.
Regards
Tom
reach out and touch
Posts: 1,121
By: GZYL - 16th February 2001 at 19:22
Exactly how useful are ECM pods at protecting aircraft?