column5 63 Posted August 25, 2008 OK, without getting into anything classified, I have a question regarding the AN/ALQ-126 ECM system. Its easy to trace the evolution of USAF ECM pods because they put a version number on them, for example, the AN/ALQ-119(V)-15 is newer and presumably more capable than the AN/ALQ-119(V)-3. They USN uses internal ECM equipment though and since at least the early 1970s this appears to have come solely in the form of the AN/ALQ-126 and its component systems. I have only been able to ferrit out two versions, the AN/ALQ-126A and B. Can anyone comment on the frequency with which the USN updated the capabilities of these systems, and the degree of improvement that each upgrade brings? For example, the systems in service in 2008 must be more capable than those in service in 1988, even though there is nothing in the designation to indicate a change? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted August 25, 2008 OK, without getting into anything classified, I have a question regarding the AN/ALQ-126 ECM system. Its easy to trace the evolution of USAF ECM pods because they put a version number on them, for example, the AN/ALQ-119(V)-15 is newer and presumably more capable than the AN/ALQ-119(V)-3. They USN uses internal ECM equipment though and since at least the early 1970s this appears to have come solely in the form of the AN/ALQ-126 and its component systems. I have only been able to ferrit out two versions, the AN/ALQ-126A and B. Can anyone comment on the frequency with which the USN updated the capabilities of these systems, and the degree of improvement that each upgrade brings? For example, the systems in service in 2008 must be more capable than those in service in 1988, even though there is nothing in the designation to indicate a change? I don't know the details of the ALQ-126. I do know however about several other systems and I am going to assume that a similar capability exists. Without going into too much detail most of the systems are updated via a software load. Which can happen "very quickly" in response to new info. So the hardware in most cases has pretty broad capabilities but the specific waveforms and techniques will be extraordinarily responsive to rapidly changing conditions based on software updates. that includes the systems on the E-2C and shipboard systems so I presume that it is similar to the fighter systems of the ALQ-126 and 100. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted August 25, 2008 I know all the newest models of ECM are almost purely software-driven. I think the hardware-only capabilities types were phased out in the 70s? Of course, it's all moot without good intelligence. Wasn't it over Bosnia we were having trouble with the cobbled-together mash of French, Russian, and other systems? After the entire EW scene was created over decades in monolithic blocks ("US" systems, or "Soviet" systems, or "French" systems), you suddenly had countries using that emitter with this receiver and that exciter and nothing was black-and-white anymore. ADA SIGINT is critical info if you're thinking about flying in the other's airspace. Just look at what happened in Georgia to the Russian planes, and those were THEIR systems! Yet somehow they failed to counter it adequately and they lost a bomber, amongst other planes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted August 25, 2008 I know all the newest models of ECM are almost purely software-driven. I think the hardware-only capabilities types were phased out in the 70s? Of course, it's all moot without good intelligence. Wasn't it over Bosnia we were having trouble with the cobbled-together mash of French, Russian, and other systems? After the entire EW scene was created over decades in monolithic blocks ("US" systems, or "Soviet" systems, or "French" systems), you suddenly had countries using that emitter with this receiver and that exciter and nothing was black-and-white anymore. ADA SIGINT is critical info if you're thinking about flying in the other's airspace. Just look at what happened in Georgia to the Russian planes, and those were THEIR systems! Yet somehow they failed to counter it adequately and they lost a bomber, amongst other planes. absolutely the achilles heel of these kinds of systems. Whether hardware or software driven, they can only be programmed with the latest intel on what the opponent of the day has and how his systems work. Miss that intel, and the other guy doesn't miss! I could tell of a couple of incidents along those lines. But actually, I can't................. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Crusader 2,101 Posted August 26, 2008 Once the programable processors showed up in the late 70's upgrades became to 80% a software change only. E.g. the APG-63 from 1982 had much better ECCM than a APG-63 of 1980. Such upgrades were nearly countinously. Faster processors can handle more code more quickly. Same thing with ECM pods. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DWCAce 19 Posted August 27, 2008 Some of the guys at Sunset may know, and might be able to give you some (non-OPSEC) info. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted August 27, 2008 Some of the guys at Sunset may know, and might be able to give you some (non-OPSEC) info. who are they? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DWCAce 19 Posted August 27, 2008 It used to be the F-14 Tomcat Sunset forum, but since that event ended it has become the Official F-14 Tomcat Association Forum. There are tons of former flight crew, deck crew, Grummies, and certainly no lack of enthusiasts there. Lots of non-OPSEC info can be learned there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
