JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

Brumby

Major
ALQ-218 is integrated receiver and jammer. Receiving and jamming/spoofing has to work very closely.

For EW, you need to receive the enemy signal first, save it to memory, determine its frequency, modulation, waveform and make a copy of it, but distort the copy. Then you send it back to the enemy radar, then pray the enemy radar accepts it as its own echo. If it does, the distorted signal has false range or velocity information.

Expect ECM pods to be integrated receiver and jammers.

What you have described is not representative of how ECM is conducted by the EA-18G. The AN/ALQ-218 (V) 2 is primarily a receiver. It cues the received emission to the AN/ALQ-99 that actually conducts the jamming. Typically we see three of the AN/A:Q-99 are carried but there is provision for a maximum of five by using the tanking pylon. We know that selective jamming is done by the AN/ALQ-218 but no known public information is available on the nature of it.

upload_2019-11-12_14-47-21.png
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Angled flat surfaces on the tips of the ALQ-18 are indicative of small phase array antennas, which means they may be intended to project a signal as much as to receive it.

Regardless you need two pods on the wings or the wingtips, whether you want to use the ALQ-218 or the ALQ-99. The logic of putting the cross eye jammer on the wing tip pod is not only because of the nature of this type of jamming, and that it also frees the wing pylons for air to air configurations and use the cross eye jammers with that.

If you have only two ALQ-218 you have single loop on the cross eye. Adding ALQ-99 on the wings you can double loop it.

The-placement-of-multi-loop-cross-eye-jammer-antennas-on-an-aircraft-to-minimise.png d2.png

450066_1_En_1_Fig5_HTML.gif

p1ct7qqli7c5r30e14eulel3b51.jpg
 
Last edited:

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Here also you can see SAAB's own implementation for the Gripen. Once again, AESA or phase array tips on the wing tip pods. The tube or cylinder of the pod is used as the receiver.

arexis-gripen_e_ew-2col.jpg
 

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
Ok, if it's previously been associated with chase aircraft flights then it's probably not an IRST. Is it possibly the same as the mystery pod seen on the Su-35 a while back?
 

Brumby

Major
Angled flat surfaces on the tips of the ALQ-18 are indicative of small phase array antennas, which means they may be intended to project a signal as much as to receive it.

Regardless you need two pods on the wings or the wingtips, whether you want to use the ALQ-218 or the ALQ-99. The logic of putting the cross eye jammer on the wing tip pod is not only because of the nature of this type of jamming, and that it also frees the wing pylons for air to air configurations and use the cross eye jammers with that.

If you have only two ALQ-218 you have single loop on the cross eye. Adding ALQ-99 on the wings you can double loop it.

View attachment 55123 View attachment 55124

View attachment 55125

View attachment 55126


Here also you can see SAAB's own implementation for the Gripen. Once again, AESA or phase array tips on the wing tip pods. The tube or cylinder of the pod is used as the receiver.

View attachment 55127

The debate should be grounded on facts and not conjecture. The ALQ-218 and the Gripen wing tip pods are both receivers - those are facts. The question is why are they located in those places? I will address that in a jiffy.

Firstly, if you wish to make a case that the wing tip pods are primarily for cross eye jamming as with the Chinese then make a case based on the Chinese technical configurations. Making an argument based around Western EW architecture as a surrogate to support your case is fallacious in logic. More importantly, cross eye jamming is just one of the many deception techniques available in ECM and resorting to wing tip pods for such purpose is scraping the barrel as far as capability. If it was still the 90's, maybe that might hold water.

In the past 20 plus years there are specific EW trends reflected in Western EW architecture and are basically common whether it is the US, Spectra or Saab because of the nature of the RF threats and the emerging technology required to deal with them. This leads to the question of placement of receiving antennas as reflected in Western approach. One of the primary mission set associated with ECM platforms is in conducting SEAD/DEAD missions or in support of such activities. Up to the early 90's. Western RWR capability in detecting emitters and their location was limited to bearing only and an angular error of 10 degrees Translated, at a distance of 100 kms, the ranging error was in excess of 17 kms. Such capability mean, DEAD missions has very limited success rate and this was reflected in the Kosovo air campaign. Increasing technological capability saw the introduction of the ALR-67(V)3 which brought the error down to 1 degree. This RWR is what is installed in the F-18E/F today. However this was the limit of the technology using angle of arrival measurement as 1 degree error is still a 1.7 kms error in range. In order to further improve the accuracy, interferometry ranging using time distance of arrival technique (TDOA) was introduced which require maximum spacing of the receiving antennas. Interferometric capability is today common in all modern Western EW suite and also explain the placement of the receiving antennas. Such an architecture reduced the angular accuracy to 0.5 degree. Spectra reportedly is able to deliver this level of accuracy. However, the error in ranging at 0.5 degrees is still approximately 870 m. Today, the EA-18G has a ranging accuracy down to less than 50 m using a combination of interferometric ranging and 3 ship triangulation through data link. Such ranging accuracy is equivalent to an angular accuracy within 0.03 degrees. However to get to this final target reliably, Link 16 was simply inadequate due to bandwidth and latency. Consequently, the EA-18G adopted TTNT links which offer very low latency.

All these discussions are seriously OT as it is a JF-17 thread and is my final post on this subject.. .
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
The debate should be grounded on facts and not conjecture. The ALQ-218 and the Gripen wing tip pods are both receivers - those are facts. The question is why are they located in those places? I will address that in a jiffy.

Firstly, if you wish to make a case that the wing tip pods are primarily for cross eye jamming as with the Chinese then make a case based on the Chinese technical configurations. Making an argument based around Western EW architecture as a surrogate to support your case is fallacious in logic. More importantly, cross eye jamming is just one of the many deception techniques available in ECM and resorting to wing tip pods for such purpose is scraping the barrel as far as capability. If it was still the 90's, maybe that might hold water.

In the past 20 plus years there are specific EW trends reflected in Western EW architecture and are basically common whether it is the US, Spectra or Saab because of the nature of the RF threats and the emerging technology required to deal with them. This leads to the question of placement of receiving antennas as reflected in Western approach. One of the primary mission set associated with ECM platforms is in conducting SEAD/DEAD missions or in support of such activities. Up to the early 90's. Western RWR capability in detecting emitters and their location was limited to bearing only and an angular error of 10 degrees Translated, at a distance of 100 kms, the ranging error was in excess of 17 kms. Such capability mean, DEAD missions has very limited success rate and this was reflected in the Kosovo air campaign. Increasing technological capability saw the introduction of the ALR-67(V)3 which brought the error down to 1 degree. This RWR is what is installed in the F-18E/F today. However this was the limit of the technology using angle of arrival measurement as 1 degree error is still a 1.7 kms error in range. In order to further improve the accuracy, interferometry ranging using time distance of arrival technique (TDOA) was introduced which require maximum spacing of the receiving antennas. Interferometric capability is today common in all modern Western EW suite and also explain the placement of the receiving antennas. Such an architecture reduced the angular accuracy to 0.5 degree. Spectra reportedly is able to deliver this level of accuracy. However, the error in ranging at 0.5 degrees is still approximately 870 m. Today, the EA-18G has a ranging accuracy down to less than 50 m using a combination of interferometric ranging and 3 ship triangulation through data link. Such ranging accuracy is equivalent to an angular accuracy within 0.03 degrees. However to get to this final target reliably, Link 16 was simply inadequate due to bandwidth and latency. Consequently, the EA-18G adopted TTNT links which offer very low latency.

All these discussions are seriously OT as it is a JF-17 thread and is my final post on this subject.. .


Oh please. Look at the diagrams closely. The one shown with the cross eye jamming is the Saab Gripen. Then look down below, and you see the wingtip of the Saab Gripen being explained as having AESA on both ends and the pipe as the receiver. That is SAAB explaining both.

The-placement-of-multi-loop-cross-eye-jammer-antennas-on-an-aircraft-to-minimise.png arexis-gripen_e_ew-2col.jpg

Maybe that you don't know that for directional finding ESM, one of the antennas for this would be cylindrical, or in this case, like a pipe. The tube that makes up the pod is the main receiver. It presents you with the most surface for signal gathering and at a 360 degree FOV.

It also goes to show and explain the angled AESA on the tips are ECM. You have the basis for cross eye jamming. Compared to a single pod, in cross eye, the received signal on one pod is stored, distorted then emitted on the other pod. Subsequently, the received signal on the other pod is emitted to the this pod.

d2.png450066_1_En_1_Fig5_HTML.gif

The other stuff you mention has no relevance to the subject. Of course, a minimum distance between receivers are needed for DF techniques, and so does cross eye jamming. That is how you insert angular errors in the opposing radar, which screws up tracking.

You also seem to fail to realize the obvious --- the pods act as both general ESM receivers to support the EW equipment on board, and at the same time, are also capable of cross eye jamming. These pods are taking both cakes and eating it.

Firstly, if you wish to make a case that the wing tip pods are primarily for cross eye jamming as with the Chinese then make a case based on the Chinese technical configurations. Making an argument based around Western EW architecture as a surrogate to support your case is fallacious in logic. More importantly, cross eye jamming is just one of the many deception techniques available in ECM and resorting to wing tip pods for such purpose is scraping the barrel as far as capability. If it was still the 90's, maybe that might hold water.

This argument makes no sense at all. Physics works equally for everyone, and it is for that reason what is needed to achieve this same functionality for one, will have to work the same way on the other side of the world. There is no such thing as "Western" or "Chinese" EW architecture per se. EW is EW. Radar is Radar. Radio is Radio. A Photon is a Photon. Some universally available laws of physics are involved. Light does not travel slower or faster in China than in the US. Designs are the same or similar because they intend to solve the same subject. Not to mention there are no national boundaries for ideas and designs either. You can copy, you can open source, you can learn it from someone who learned it from someone else, in addition to arriving the same solutions in parallel. People write research papers on such things all the time, like this.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
A JF-17 with the LKF601E AESA.

I must admit, I'm not sure if this is a real image and even less I know if it is indeed related to the JF-17 Block 3, since I thought it will more likely use the AESA variant of the KLJ-7 designated KLJ-7A?


JF-17 + LKF601E.jpg
 

timepass

Brigadier
JF-17 / FC-1 prototype no. 06 spotted with a unique pod ... IMO looks like some sort of camera pod.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



img_20191113_194608-jpeg.589152


img_20191113_194613-jpeg.589153


img_20191113_194619-jpeg.589154


img_20191113_194624-jpeg.589155
 

xyqq

Junior Member
Registered Member
In the link posted along the original message, two-seat jets (i.e,, J-10S and J-11BS) used similar camera pods to record the flights of test planes (i.e., J-20 and J-31). This suggests that the second pilots control the camera pods, such as through helmet mounted sight (HMS). However, JF-17 / FC-1 prototype no. 06 is single-seat, which means this camera pod may have automatic tracking capability.

EJG4Gf8WwAQKV3e.jpg


EJG4GgMXkAAjuVB.jpg


EJG4GgVXsAIsWaO.jpg


JF-17 / FC-1 prototype no. 06 spotted with a unique pod ... IMO looks like some sort of camera pod.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top