What's new

Force Multiplier on SU 30MKI - Elta ELL-8222 self protection jamming pod

Bornubus

BANNED
Joined
Mar 1, 2015
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
-1
Country
India
Location
India
MKI_EL-L_8222_1.jpg


EL_L-8222_MKI_big.jpg


I believe this is for Frying the Seekers of incoming BVRs and A Amissiles.This POD is installed both on MKI and Bisons gave tough time to USAF at COPE.

The Elta ELL-8222 self protection jamming pod, currently flying with multiple air forces around the world, including the USAF’s 65th Aggressor Squadron located at Nellis AFB, Nevada, is a bolt-on, highly potent weapon system. Pilots have told me that these pods can literally make an enemy target disappear until they are too close to employ their aircraft’s superior beyond visual range attack capabilities. In other words, the ELL-8222 goes some distance at leveling the playing field even in a highly “asymmetric” air combat situation, such as a flight of upgraded MiG-21s packing this pod vs a flight of F-15Cs equipped with mechanically scanned array versions of the APG-63 radar set. In a time of helmet mounted sights if even a vastly inferior aircraft can make it to the merge with a vastly superior one, they have a chance of coming out on top. In other words, as range decreases a super fighters tactical advantage also decreases. The ELL-8222 provides a medium for air forces to realize this reality. Further it is much cheaper to buy bolt on advanced jamming systems than to purchase cutting edge aircraft that cost many tens of millions of dollars each. Self protection pods like this keep older “legacy” platforms combat relevant, and thus prolongs their time in inventory, which saves big bucks for cash strapped air forces.


The Elta ELL-8251 is the state of the art when it comes to self escort jammers with an incredibly robust capability when it comes to evading, degrading, spoofing and blinding enemy surface to air missile and search radar installations. Self escort jammers like this offer the very best solutions to air forces who cannot afford a fleet of dedicated electronic warfare and attack aircraft like the E/A-18G Growler or E/A-6B Prowler.
 
Last edited:
.

ELL-8212/22

ELL-8212/22 - Self-Protection Jamming Pod

Main Objectives

  • Enhance survivability of fighters and other military aircraft by suppressing multiple threats in dense radar-guided weapon systems environment.
  • Protect the aircraft against all types of traditional and modern Air-to-Air & Surface-to-Air threats.
Main Advantages

  • Cutting-edge Exciter and Receiver.
  • Lightweight, low-drag pod configuration.
  • Suitable for aircraft of any size.
  • Hundreds of ELTA's Self-Protection Jamming Pods are deployed worldwide. Operational on-board F-16, F-15, F-111, F-4, F-5, A-4, Jaguar, and Eastern fighters.
  • Easily integrated with aircraft avionics via reduced dimensions and electrical and mechanical interface flexibility.
  • Using PC-based equipment and user-friendly human machine interface, threats and jamming techniques may be easily updated or added.
  • Flight line re-programmable.
  • Incorporates modern design architecture and advanced technologies, based on ELTA's field proven experience of more than 30 years in the design and manufacturing of EW Systems and on operational feedback
Source http://www.iai.co.il/2013/34486-26545-en/Groups_ELTA_EltaNumber_Products-ELL.aspx

From the brochure link
upload_2016-2-15_22-46-2.png


From another link
www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/files/7/27537.pdf

upload_2016-2-15_22-49-15.png


upload_2016-2-15_22-50-14.png


upload_2016-2-15_22-51-13.png


From Israeli Airforce pics

F16B
IMG_6320_2.jpg


F15D
2010_11_25_0524.jpg
 
. . . .
How it cimpared with growler's jammers?

No comparison. Elta 8222 is an self protection jammer intented to cut the chain of the enemy FCR, BVR, SAM for the sucessful hit to the target, and Growler's is the whole set of jammer's intended to overload the enemy Radars usually called as the Barrage Jamming over the wide range of frequencies and Spot jamming and need more power and cooling intented to attack/jam INTEGRATED AIR DEFENCE CAPABILITY of the enemy like S-300.

Not an expert but few cents :

There are two type of Jammers --
1. Escort Jammer -- Which provide protection to others aircrafts also in a fleet
2. Self protection Jammer -- Which provide protection to the hosted aircraft usually by cutting

In case of the technique used are :

1. Noise jammer Essentially with Noise jamming you are trying to create a disruption into the EMS so that the signal the Receivers (enemy's) are looking for is overloaded or somehow obscured. Here is Indian Noise jammer developed by DARE Tusker.

DARE-developed+TUSKER+EW+pod+for+MiG-27UPG.jpg




2. Barrage Jammer Barrage jamming is essentially noise jamming where the jammer operates over a very wide band of frequencies with the added benefit that if you are capable of barrage jamming you can generally cover more than one type of emitter.

3. Spot Jammer With a Spot Jamming mode you use a receiver, or ideally a set of receivers to ID a signal and then you basically (provided you have that frequency covered) tune your emitter to that frequency and jam away. The receivers therefore allow you to narrow down on the frequency of your jamming apparatus and enable you to focus much larger power in a narrower band for maximum effect.

For successful spot jamming against modern systems you need to have a very dense receiver setup and strong data links. Additionally for spot jamming you need to be able to counter agile waveforms but the counter is increasingly a loosing battle. Also such spot jamming is one of the most sophisticated capabilities in EA when it comes to jammers and electronics packaging (often dubbed Follower Jamming). With enough computing power and agility available to these systems they can essentially perform (either fully or within their threshold) inside the jammers OODA loop by operating in very fast hopping mode. This basically outfoxes even the most sophisticated follower jamming technique. There are other ways besides of very very fast hops to outfox a follower jammer that involve manipulating your emissions to carry a lot of SPAM but those involve highly complex computational capability and may only exist in very very expensive integrated avionics setups. This then gets us to barrage jamming. The biggest negative for such a jammer is the cost, size, weight, power and cooling requirements that are imposed on pure barrage jammers essentially making them incompatible with all but dedicated EW aircraft that have no air-combat requirements. Simply put you are spreading a lot of power, a lot of energy over a very wide set of frequencies and this limits which platforms can effectively conduct barrage jamming, particularly at range. In case of the USN and USAF for example not even the highest technology available will allow a low-frequency pod (you can load it up with anything from highly powerful gallium nitride emmitters etc to whatever is the standard in computing) on a fighter sized aircraft to do barrage jamming over the low-frequency range from medium to stand off distances. For that you need HUGE pods that are incompatible with a fighter sized aircraft. For higher frequencies you can do stand off spot jamming but the power requirement to do barrage jamming will still be in many 10's of Killowatts even against a 90's level threat.

4. DRFM DRFM jamming is a different as its a counter to search and track radars and is platform specific i.e. you do your own DFRM deception jamming. You can't count on escorting a platform using that approach however. Effectively what you are looking to do (DFRM is quite old with publicly available patents to systems dating to the early 70's) is defeat tracking by taking the interrogating pulse, delaying them and reradiating manipulated signals with the purpose of either generating false targets, presenting a false range or velocity gate or other types of false information. Like any other type of jamming short of the utopian "owning the entire RF spectrum" aircraft or weapons can also develop and execute countermeasures to overcome DRFM jamming much like anything else provided the opponent stays a couple of steps ahead of the threat (easier said then done however). DRFM is popular on fighters for survivability because the size, weight and cooling requirements are much smaller since the object is not to stay hidden, but to complicate the enemy's targeting process and reduce his Situational Awareness particularly in the end state - hence they are very powerful and much desired upgrade options for non-stealthy aircraft that short of carrying growler like pods cannot stay hidden to enemy sensor and therefore must try to deny the enemy high quality situational awareness as opposed to surprise that low observable provide.
 
.
In recent years the Indian Air force (IAF) as part of its 'transformation' has been progressively augmenting its fleet of special mission aircraft beyond the usual fighter and transport squadrons. After having brought in refuellers and airborne early warning aircraft, the IAF is now quite keen to augment its electronic warfare (EW) capabilities with more specialised aircraft in such roles. In late April last year, the Defence Acquisition Council put its stamp of approval on the IAF's proposal to procure nine 'special mission' aircraft for 1100 crore rupees or more. The status of the request for proposal (RFP) that the IAF was supposed to issue subsequently is unclear. But it is still worthwhile to look at this program more closely.

The IAF's RFI for the nine aircraft issued way back in 2012 specifies that two of the nine aircraft should be certified to perform the signals intelligence (SIGINT) role, given that the mission package for SIGINT commonly requires permanent modifications to the airframe. The remaining seven aircraft according to the RFI are to be configured by the prime contractor for the multi-mission role, 'supporting aerial survey, target towing, communications jamming (COMJAM) and flaring'. The RFI further specified that these missions i.e. for the seven COMJAM aircraft will be flown in addition to their original passenger and cargo roles.

Now what the IAF is essentially looking for has emerged as a classic combination over the last two decades. The special mission aircraft sought by the IAF are essentially militarized business jets that give a very good mix of deployability and endurance. The RFI issued last year spells this out by explicitly wanting 'aircraft powered by twin turbofan engines with low noise and vibration levels, with hot-and-high capability in all roles, certified for deployments at air bases up to 3,300 meters (10,000 ft.) above mean sea level.' The certification according to the RFI must be done by the airframe supplier. Reportedly the IAF may be looking for a biz jet platform with a cruise speed of Mach 0.75-0.80 and a minimum range capability of 4500 kms.

While all nine are to be based on a single platform the requirement for only two of them to be specialized for SIGINT probably follows from the fact that the IAF already operates two Learjet 29A and three Gulfstream III SRA platforms in that role for the Aviation Research Centre (ARC). The seven COMJAM units will therefore be filling the shoes of the IAF's retired Canberras and Avros.

The RFI however does suggest that the IAF wants the best that is out there when it says that '[sigint] system must be a futuristic, state-of-the-art system using cutting edge technologies, algorithms and software.' Furthermore the IAF wants that the set up should be up to the task of 'rapid system acquisitions and data processing with a high degree of automation', besides being 'capable of transmitting data to the ground through data links'. Interestingly the IAF also seems to be looking to move to systems that merge cyber and EW techniques. According to the RFI apart from the usual profiles, 'electronic countermeasure (ECM) systems on board the COMJAM specialized units need to be able to deceive adversaries by introducing false information into the enemy's communications' network and degrading enemy communications'. This kind of capability is akin to what the United States is looking for in its next generation jammer (NGJ) initiative wherein mutating algorithms are sought to be 'fired' through the aperture of enemy radar antennae to take over as 'system administrator' or at least 'infect' the enemy's network. Of course technologies of this kind are being developed by the US under the aegis of a program known as Senior Suter.
On the other hand the IAF wants the electronic support measures (ESM) used by the SIGINT aircraft to have the ability 'to intercept, identify, fingerprint and locate the source of electromagnetic emissions from radars, ECMs, Identification Friend or Foe/Successor interrogators ( 1030 mhz), transponders ( 1090 mhz), Tactical air navigation/Distance Measuring Equipment interrogators signals (1025-1150 mhz) and communication signals.'

Making these acquisitions a full blown intelligence surveillance reconnaissance (ISR) buy is the fact that seven of the aircraft for their 'aerial survey' role will have to be outfitted with 'microprocessor-based high-performance aerial survey camera systems with camera magazines, gyro-stabilized mounts, cockpit displays and automatic GPS-controlled photo flight systems. '

For COMJAM missions the IAF requires that the aircraft have enough space to accommodate up to five operator workstations and other related equipment with the overall ability to carry up to 10 passengers. This requirement to carry up to 10 passengers represents an enlargement of mission requirements compared to what was laid out in a previous RFP issued in 2009 for this same procurement category which had seen Embraer and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) shortlisted with both vendors offering ELTA's EL/I-3001 Airborne Integrated Signal Intelligence System (AISIS) mission system. That time over the Ministry of Defence (MoD) cancelled the RFP since vendors escalated prices based on an apparent lack of clarity in India's offset policy at the time.

This time over both Embraer and IAI are likely to bid again offering ELTA's AISIS which clearly has found favour with the IAF once before. In the words of its manufacturer 'AISIS is an aircraft mounted suite designed to perform long-range, high-endurance missions thus providing tactical and strategic intelligence. The system comprises ELINT (Electronic Intelligence) and COMINT (Communications Intelligence) sensors to search, intercept, measure, locate, analyze, classify and monitor communication and radar transmissions. The Electronic Order of Battle (OEB) picture generated by the EL/I-3001 suite is transmitted in real-time to ground stations for its exploitation via secure line-of-sight data-links, satellite communications and/or HF/VHF/UHF radio sets.' Elta also claims that the system is 'optimized' to effectively deal with low probability of intercept transmission sources and is of course in use with the Israeli defence forces.
Now the last time over Embraer offered a derivative of the EMB-145 with the pull of commonality of platform between these proposed special mission aircraft and the DRDO developed AEW&C currently in the process of being inducted by the IAF. On the other hand IAI had chipped in with the Gulfstream G200 which it manufactures under license in Israel. This time over IAI may offer the new super mid-size it is building- the Gulfstream G280. Indeed G280 based EW platforms are being touted by IAI as an affordable way forward in procuring special mission aicraft.

Affordability will certainly be a key factor in determining success in this tender, given that it has already been shot down by the MoD once before on those grounds. More than the mission systems the basic cost of the airframe and integration both of which are to be done by the airframe provider are likely to carry the day. Thus vendors who have cobbled up such offerings before with decent maintenance support will have a good chance at winning this tender. Of course, given the requirement for a larger aircraft as compared to the previous tender and current prices it remains to be seen how much more than the ball park 1100 crores would the Indian government be willing to expend on this proposal. Naturally something like a Gulfstream G550 based offering is ruled out because that would inflate costs rather considerably. On the other hand G280 sized jets are likely to be in the sweet spot for this tender. Apart from Embraer and IAI, Saab too is likely to bid again even though it was not down-selected the last time over.

From the US, offerings are likely to be made by Hawker Beechcraft in partnership with Raytheon, L-3 communications, Lockheed Martin or Boeing who will provide the mission package. Hawker Beechcraft's Hawker 800 after all already serves in a similar role with the South Koreans with eight specially-equipped aircraft delivered back in 2000. Of course the mission systems providers could also team up with other super mid-size manufacturers such as Bombardier or Cessna. L-3 communications Mission Integration Division (MID) in Greenville, Texas has racked up successes in the special mission space in recent times by integrating ISR capabilities on to business aircraft and is executing a contract for the Saudis along with Hawker Beechcraft at the moment besides on going work with the US Air force on 'Project Liberty'. Incidentally ARC's first SIGINT platform, a Boeing 707 SIGINT, was originally modified for the role by then-US contractor E-Systems which has since then been subsumed by Raytheon.

But participation from US manufacturers, one suspects, may also depend on how much the Indians are willing to pay in the final analysis. For India, familiarity with a manufacturer and technology sharing are likely to be very important considerations for this tender. In that sense Embraer and IAI are probably ahead. In any case successfully completing this tender within a decent timeframe will certainly go a long way in dealing with the constant needling that India's neighbours are resorting to on both fronts.


ELL-8251+escort+jammer-2.jpg


SIVA+HADF+pod+for+Kh-31P+Krypton+ARM.jpg


This is the part of the Super Sukhoi upgrade program

Ariel+Mk3+towed+decoy.jpg


AAR-60V2+MILDS+F+MAWS.jpg
 
.
In recent years the Indian Air force (IAF) as part of its 'transformation' has been progressively augmenting its fleet of special mission aircraft beyond the usual fighter and transport squadrons. After having brought in refuellers and airborne early warning aircraft, the IAF is now quite keen to augment its electronic warfare (EW) capabilities with more specialised aircraft in such roles. In late April last year, the Defence Acquisition Council put its stamp of approval on the IAF's proposal to procure nine 'special mission' aircraft for 1100 crore rupees or more. The status of the request for proposal (RFP) that the IAF was supposed to issue subsequently is unclear. But it is still worthwhile to look at this program more closely.

The IAF's RFI for the nine aircraft issued way back in 2012 specifies that two of the nine aircraft should be certified to perform the signals intelligence (SIGINT) role, given that the mission package for SIGINT commonly requires permanent modifications to the airframe. The remaining seven aircraft according to the RFI are to be configured by the prime contractor for the multi-mission role, 'supporting aerial survey, target towing, communications jamming (COMJAM) and flaring'. The RFI further specified that these missions i.e. for the seven COMJAM aircraft will be flown in addition to their original passenger and cargo roles.

Now what the IAF is essentially looking for has emerged as a classic combination over the last two decades. The special mission aircraft sought by the IAF are essentially militarized business jets that give a very good mix of deployability and endurance. The RFI issued last year spells this out by explicitly wanting 'aircraft powered by twin turbofan engines with low noise and vibration levels, with hot-and-high capability in all roles, certified for deployments at air bases up to 3,300 meters (10,000 ft.) above mean sea level.' The certification according to the RFI must be done by the airframe supplier. Reportedly the IAF may be looking for a biz jet platform with a cruise speed of Mach 0.75-0.80 and a minimum range capability of 4500 kms.

While all nine are to be based on a single platform the requirement for only two of them to be specialized for SIGINT probably follows from the fact that the IAF already operates two Learjet 29A and three Gulfstream III SRA platforms in that role for the Aviation Research Centre (ARC). The seven COMJAM units will therefore be filling the shoes of the IAF's retired Canberras and Avros.

The RFI however does suggest that the IAF wants the best that is out there when it says that '[sigint] system must be a futuristic, state-of-the-art system using cutting edge technologies, algorithms and software.' Furthermore the IAF wants that the set up should be up to the task of 'rapid system acquisitions and data processing with a high degree of automation', besides being 'capable of transmitting data to the ground through data links'. Interestingly the IAF also seems to be looking to move to systems that merge cyber and EW techniques. According to the RFI apart from the usual profiles, 'electronic countermeasure (ECM) systems on board the COMJAM specialized units need to be able to deceive adversaries by introducing false information into the enemy's communications' network and degrading enemy communications'. This kind of capability is akin to what the United States is looking for in its next generation jammer (NGJ) initiative wherein mutating algorithms are sought to be 'fired' through the aperture of enemy radar antennae to take over as 'system administrator' or at least 'infect' the enemy's network. Of course technologies of this kind are being developed by the US under the aegis of a program known as Senior Suter.
On the other hand the IAF wants the electronic support measures (ESM) used by the SIGINT aircraft to have the ability 'to intercept, identify, fingerprint and locate the source of electromagnetic emissions from radars, ECMs, Identification Friend or Foe/Successor interrogators ( 1030 mhz), transponders ( 1090 mhz), Tactical air navigation/Distance Measuring Equipment interrogators signals (1025-1150 mhz) and communication signals.'

Making these acquisitions a full blown intelligence surveillance reconnaissance (ISR) buy is the fact that seven of the aircraft for their 'aerial survey' role will have to be outfitted with 'microprocessor-based high-performance aerial survey camera systems with camera magazines, gyro-stabilized mounts, cockpit displays and automatic GPS-controlled photo flight systems. '

For COMJAM missions the IAF requires that the aircraft have enough space to accommodate up to five operator workstations and other related equipment with the overall ability to carry up to 10 passengers. This requirement to carry up to 10 passengers represents an enlargement of mission requirements compared to what was laid out in a previous RFP issued in 2009 for this same procurement category which had seen Embraer and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) shortlisted with both vendors offering ELTA's EL/I-3001 Airborne Integrated Signal Intelligence System (AISIS) mission system. That time over the Ministry of Defence (MoD) cancelled the RFP since vendors escalated prices based on an apparent lack of clarity in India's offset policy at the time.

This time over both Embraer and IAI are likely to bid again offering ELTA's AISIS which clearly has found favour with the IAF once before. In the words of its manufacturer 'AISIS is an aircraft mounted suite designed to perform long-range, high-endurance missions thus providing tactical and strategic intelligence. The system comprises ELINT (Electronic Intelligence) and COMINT (Communications Intelligence) sensors to search, intercept, measure, locate, analyze, classify and monitor communication and radar transmissions. The Electronic Order of Battle (OEB) picture generated by the EL/I-3001 suite is transmitted in real-time to ground stations for its exploitation via secure line-of-sight data-links, satellite communications and/or HF/VHF/UHF radio sets.' Elta also claims that the system is 'optimized' to effectively deal with low probability of intercept transmission sources and is of course in use with the Israeli defence forces.
Now the last time over Embraer offered a derivative of the EMB-145 with the pull of commonality of platform between these proposed special mission aircraft and the DRDO developed AEW&C currently in the process of being inducted by the IAF. On the other hand IAI had chipped in with the Gulfstream G200 which it manufactures under license in Israel. This time over IAI may offer the new super mid-size it is building- the Gulfstream G280. Indeed G280 based EW platforms are being touted by IAI as an affordable way forward in procuring special mission aicraft.

Affordability will certainly be a key factor in determining success in this tender, given that it has already been shot down by the MoD once before on those grounds. More than the mission systems the basic cost of the airframe and integration both of which are to be done by the airframe provider are likely to carry the day. Thus vendors who have cobbled up such offerings before with decent maintenance support will have a good chance at winning this tender. Of course, given the requirement for a larger aircraft as compared to the previous tender and current prices it remains to be seen how much more than the ball park 1100 crores would the Indian government be willing to expend on this proposal. Naturally something like a Gulfstream G550 based offering is ruled out because that would inflate costs rather considerably. On the other hand G280 sized jets are likely to be in the sweet spot for this tender. Apart from Embraer and IAI, Saab too is likely to bid again even though it was not down-selected the last time over.

From the US, offerings are likely to be made by Hawker Beechcraft in partnership with Raytheon, L-3 communications, Lockheed Martin or Boeing who will provide the mission package. Hawker Beechcraft's Hawker 800 after all already serves in a similar role with the South Koreans with eight specially-equipped aircraft delivered back in 2000. Of course the mission systems providers could also team up with other super mid-size manufacturers such as Bombardier or Cessna. L-3 communications Mission Integration Division (MID) in Greenville, Texas has racked up successes in the special mission space in recent times by integrating ISR capabilities on to business aircraft and is executing a contract for the Saudis along with Hawker Beechcraft at the moment besides on going work with the US Air force on 'Project Liberty'. Incidentally ARC's first SIGINT platform, a Boeing 707 SIGINT, was originally modified for the role by then-US contractor E-Systems which has since then been subsumed by Raytheon.

But participation from US manufacturers, one suspects, may also depend on how much the Indians are willing to pay in the final analysis. For India, familiarity with a manufacturer and technology sharing are likely to be very important considerations for this tender. In that sense Embraer and IAI are probably ahead. In any case successfully completing this tender within a decent timeframe will certainly go a long way in dealing with the constant needling that India's neighbours are resorting to on both fronts.


ELL-8251+escort+jammer-2.jpg


SIVA+HADF+pod+for+Kh-31P+Krypton+ARM.jpg


This is the part of the Super Sukhoi upgrade program

Ariel+Mk3+towed+decoy.jpg


AAR-60V2+MILDS+F+MAWS.jpg
No comparison. Elta 8222 is an self protection jammer intented to cut the chain of the enemy FCR, BVR, SAM for the sucessful hit to the target, and Growler's is the whole set of jammer's intended to overload the enemy Radars usually called as the Barrage Jamming over the wide range of frequencies and Spot jamming and need more power and cooling intented to attack/jam INTEGRATED AIR DEFENCE CAPABILITY of the enemy like S-300.

Not an expert but few cents :

There are two type of Jammers --
1. Escort Jammer -- Which provide protection to others aircrafts also in a fleet
2. Self protection Jammer -- Which provide protection to the hosted aircraft usually by cutting

In case of the technique used are :

1. Noise jammer Essentially with Noise jamming you are trying to create a disruption into the EMS so that the signal the Receivers (enemy's) are looking for is overloaded or somehow obscured. Here is Indian Noise jammer developed by DARE Tusker.

DARE-developed+TUSKER+EW+pod+for+MiG-27UPG.jpg




2. Barrage Jammer Barrage jamming is essentially noise jamming where the jammer operates over a very wide band of frequencies with the added benefit that if you are capable of barrage jamming you can generally cover more than one type of emitter.

3. Spot Jammer With a Spot Jamming mode you use a receiver, or ideally a set of receivers to ID a signal and then you basically (provided you have that frequency covered) tune your emitter to that frequency and jam away. The receivers therefore allow you to narrow down on the frequency of your jamming apparatus and enable you to focus much larger power in a narrower band for maximum effect.

For successful spot jamming against modern systems you need to have a very dense receiver setup and strong data links. Additionally for spot jamming you need to be able to counter agile waveforms but the counter is increasingly a loosing battle. Also such spot jamming is one of the most sophisticated capabilities in EA when it comes to jammers and electronics packaging (often dubbed Follower Jamming). With enough computing power and agility available to these systems they can essentially perform (either fully or within their threshold) inside the jammers OODA loop by operating in very fast hopping mode. This basically outfoxes even the most sophisticated follower jamming technique. There are other ways besides of very very fast hops to outfox a follower jammer that involve manipulating your emissions to carry a lot of SPAM but those involve highly complex computational capability and may only exist in very very expensive integrated avionics setups. This then gets us to barrage jamming. The biggest negative for such a jammer is the cost, size, weight, power and cooling requirements that are imposed on pure barrage jammers essentially making them incompatible with all but dedicated EW aircraft that have no air-combat requirements. Simply put you are spreading a lot of power, a lot of energy over a very wide set of frequencies and this limits which platforms can effectively conduct barrage jamming, particularly at range. In case of the USN and USAF for example not even the highest technology available will allow a low-frequency pod (you can load it up with anything from highly powerful gallium nitride emmitters etc to whatever is the standard in computing) on a fighter sized aircraft to do barrage jamming over the low-frequency range from medium to stand off distances. For that you need HUGE pods that are incompatible with a fighter sized aircraft. For higher frequencies you can do stand off spot jamming but the power requirement to do barrage jamming will still be in many 10's of Killowatts even against a 90's level threat.

4. DRFM DRFM jamming is a different as its a counter to search and track radars and is platform specific i.e. you do your own DFRM deception jamming. You can't count on escorting a platform using that approach however. Effectively what you are looking to do (DFRM is quite old with publicly available patents to systems dating to the early 70's) is defeat tracking by taking the interrogating pulse, delaying them and reradiating manipulated signals with the purpose of either generating false targets, presenting a false range or velocity gate or other types of false information. Like any other type of jamming short of the utopian "owning the entire RF spectrum" aircraft or weapons can also develop and execute countermeasures to overcome DRFM jamming much like anything else provided the opponent stays a couple of steps ahead of the threat (easier said then done however). DRFM is popular on fighters for survivability because the size, weight and cooling requirements are much smaller since the object is not to stay hidden, but to complicate the enemy's targeting process and reduce his Situational Awareness particularly in the end state - hence they are very powerful and much desired upgrade options for non-stealthy aircraft that short of carrying growler like pods cannot stay hidden to enemy sensor and therefore must try to deny the enemy high quality situational awareness as opposed to surprise that low observable provide.
Its really an informative one.tnq u
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom