Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#3956716 - 05/22/14 04:50 AM Re: Electronic Warfare-12 [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,677
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,677
Originally Posted By: Hpasp

This is usually caused by a similar equipment at the firing range on a closeby location.


Yes, this is confirmed in a source book of those pictures. I have seen such on P-18 screen but didn't knew what it was 'till now! (I thought it was from USAF/USN jammers)

Last edited by piston79; 05/22/14 05:00 AM.
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4050866 - 12/15/14 02:58 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-12 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,677
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,677
This must be the digital version of AN/ALR-20 is an airborne tuned Radio Frequency (RF) receiver countermeasures receiving set, which was used from B-52's EWO-s:


#4066769 - 01/20/15 08:23 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-12 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 101
PN79 Offline
Member
PN79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 101
I am not sure if this was already posted here or not but it should not be missed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyFqaaqqph0

- US 1962 instructional video about ECM equipment

Last edited by PN79; 01/20/15 08:24 PM.
#4079881 - 02/17/15 11:15 AM Re: Electronic Warfare-12 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 29
Jonas85 Offline
Junior Member
Jonas85  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 29
Ontario
Hi all,

this is my first post in this forum. I've found the SAMSIM a couple years ago and I was really fascinated with this simulator (many thanks to HPASP for creating and polishing this thing!)

Here is a very interesting doc that I googled here from the 55th Wing website

I copied in the interesting part below. I have a question: why achieving the tracking error of 200 ft (or even 500ft) was considered 'good enough' for the jamming B-52, if this still puts B-52 well within the blast radius of SA-2 DVINA missile (which is is like 300m=984 ft). Does not this leave the bomber well inside the kill sphere?

The SCR 584 was used on the Eglin AFB bomb test range to perform radar bomb scoring. (The test range became the ECM test range in the early 60s). The range consisted of six sites that are spaced a mile apart on Santa Rosa Island. The six sites transferred jamming data to a large computer complex on Eglin AFB that would follow the ECM test aircraft using the SADS 1 radar. The SADS 1 (a M 33 radar) could track the ECM aircraft very accurately. Initially dry data (no ECM radiation) was collected on the SADS 1 and SADS 2 (a simulated SA 2 system.) The miss distance between the SADS 1 and the SADS 2 had to be 50 feet or less in over 80% of the simulated missile tracks for the system errors to be eliminated. Then the jammer was turned on and the miss distance of the planes position as measured by SADS 1 and SADS 2 was compared. An ECM technique was considered good if 80% of the tests simulated missiles missed the ECM test target by over 200 feet...

... Three years later, in the fall of 1972, I joined Major Billy Nix at SAC Headquarters. Major Nix needed an ECM engineer to calculate the attrition rate of the B-52 should we bomb NVN in an attempt to end the war.

First, my team examined the ECM test data that SAC had recently collected at Eglin AFB ECM test range. The optimum technique showed that 80% of the simulated missiles passed more than 200 feet from the test B-52. They had also developed a new flight formation tactic of three-plane cells, spaced 500 feet apart in Azimuth, Elevation and Range with the location known only to each cell leader. This produced multiple jamming strobes on the SA 2 scopes. If all three operators were not tracking the same B-52 an additional 500 feet of missile error was created. If this situation sounds confusing, imagine the problems the three NVN SA 2 operators had in assuring that each was tracking the same B-52. SAC 3 analysis of the three-plane cell formation testing at Eglin ECM test range showed a 10% increase over a single plane target in the number of simulated missiles passing more than 200 feet from the test B-52.

Finally, Soviet SA 2 missile engineers designed a fragmentation pattern of four ounce frags to maximize the probability of kill (PK) of the 400 pound warhead after the proximity fuse was turned on. The warhead produced a pattern of one frag per square foot at 50 feet. Note: A pilot in the cockpit is approximately two cubic feet in volume. Thus if the missile and the B-52 are flying head-on the frag pattern, shaped like an expanding dog collar perpendicular to the X axis of the missile, will kill the pilot as well as bring down the B-52. However, if the B-52
ECM caused the missile to fly an erratic pattern, the PK of the missile would be much lower. I came up with an attrition rate of 3% which was a combination of the three-plane cell formation, the optimum noise modulation ECM technique and the fragmentation pattern of the SA 2. Now the plan was made. The 3% attrition rate was considered acceptable.

We thought a three day campaign would break the back of NVN. We limited the bombing fleet to nine three-plane cells spaced four hours apart. This minimized the probability of a mid-air collision. The campaign was launched on December 18, 1972. On the first day, three aircraft were lost at ranges of ten, twenty and thirty miles from the SA 2 sites. NVN changed their strategy on day two by concentrating their missile intercepts at the thirty mile range. Only one airplane was lost because at that distance the frag pattern was less than one frag/100 feet. On day three, NVN realized that if they delayed the attacks until the aircraft were ten to twelve miles away, just after the B-52 released its bombs. It was better for the SA 2 as the bomb bay doors were still open, increasing the radar cross section of the B-52. This ensured greater missile success for NVN and they brought down seven aircraft.

On the morning of the fourth day Major Billy Nix asked me to go to the Eglin test site to observe the SADS 2 testing and try to determine why we lost seven aircraft the prior day. I observed weak jamming at the radar scopes. The next day at SAC Headquarters I reported the weak jamming and asked if the jamming patterns had been optimized for the low altitude of the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) and not for the high altitude mission that the B-52s were flying in NVN. After talking with Northrop DSD it was determined that the antennas had not been optimized for high altitude. They could be optimized for high altitude by changing the pancake shaped pattern to a donut shaped pattern below the airplane. This would create a 6 dB improvement at -45o but it would take six days for the first antenna to be delivered. Because the loss rate was as indicated in our analysis, we continued the campaign.

Contributing to the seven aircraft loss on day three was the effort to bomb one of the SA 2 sites that had shot down four of the B-52s. I advised against this decision because it would require flying a radial heading directly over the site. Also the site location was not accurately known as GPS did not exist at this time. My experience at Eglin in the early 50s indicated that the 500 pound bombs we were using could not destroy the site except with a direct hit and we would probably lose several aircraft. My prediction proved to be correct as we lost two of the nine aircraft in bombing this site and the site was back on the air the next day. On the fifth through the eleventh day we lost less than one aircraft per day for a total of fifteen aircraft. On December 29, 1972 NVN agreed to sign a truce ending the conflict.

Lessons Learned

Part of the last eighteen months of my Air Force career was spent determining the lessons learned from the Linebacker 11 campaign. The first of three lessons learned was the importance of destroying the EW/GCI radar that
provided data to the SA 2 sites before commencing the attack. This EW/GCI site also controlled the enemy fighter aircraft. The second lesson was the importance of destroying the runways in the initial days of the attack, eliminating the ability of the fighters to land in the dark after a mission. The third lesson was to avoid flying directly over a SAM site. The AF applied these lessons during Desert Storm to great effect. The loss rate was fractions of 1% and I think no F-15s or B-52s were lost to SAMS...

#4079951 - 02/17/15 02:14 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-12 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 244
Mdore Offline
Member
Mdore  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 244
The kill sphere is 65m not 300m. 300m is the maximum range you can expect to still score some hits.

Reading what you posted, it seems jamming created at least 200ft of miss distance, possibly more, with an extra 500ft on top of that making a minimum of 700ft if the jamming caused the elevation, azimuth or range office to track different targets.

Forcing the sam to fly an erratic path might possible impact the range of the missile too. But that's more of a guess.

Last edited by Mdore; 02/17/15 02:18 PM. Reason: Avoiding evil magic
#4082659 - 02/23/15 05:25 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-12 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,649
GrayGhost Online content
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Online Content
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,649
ECM may also cause detonation timing issues, which combined with the miss distance result in a complete miss.


--
44th VFW
#4082671 - 02/23/15 05:58 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-12 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
scrim Offline
Member
scrim  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
Yup. I don't know about all the different things EW does, but with noise jamming at least you need to have the SA-2 arm itself after 11 seconds of flight as in SAM sim. Having it armed so early means it will detonate the moment the proximity fuze reacts to something, e.g. chaff if I've understood it all correctly.

#4098011 - 03/27/15 05:58 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-12 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,652
Hpasp Online grunt
Hpasp  Online Grunt

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,652
Hungary, Europe


Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

While Fighter Pilots made movies, SAM Officers made History.
(U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.)
thumbsup
#4207255 - 12/17/15 09:38 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-12 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,652
Hpasp Online grunt
Hpasp  Online Grunt

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,652
Hungary, Europe


Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

While Fighter Pilots made movies, SAM Officers made History.
(U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.)
thumbsup
#4207933 - 12/19/15 05:28 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-12 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,652
Hpasp Online grunt
Hpasp  Online Grunt

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,652
Hungary, Europe


Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

While Fighter Pilots made movies, SAM Officers made History.
(U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.)
thumbsup
#4212764 - 01/03/16 04:02 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-12 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 178
KJakker Offline
Member
KJakker  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 178
Michigan, USA
Hpasp, do you have any plans to update the Electronic Warfare component of Sam Simulator to include more advanced EW techniques than just metric and centimeter wavelength noise jamming?

#4238124 - 03/09/16 11:21 AM Re: Electronic Warfare-4 [Re: piston79]  
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 3
pamak Offline
Junior Member
pamak  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 3
hello everybody,

I am a new member from Greece. I found this site because I was looking for information about the radiation pattern of jammers. I found this interesting picture regarding the QRC-160 but I cannot read Russian. Can anybody translate the text in the photo?

Thank you

Last edited by pamak; 03/09/16 11:23 AM.
#4238181 - 03/09/16 02:26 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-4 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 29
Jonas85 Offline
Junior Member
Jonas85  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 29
Ontario
Well, this picture is fairly simple.

It shows the jamming effects of the QRC-160 protection jammer on the basic version of SA-2 system (Dvina) with no ECCM capabilities at various ranges (>=60-12km, <=12 km head-on and passing by, >=12 km receding target).

QRC-160 jammer emits most of its energy at the angle of 15 degrees (depicted is a jammer antenna main lobe of estimated width 12 +- 6 degrees). In order to achieve the greatest jamming effect, the aircraft pilot must keep the jammer pointed at the SA-2 radar.

QRC-160 jams in range: instead of a target blip, you see a vertical "bar" of noise - operator does not know the range, but he can determine angles (azimuth and elevation) by centering on the bar. Usually, a single jammer aircraft is not well protected (SA-2 can shoot in TT mode when no range info is available).

To achieve the necessary level of protection, 4 jammer equipped aircraft fly so called "pod formation": flying close enough together makes the separate bars of noise merge together in to one large bar and be indistinguishable. Adding a vertical spacing between aircrafts also confounds azimuth and angle operators (they are no longer sure they are tracking the same target).

In the rightmost picture, you see the jamming effect when it is the most strongest - every single target is hidden in the thick middle "bar" of noise (the target blip is only shown only for reference, real operator does not see it). Hence the angle information is denied.

The thinner noise bars to the left and to the right of the center is the jamming entering the antenna through the sidelobes. In the middle picture you see what happens when the aircraft closes to 12 km and the SA-2 radar leaves the jammer antenna mainlobe - operators can see the target clearly and they can shoot. However, this opportunity is very brief, as the aircraft will quickly escape inside the min-range of the engagement zone (engement zone charted on the right). Also, it is difficult to acquire and lock a target that passes by with a high radial velocity - you can actually try it on SAMSIM and see how it works).

The left most picture shows the same effect created by the receding jamming aircraft formation after it passed the SA-2 (probably, after completing a successful bombing run on the ground target). The targets again are completely obscured by a thick bar of noise, no shooting possible.

Last edited by Jonas85; 03/09/16 02:35 PM.
#4238229 - 03/09/16 04:34 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-4 [Re: Jonas85]  
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 3
pamak Offline
Junior Member
pamak  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 3
Thank you for your effort. I understood your post for the most part. Based on what you said, I have three questions which fortunately require brief answers

1. What is the language of the text in the picture?

2. In the upper left picture there is something that reads like " 0.6 P" followed by a five letter word (in Cyrillic characters) and in the the upper right picture there
is something that reads like "0.4 P" followed by the same five letter word. Do you have any idea regarding the
meaning of this text?

3 Finally, you mentioned the "TT mode". Can you tell me the meaning (words) of this acronym?


Thank you and I appreciate the time you take to answer my questions

Last edited by pamak; 03/09/16 04:36 PM.
#4238245 - 03/09/16 05:23 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-4 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 29
Jonas85 Offline
Junior Member
Jonas85  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 29
Ontario
1. It is all in Russian. More precisely, it is a scan from the book "Combat employment of the anti-air missile forces (based on Vietnam war experiences)", p.193.,

2. 0.4P and 0.6P refer to the jamming power levels generated by jammer's forward and backward directional antennas (the book claims that the backward jamming was stronger to better protect receding aircraft). "Izluchenie" means "Radiation" in Russian (refers to the the radio signal power).

3. "TT" mode is the abbreviation from Russian "Trech-tochka" ("A three-point guidance method"). Please take a look at HPASP's excellent SAMSIM manual for SA-2 for the description.

Last edited by Jonas85; 03/10/16 10:44 AM.
#4238252 - 03/09/16 06:04 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-4 [Re: Jonas85]  
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 3
pamak Offline
Junior Member
pamak  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 3
Thank you again:

I will consult the manual for the TT method.

I wish there was an English translation of the book you mentioned [ Combat employment of the anti-air missile forces (based on Vietnam war experiences)]. The link does not work because it seems you copied it from your computer, but in any case since I do not speak Russian, I cannot read the book even if I have it in front of me. Still, I really liked the image posted in this forum.

#4238453 - 03/10/16 10:48 AM Re: Electronic Warfare-4 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 29
Jonas85 Offline
Junior Member
Jonas85  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 29
Ontario
I attempted to fix the link. In any case, it should be available on the http://historykpvo.narod2.ru/ website. There are tons of documents, books and photos about soviet SAMs (all in Russian, of course).

#4296468 - 09/15/16 07:26 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-4 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,677
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,677






EF-111A ALQ-99 transmitter installation (above, below). These images show a typical mix of transmitter modules, with unique steerable antenna installations for four different bands. The emitter boresight depression angle is a compromise intended to accommodate both standoff and escort jamming. The aircraft, 66-0041 of the 429th ECS at Cannon AFB, NM, was photographed at Malmstrom AFB, Montana ( 2012, Phil Peterson).

#4303208 - 10/14/16 03:04 PM Re: Electronic Warfare-4 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,652
Hpasp Online grunt
Hpasp  Online Grunt

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,652
Hungary, Europe
DECM



Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

While Fighter Pilots made movies, SAM Officers made History.
(U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.)
thumbsup
#4311050 - 11/11/16 09:03 AM Re: Electronic Warfare-4 [Re: Wolfhound]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,652
Hpasp Online grunt
Hpasp  Online Grunt

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,652
Hungary, Europe


Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

While Fighter Pilots made movies, SAM Officers made History.
(U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.)
thumbsup
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  Cat, Hpasp, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Gunsmith question
by 24_Fan. 08/17/17 01:35 AM
08-16-17 National Joke Day
by Bill_Grant. 08/16/17 08:16 PM
The ongoing, perennial, eternal question
by Dunolde. 08/16/17 06:13 PM
Greatest Time in History to Have Lived
by F4UDash4. 08/15/17 06:29 PM
Question about movie theater attendance
by PanzerMeyer. 08/15/17 02:25 PM
WW2 relic in the desert
by KraziKanuK. 08/14/17 01:53 PM
The Last Polka
by Li'lJugs. 08/14/17 02:04 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0