Su 30 MKI (Growler!!!)

[gambit]

Not per say but, I would guess that the EA-18G used some Jamin tech to avoid being shoot down by the F-22..

do you have the link explaining the whole thing..

Preventing a radar lock is not the same thing as being low observable, aka 'stealth'. Low radar reflectivity is about reducing or denying the seeking receiver (not transmitter) part of the seeking of the radar any or all echoes that may come off the body. Currently the methods are part absorber and mostly deflection working together towards that denial. Jamming is about wide area transmission of signals designed to overwhelm a specific frequency spectrum to mask any radar reflections from any aircraft. The ECM aircraft will be make its presence known because of this field.

Regarding this story, we do not know the details of the engagement. The F-22 could have been providing the EF-18 an exercise opportunity on how to detect a low observable body like the F-22. We do not know. These F-22s do not fly without radar enhancers...

Like that little dingleberry on the underside of the aircraft. The device is a passive enhancer that will amplify any EM signals and reflect back in the direction of arrival. Did the EF-18 had an air-air engagement against such an F-22? We do not know. But what we do know is this...

Raptor Scores in Alaskan Exercise | AVIATION WEEK

The gun kill is a capability Air Force planners hope their F-22s won't use. The fighter is designed to destroy a foe well beyond his visual and radar range. Within visual-range combat and, in particular, gun kills are anachronisms. In amassing 144 kills to no losses during the first week of the joint-service Northern Edge exercise in Alaska last summer, only three air-to-air "kills" were in the visual arena--two involving AIM-9 Sidewinders and one the F-22's cannon.

 

[FSLN]

Preventing a radar lock is not the same thing as being low observable, aka 'stealth'.

low observable planes can be lock(very very close distance) so if you can't get a lock on the Growler at any distance(very close or not) I call that STEALTH.......

we do not know the details

as long as it remains a secret its all good with me...

 

[gambit]

low observable planes can be lock(very very close distance) so if you can't get a lock on the Growler at any distance(very close or not) I call that STEALTH.

Then I have unpleasant news for you...You are wrong.

Yours is the typical but understandable confusion between low radar reflectivity (observability), ECM, and the loosely used term 'stealth'.

Regarding radar detection, a 'transmitter' is not the same thing as an 'emitter'. When a radar engineer ask a colleague about a body's emissivity, he means this...

Emissivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The emissivity of a material (usually written ε or e) is the relative ability of its surface to emit energy by radiation.

A transmission is an act of will. An emission may be an act of will or it may be incidental or accidental. A transmission usually imply mechanisms that are deliberately designed to create a medium -- electromagnetic (EM) waves -- and radiate it into free space. An emission is when a body just happened to radiate EM signals into free space.

Still confused? You will not be shortly...

Radar

Robert Watson-Watt is given the credit for inventing the radar. In fact, this credit should go to the German engineer Christian Hulsmeyer who in 1904, using patented an early warning system for shipping. He, in turn, used a discovery by Heinrich Hertz who had discovered in 1888 that radio waves could be bounced off objects.

The radio tower is the transmitter. The building is not. But if an EM signal from the transmitter bounced off the building's wall, the building is an emitter. But the building is NOT a transmitter. We can drill down to talk about the wall's emissivity and that the building is a body composed of many different materials with different emissivity levels but the point should be clear enough. A body can be an emitter without being a transmitter. The terms 'transmitter' and 'emitter' and their associated contexts must be properly used in technical discussions.

The goal of 'stealth' is to avoid being an emitter. Terrain following flight that put an aircraft below the radar horizon make that aircraft a 'stealth' aircraft. Get it? No impinging EM signals on the body, no emissions.

The goal of 'low radar observability' is to avoid being an emitter DESPITE impinging EM signals upon the body. To be more precise -- A 'low radar observable' aircraft is a body whose main characteristic is to deny the seeking radar any deliberate, incidental, and/or accidental impinging EM signals their reflections off its body. We create such denial via radar absorbent materials (RAM), body shaping, or both.

This means an ECM aircraft cannot be classified as 'stealth' because it is a transmitter. If any impinging EM signals reflect off its body, it is also an emitter. What happens inside an ECM transmission are 'constructive' and 'destructive' interferences between the 'jamming' transmission and the incoming radar signals and any reflections, or emissions, off the ECM aircraft...

Interference (wave propagation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consider two waves that are in phase, sharing the same frequency and with amplitudes A1 and A2. Their troughs and peaks line up and the resultant wave will have amplitude A = A1 + A2. This is known as constructive interference.

If the two waves are π radians, or 180°, out of phase, then one wave's crests will coincide with another wave's troughs and so will tend to cancel out. The resultant amplitude is A = |A1 − A2|. If A1 = A2, the resultant amplitude will be zero. This is known as destructive interference.

An aircraft is a geometrically complex body and these interferences will occur under the wings, by the pylons, around the cockpit, inside the intakes, etc...etc...The result is that the aircraft's true radar returns are effectively 'destroyed' inside this wide area EM cloud but this EM cloud also gave away the position and heading of an incoming strike package. It does make it very difficult -- not impossible -- for the defenders to hit a specific aircraft, but they know that 'something' bad is coming their way.

Or it could be a decoy to attract attention away from a flight of F-35s flying below the radar horizon from another direction...

Can the F-22's radar pick through an ECM transmission to focus in on the ECM aircraft? There are techniques -- transmitter and data processing -- unique only to an AESA system.

But I ain't telling...

 

[kingdurgaking]

Hey Gambit .... i have one small question..

Which is more apt in a battle situation..

A plane with VLO

or a Plane that cant be locked by any missile?

is the second situation possible or missile can take a lock at some point of time?

 

[gambit]

Hey Gambit .... i have one small question..

Which is more apt in a battle situation..

A plane with VLO

or a Plane that cant be locked by any missile?

is the second situation possible or missile can take a lock at some point of time?

Theoretically? If we have an aircraft that cannot be radar lock by any system, then we have a winner in every fight. But the question is HOW is that achieved? If it is achieved by some as-yet invented ECM system that will jam every radar in existence, the aircraft is still a transmitter and everyone will know it is coming. If it is achieved by absorbing every radar signals that impact its body, then not only is it very low observable, practically not radar observable at all, but also no radar guided missile can lock on it anyway. The US is working on that last method.

 

[kingdurgaking]

Theoretically? If we have an aircraft that cannot be radar lock by any system, then we have a winner in every fight. But the question is HOW is that achieved? If it is achieved by some as-yet invented ECM system that will jam every radar in existence, the aircraft is still a transmitter and everyone will know it is coming. If it is achieved by absorbing every radar signals that impact its body, then not only is it very low observable, practically not radar observable at all, but also no radar guided missile can lock on it anyway. The US is working on that last method.

If it is able to JAM every signal and able to lock others it is still good than VLO right? because it never needs to get into cannon fight ... What disadvantage it makes when others understand that a fighter is out there?..
But practically from your exp can a jammer can jam all radar signals? will it be more costly than VLO?

 

[FSLN]

Then I have unpleasant news for you...You are wrong.

Yours is the typical but understandable confusion between low radar reflectivity (observability), ECM, and the loosely used term 'stealth'.

Regarding radar detection, a 'transmitter' is not the same thing as an 'emitter'. When a radar engineer ask a colleague about a body's emissivity, he means this...

Emissivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A transmission is an act of will. An emission may be an act of will or it may be incidental or accidental. A transmission usually imply mechanisms that are deliberately designed to create a medium -- electromagnetic (EM) waves -- and radiate it into free space. An emission is when a body just happened to radiate EM signals into free space.

Still confused? You will not be shortly...

Radar

The radio tower is the transmitter. The building is not. But if an EM signal from the transmitter bounced off the building's wall, the building is an emitter. But the building is NOT a transmitter. We can drill down to talk about the wall's emissivity and that the building is a body composed of many different materials with different emissivity levels but the point should be clear enough. A body can be an emitter without being a transmitter. The terms 'transmitter' and 'emitter' and their associated contexts must be properly used in technical discussions.

The goal of 'stealth' is to avoid being an emitter. Terrain following flight that put an aircraft below the radar horizon make that aircraft a 'stealth' aircraft. Get it? No impinging EM signals on the body, no emissions.

The goal of 'low radar observability' is to avoid being an emitter DESPITE impinging EM signals upon the body. To be more precise -- A 'low radar observable' aircraft is a body whose main characteristic is to deny the seeking radar any deliberate, incidental, and/or accidental impinging EM signals their reflections off its body. We create such denial via radar absorbent materials (RAM), body shaping, or both.

This means an ECM aircraft cannot be classified as 'stealth' because it is a transmitter. If any impinging EM signals reflect off its body, it is also an emitter. What happens inside an ECM transmission are 'constructive' and 'destructive' interferences between the 'jamming' transmission and the incoming radar signals and any reflections, or emissions, off the ECM aircraft...

Interference (wave propagation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An aircraft is a geometrically complex body and these interferences will occur under the wings, by the pylons, around the cockpit, inside the intakes, etc...etc...The result is that the aircraft's true radar returns are effectively 'destroyed' inside this wide area EM cloud but this EM cloud also gave away the position and heading of an incoming strike package. It does make it very difficult -- not impossible -- for the defenders to hit a specific aircraft, but they know that 'something' bad is coming their way.

Or it could be a decoy to attract attention away from a flight of F-35s flying below the radar horizon from another direction...

Can the F-22's radar pick through an ECM transmission to focus in on the ECM aircraft? There are techniques -- transmitter and data processing -- unique only to an AESA system.

But I ain't telling...

you lost me at Radio Tower...

Theoretically? If we have an aircraft that cannot be radar lock by any system, then we have a winner in every fight.

that's probably how the Growler scored a victory against the Raptor, and I know the Raptor was probably handicapped by that underbelly radar detectable sphere, and more than likely the Raptor was aware of the Growler because as you said it was transmitting a lot of radio signals because it was in Jamming mode, but none the less the Raptor just couldn't get a lock on him and the Growler was able to score the victory....

the aircraft is still a transmitter and everyone will know it is coming..

yeah Pakistani point defense Fighter/Interceptors will know the SuperHornets are in their way to Bomb them, but by being escorted by Prowlers they will not be able to get a lock on them, rendering them sitting ducks...

 

[FSLN]

can a jammer can jam all radar signals? will it be more costly than VLO?

it doesn't need to jamm all of them, Remember Growlers will have 360 degrees AESA Jamming capabilities, and most of India's enemies use PESA radars or just wont have anything close as high tech as that for decades to come...

 

[maverick1977]

@gamit, thanks for sharing such great information on this forum. Its great to have people with skill and knowledge... hope to hear more from you.

 

[sancho]

Let's re-examine you initial post, you suggested the Growler was a Super Hornet with EW pods. I responded and said no, you can't turn a F/A-18 F into a EA-18G by merely hanging some pods off it.



There are structural differences, antennae,sensors and electronic equipment all around the aircraft. In addition, it has a more powerful computer connected by a fibre-optic network and the WSO has larger display and more complex MMI.The EA-18G is more than just a jammer, it is an electronic attack aircraft, its real capability is a secret and it is not for sale.

Whether or not a F/A-18 F can easily be modified to a EA-18G is only known to Boeing - if you think you know better please enlighten us.

Then you should have read the post I replied to also, because he said, that the Growler was specially designed for EA, but that's not that case! There is no new, or re-design, the only external difference to the normal Super Hornet are (as I said) the jamming pods and the same would be the case for MKIs, or Su 34s!
I even agreed to you that there are minor intenal changes, but still the platform remains the same and that's why the Growler has such high commonality to the normal SHs too. A Growler without the external jamming pods, can still be used like a normal Super Hornet in A2A, or A2G roles, because it has the same AESA radar, same weapon stations, payload and can use the same weapons too.
Not the platform is important here, but the jamming techs particularly!

 

[kish]

Regarding radar detection, a 'transmitter' is not the same thing as an 'emitter'. When a radar engineer ask a colleague about a body's emissivity, he means this...

Emissivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A transmission is an act of will. An emission may be an act of will or it may be incidental or accidental. A transmission usually imply mechanisms that are deliberately designed to create a medium -- electromagnetic (EM) waves -- and radiate it into free space. An emission is when a body just happened to radiate EM signals into free space.

Still confused? You will not be shortly...

Radar

The radio tower is the transmitter. The building is not. But if an EM signal from the transmitter bounced off the building's wall, the building is an emitter. But the building is NOT a transmitter. We can drill down to talk about the wall's emissivity and that the building is a body composed of many different materials with different emissivity levels but the point should be clear enough. A body can be an emitter without being a transmitter. The terms 'transmitter' and 'emitter' and their associated contexts must be properly used in technical discussions.

The goal of 'stealth' is to avoid being an emitter. Terrain following flight that put an aircraft below the radar horizon make that aircraft a 'stealth' aircraft. Get it? No impinging EM signals on the body, no emissions.

The goal of 'low radar observability' is to avoid being an emitter DESPITE impinging EM signals upon the body. To be more precise -- A 'low radar observable' aircraft is a body whose main characteristic is to deny the seeking radar any deliberate, incidental, and/or accidental impinging EM signals their reflections off its body. We create such denial via radar absorbent materials (RAM), body shaping, or both.

This means an ECM aircraft cannot be classified as 'stealth' because it is a transmitter. If any impinging EM signals reflect off its body, it is also an emitter. What happens inside an ECM transmission are 'constructive' and 'destructive' interferences between the 'jamming' transmission and the incoming radar signals and any reflections, or emissions, off the ECM aircraft...

Interference (wave propagation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you used mainly two points here ,, transmission and emission

while talking about a radar or any wave communication ,,
i will never forget three more terms ,,
reflection
refraction
scattering

these are the phenomenon how a wave (radiation) turn back to its transmitter

reflection --is simple phenomenon we all khow
refraction-- give the ability to deviate a wave in shadow region (interference and refraction are great concept where u can understand this )
scattering -- radiate the received the all incoming power in all direction again


now what emissivity is ---- The emissivity of a material (usually written ε or e) is the relative ability of its surface to emit energy by radiation.

now please tell me how it is related with reflection, refraction, and scattering because there are the main term which help a radar to operate

and transmitter is a device which convert one form of energy (normally electrical) to another form (radiation)
in short way i can say -- transmitter transmit/emits the radiation in air
so i can relate emissivity of a material here that which material is more appropriate to be used as transmitter ,, and while dealing with target(detecting) other three term are more appropriate

while dealing with detecting a plane
reflection refraction and scattering term are more appropriate

An aircraft is a geometrically complex body and these interferences will occur under the wings, by the pylons, around the cockpit, inside the intakes, etc...etc...The result is that the aircraft's true radar returns are effectively 'destroyed' inside this wide area EM cloud but this EM cloud also gave away the position and heading of an incoming strike package. It does make it very difficult -- not impossible -- for the defenders to hit a specific aircraft, but they know that 'something' bad is coming their way.

please explain how interference occur there ,, i know pylons intake etc reflect the waves but again interference in practically happen everywhere around us ,, but i wanna read about it more that how interference is imp while talking about reflection refraction and scattering from a jet (pls don't say about jamming )


THANKS FOR UR POST ,, IT WAS HELPFULL ANYWAYS ,,,,

AND PLSS:
FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[kish]

yes, but it is a diffuicult process as u need to know the exact frequency band in which the radar is operating. ground based radars keep on changing their frequency bands in a limited way so as to keep enemy from knowing correct frequency band.

ore than jamming, fighters try to create "confusion" by sending wrong signals/power signals to give errors in radar's readings.

ya ,, not easy to jam a ground radar ,,
as it may change its operating frequently
and also they produce more powerful signal for longer range

 

[gambit]

If it is able to JAM every signal and able to lock others it is still good than VLO right?

In theory...Yes. Being very low observable simply means reduced odds of detection. Reduced, not eliminated.

because it never needs to get into cannon fight ...

That is debatable, as you will see in the next comment...

What disadvantage it makes when others understand that a fighter is out there?..

Overwhelm by sheer numbers. Even if the defenders are unable to attain radar lock, they will be guided towards the direction of the EM disturbance. That is how anti-radiation, or 'beam rider', missiles work. There are flight controls algorithms created by the seeker assembly as it calculate the strongest point inside an EM field. Keep in mind that a radar beam is not a beam but more like a fan in a 2-dimensions perspective and a cone in a 3-dimensions perspective. An ECM field is no different. The seeker assembly will 'see' the outer edges of this field and calculate the center. A flight of interceptors guided by an ECM field can do the same. If not missiles, sooner or later some will get close enough for a visual acquire and a gun shot. This is why it is better to be very low observable than 'un-lockable', to put it simply. Better to sneak around in the dark than to carry a bright light even though everyone is blinded.

But practically from your exp can a jammer can jam all radar signals? will it be more costly than VLO?

Currently, we can create such a jammer. But it would so large that it would not be airborne. An ECM field must have two highest parallel important factors: field strength or density and effective field area.

Field strength or density is necessary because of the potential of 'burn through'...

Burn-Through Range - Glossary Definition - Army Technology

The burn-through range is the range at which a radar can detect targets through external interference (usually jamming).

Basically...A seeking radar can be more powerful than the ECM field. Or as the seeking radar nears the ECM field, it will become more powerful than the ECM field.

Effective field area is simple enough -- we want as much coverage as possible and that field density must be consistent in all direction. This coverage can extend outward to range as well, but that would be the effect of field strength or density.

So is it possible to create an antenna large enough and powerful enough to blind everyone in all direction for hundreds of km? Yes. Would it be flyable? For now -- No. Such an antenna would be powerful enough to kill an animal or a human being. The F-16's radar, if there is weight-off-wheels to allow full transmit power, can sterilize a man a few meters in front.

 

[gambit]

that's probably how the Growler scored a victory against the Raptor, and I know the Raptor was probably handicapped by that underbelly radar detectable sphere, and more than likely the Raptor was aware of the Growler because as you said it was transmitting a lot of radio signals because it was in Jamming mode, but none the less the Raptor just couldn't get a lock on him and the Growler was able to score the victory....

Am not going into details on how wrong that is. Suffice to say that WE have no problems with everyone believing that. No ECM field is perfect. The techniques to find gaps in an ECM field's most dense areas, or bypass its freqs are known for decades. It is only with the advent of AESA technology can we use them to their maximum effectiveness.

 

[gambit]

you used mainly two points here ,, transmission and emission

while talking about a radar or any wave communication ,,
i will never forget three more terms ,,
reflection
refraction
scattering

these are the phenomenon how a wave (radiation) turn back to its transmitter

reflection --is simple phenomenon we all khow
refraction-- give the ability to deviate a wave in shadow region (interference and refraction are great concept where u can understand this )
scattering -- radiate the received the all incoming power in all direction again


now what emissivity is ---- The emissivity of a material (usually written ε or e) is the relative ability of its surface to emit energy by radiation.

now please tell me how it is related with reflection, refraction, and scattering because there are the main term which help a radar to operate

and transmitter is a device which convert one form of energy (normally electrical) to another form (radiation)
in short way i can say -- transmitter transmit/emits the radiation in air
so i can relate emissivity of a material here that which material is more appropriate to be used as transmitter ,, and while dealing with target(detecting) other three term are more appropriate

while dealing with detecting a plane
reflection refraction and scattering term are more appropriate
please explain how interference occur there ,, i know pylons intake etc reflect the waves but again interference in practically happen everywhere around us ,, but i wanna read about it more that how interference is imp while talking about reflection refraction and scattering from a jet (pls don't say about jamming )

Edge diffraction are inevitable because of a finite body, or a feature of a complex body, such as a wing, and edge diffraction create scattering points. All scattering points are contributors to the complex body's overall RCS value. So when the subject is a simple surface, the word 'emissivity' means the -- relative ability of its surface to emit energy by radiation.

When the subject is a complex body under radar bombardment, the question regarding 'emissivity' mean the question is about how the many diverse materials on said body; how the many surface features, microscopic or as visible as the wing; how their many shapes; and how they are in relation to each other, contribute to that RCS value.

Look at the examples below...

A 'corner reflector' is any aircraft's greatest contributor to its RCS. The corner reflector is often used by small boats to enhance their RCS a thousand folds so they can be seen by large ships and coastal radars. Keyword search: corner reflector boat.

This is why it is not possible to simply measure two flat plates individually then predict their combined RCS. If they are exactly 90deg to each other, as a corner reflector, they will return the greatest amount of radar energy to the seeking radar. If they are less than or greater than 90deg, even though we still have a corner reflector, the majority of the radar signal will be lost to the seeking radar. The most important thing here is the word 'relationship', as in how these diverse angles and curves on a complex body are to each other. And together they contribute to the body's emissivity.

Interference is not that difficult to envision. Go back to the corner reflector example. A missile's fin assemblies, front and rear, will bounce the radar echoes off the other missile, or the external fuel tank, or the bombs. These items are themselves complex bodies. So under each wing is a roil of radar echoes colliding and merging with each other. Now imagine the same inside the jet engine with the many moving blades. Am not saying interference is impossible. Am saying both types of interference -- constructive and destructive -- is proportional to the level of feature complexity and their relationships to each other.