Question: Cold War fighters: Internal Jammers

[GalmOne 1]

Sorry gents, I'm not trying to start anything. I was just asking for a basic idea - i.e. whether the F-16s passed (survived into the merge) or failed (were wiped out). After all, until the Block 25, Vipers had no choice at all but to find a way to merge.

 

From what I've read about missiles of the time, I'm under the impression that you'd have to get pretty close to WVR to get a P_k higher than 70% if using something like an Aim-7F. Anyway, I going to see if I can find myself a copy of Sierra Hotel for myself. Clever title there

[busdriver 35]

I suppose if you use a jammer pod like the APQ-184 or something, you can significantly reduce the chances of getting locked-onto. The only problem then is the added weight and drag as mentioned earlier. The question now is, if you carry a jammer like that (on the F-16C since every other fighter has its own internal jammer), how badly will it impact your maneuverability when the fight gets WVR?

GalmOne you made me pull out the charts. First off, I flew Block 10s (in RTU) and Block 15s (PACAF and TAC). We carried either ALQ-119s or 131s at the time. I don't have the exact numbers, but let's say an ECM pod weighs a nominal 500 pounds (227 Kg). The drag penalty of the pod alone was not bad. It was "not carted" meaning there were no explosive cartridges allowing you to jettison it. So...on an otherwise clean jet with a pair of AIM-9s, it would not be terribly burdensome. We did not fly BFM/ACM/DACT sorties with pods as a rule, too hard on them I suppose plus then we'd have to hang two wing tanks on the jet. Having said that, my sqdn at Moody AFB sent 6 jets out to Nellis to support the F-15 FWS. They flew out there with an ECM pod on the CL, and a baggage pod (pilot's clothes)...and in formation with a tanker. So these guys spent a week fangs out, hair on fire trying to be badass bandits for the Eagles. Sadly I can't report how it was, I had announced I was getting out, so I was not allowed to go.

After all, until the Block 25, Vipers had no choice at all but to find a way to merge.

I honestly don't know if the guys flying Block 25s ever carried or trained with AIM-7s. Pretty sure the guys at Shaw AFB did not, not sure about Hahn. I mean we NEVER talked about those jets having any BVR capability. I could be seriously in error, but ISTR that the Block 15 ADF mod for the ANG was the first operational use of AIM-7s on the F-16.

 

Plus...I was at Kunsan during the conversion from A models to the C model. I was one of the last A model only guys in the sqdn. There was no BVR discussions/tactics or training. I was the sqdn Training Officer.

Edited August 31, 2011 by busdriver

[GalmOne 1]

GalmOne you made me pull out the charts. First off, I flew Block 10s (in RTU) and Block 15s (PACAF and TAC). We carried either ALQ-119s or 131s at the time. I don't have the exact numbers, but let's say an ECM pod weighs a nominal 500 pounds (227 Kg). The drag penalty of the pod alone was not bad. It was "not carted" meaning there were no explosive cartridges allowing you to jettison it. So...on an otherwise clean jet with a pair of AIM-9s, it would not be terribly burdensome. We did not fly BFM/ACM/DACT sorties with pods as a rule, too hard on them I suppose plus then we'd have to hang two wing tanks on the jet. Having said that, my sqdn at Moody AFB sent 6 jets out to Nellis to support the F-15 FWS. They flew out there with an ECM pod on the CL, and a baggage pod (pilot's clothes)...and in formation with a tanker. So these guys spent a week fangs out, hair on fire trying to be badass bandits for the Eagles. Sadly I can't report how it was, I had announced I was getting out, so I was not allowed to go.

 

I honestly don't know if the guys flying Block 25s ever carried or trained with AIM-7s. Pretty sure the guys at Shaw AFB did not, not sure about Hahn. I mean we NEVER talked about those jets having any BVR capability. I could be seriously in error, but ISTR that the Block 15 ADF mod for the ANG was the first operational use of AIM-7s on the F-16.

 

Plus...I was at Kunsan during the conversion from A models to the C model. I was one of the last A model only guys in the sqdn. There was no BVR discussions/tactics or training. I was the sqdn Training Officer.

 

 

Hah, well I really like numbers. I'm studying in Aerospace engineering so you can see why.

 

But yeah, I think you're right. The references I've seen that state the F-16's capability to carry the AIM-7 do not specifically state that those Vipers are frontline USAF birds. I guess the only USAF BVR capable F-16's were those that got the AMRAAM after the end of the Cold War. I suppose this means that, before the AMRAAM, WVR fighting was still very much expected. Otherwise the USAF would have utilized the AIM-7-carrying capabilities of the Sparrow.

Edited August 31, 2011 by GalmOne

[JediMaster 451]

I think it was just expected that the F-15s would take care of BVR and the F-16s would only have to deal with those that "slipped through the net" and take on WVR.

 

It was never seriously expected to send a bunch of 9s-only F-16s against Floggers with Apexes and Flankers and Fulcrums carrying Alamos, certainly not vs Amos-carrying 31's. As mentioned, the advent of AMRAAM meant the F-16's role was expanded to air superiority/dominance/whatever you want to call it in a small area (since their range was still smaller), but it was never going to be the first line of defense. The Eagles would do that and the 16s would have to take care of those that got through.

[busdriver 35]

The references I've seen that state the F-16's capability to carry the AIM-7 do not specifically state that those Vipers are frontline USAF birds. I guess the only USAF BVR capable F-16's were those that got the AMRAAM after the end of the Cold War. I suppose this means that, before the AMRAAM, WVR fighting was still very much expected. Otherwise the USAF would have utilized the AIM-7-carrying capabilities of the Sparrow.

I have some old issues of a General Dynamics magazine called Code One , from Jan 89 there is a small article about the "first" firing of an AIM-7 from an A model in the fall of 88. Another article from a 1988 issue provided an overview of the ADF transformation. Here's an online version of Code One's F-16 Evolution you'll find that the Block 25 indeed had the hardware & software to employ AIM-120s, but the missile wasn't ready before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

 

JediMaster says

I think it was just expected that the F-15s would take care of BVR and the F-16s would only have to deal with those that "slipped through the net" and take on WVR.

Just so my remarks are not left open to interpretation, I'm discussing the situation during the Cold War. Your point is taken, the F-16 was not designed as an interceptor with BVR capabilities. In terms of air defense, the F-15 and F-4 with AIM-7s were superior. Air defense was not an F-16 primary mission. At the time I was in USAFE (RF-4Cs 81-84) the F-15s were not tasked with escort, they were there to provide air defense. At least that's what we were briefed. Doesn't mean they couldn't be tasked for it or weren't willing. So a guy flying a surface attack mission in an F-16A with "heaters and gun" could certainly expect to go up against everything the WP could put in the air. I doubt a PVO asset like the (4 G) MiG-31 would have be encountered west of, or for that matter, along the FLOT/FSCL but perhaps. Those unmaneuverable interceptors would become big fat targets at the merge. But everybody was prepared and expected to fight Floggers and Fulcrums. I do not recall them having autonomous BVR clearance since they were tied to GCI. WP simply had us out numbered, so the environment and logically the ROE did not permit unlimited F-4/F-15 BVR engagement.

 

In Korea (late 80s) the USAF F-4s at Osan and Taegu as well as ROKAF F-4s were the primary air defense assets. The F-15s from Kadena were tasked with offensive and defensive counter-air...once they got to the ROK. However, on my wall is a picture of one of my sqdn's F-16A on the wing of a Soviet Tu-95. The A model is carrying a CL tank and two AIM-9s. It wasn't our primary or secondary mission...but some guys got lucky.

[Derk 265]

This is a VERY interesting thread !!!!!!! All the stories about the F 16 during the Cold War really give us an insight in a lot of things !!!

Thanks everyone , especially Busdriver with his first hand experience in A models, which we still fly today, albeit in MLU disguise i.e. a sort of F16A block 50/52!!

 

Houdoe,

 

Derk

[MigBuster 2,861]

The chaps that built the Mirage Factory F-16s also concluded that the F-16A ADF was probably the first USAF F-16 to carry a medium range missile in service - despite other versions having the capability through upgrades - some info here:

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article14.html

 

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f16_3c.html

 

 

 

 

 

Could have been so different :

 

Edited August 31, 2011 by MigBuster

[GalmOne 1]

Yea, MigBuster, it seems as if the F-16's full capabilities weren't put to use by the USAF until recently. Lucky for us the Su-27 didn't have a fully-functioning radar set until 1991. Those things are beasts and probably would have given an F-16 trouble WVR.

 

Busdriver, did that Viper driver intercept the Bear? Wow he must've been in awe flying beside that thing.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

F-16 good for export too. Outside of Pakistan in the Soviet Afghan war, I never learned much of -16s export life. Joe Baugher's website apparently covers every country that used it.

 

~> http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f16.html

 

scroll down, yea its a lot hehe

[busdriver 35]

Busdriver, did that Viper driver intercept the Bear? Wow he must've been in awe flying beside that thing.

Phone call to the squadron from the Command Post, after a phone call to them from the HTACC at Osan. 30 minute notice to launch a two-ship to intercept a known Soviet ELINT target up the west coast of the ROK. And correction, it was not a Tu-95...I just looked at the picture again. It was a Tu-16R. My first clue? No props and a swept wing... Anyway, an A model and a B model (with an AF photographer in the backseat) were short notice tasked...GCI vectors..."No Lock" intercept by the F-16s. Like all the pictures you've seen the rear guns were stowed (pointed skyward). Normally the ROKAF handled these intercepts.

[GalmOne 1]

It's a good thing we've got guys like you to show us this stuff. You must be like a celebrity around here!

 

Most of the internet is just quoted or broken-telephone-ized. Here, we get raw experience and then we can judge for ourselves. Just the other day, I was reading up on F-15/16 powerplants. Some sources state the F100-PW-220 has less thrust than the F100-PW-100 (23,450 vs 24,890 lbs), others state more (25,000 lbs). It gets so confusing.

[busdriver 35]

Just the other day, I was reading up on F-15/16 powerplants. Some sources state the F100-PW-220 has less thrust than the F100-PW-100 (23,450 vs 24,890 lbs), others state more (25,000 lbs). It gets so confusing.

Straight from the pages of the Dash 1, on page 1-2 it says The aircraft is powered by a single F100-PW-200 afterburning turbofan engine. Refer to figure 1-1. Maximum thrust is approximately 25,000 pounds. And on page 1-13 there is this The aircraft is powered by a single F100-PW-220 afterburning engine. Refer to figure 1-6. Maximum thrust is approximately 25,000 pounds. I can't recall that it ever came up in academics. I'm not an engineer.

[+daddyairplanes 8,635]

Not to be the one to pull the OPSEC flag here, but the majority of modern aircraft's RCS modelling, reductions and intel are classified. Might not be the best place to start posting on that topic.

as someone who finds himself in lands where the locals dont like red white or blue, wave that flag! open discussion is good yet i have a healthy paranoia about what our "competitors" use for intel!

Edited September 1, 2011 by daddyairplanes

[JediMaster 451]

I bet all those guys who pulled intercepts kept a wary eye on those tail guns.

[GalmOne 1]

Straight from the pages of the Dash 1, on page 1-2 it says The aircraft is powered by a single F100-PW-200 afterburning turbofan engine. Refer to figure 1-1. Maximum thrust is approximately 25,000 pounds. And on page 1-13 there is this The aircraft is powered by a single F100-PW-220 afterburning engine. Refer to figure 1-6. Maximum thrust is approximately 25,000 pounds. I can't recall that it ever came up in academics. I'm not an engineer.

 

Oh so I guess this is a manual you were reading? Wow, okay that helps. Well I did more research and sources state that when the -220 came into service with the F-15C, it was rated at a mx. afterburning thrust of 23,840 lb. Then the same sources state (some of which are from the USAF's official public database) that the first 134 F-15E's had -220s which were rated at 25,000 lbs and later (maybe post-1991) got the -229 rated at 29,000 lb. I suppose the engines were simply tuned up for more performance, though that translates to less engine life.

 

 

 

as someone who finds himself in lands where the locals dont like red white or blue, wave that flag! open discussion is good yet i have a healthy paranoia about what our "competitors" use for intel!

 

But I have another thought on jamming devices. Of course there are jamming techniques like spot, barrage, noise and sweep jamming; all of which have their own advantages and disadvantages. Like everyone already discussed, which jamming techniques are used on which jammers and the quantitative effectiveness of these jammers are all classified. However, does anyone have any qualitative idea as to how well these jammers might be susceptible to burn-through?

 

Back to the Eagle and Viper example: they each carry their own jammers.

 

The F-15C, an internal ALQ-135 and for the F-16, an external ALQ-131/184. Would these fighters have to engage WVR to burn through and get a lock? I mean of course it depends on the classified technique, but I'm trying to get an idea here. I assume that BVR combat is still possible even through jamming since missiles and radar have a HOJ capability. Plus, the US is still - to this day - very focused on BVR 'first look first kill' scenarios.

Edited September 1, 2011 by GalmOne

[MigBuster 2,861]

But I have another thought on jamming devices. Of course there are jamming techniques like spot, barrage, noise and sweep jamming; all of which have their own advantages and disadvantages. Like everyone already discussed, which jamming techniques are used on which jammers and the quantitative effectiveness of these jammers are all classified. However, does anyone have any qualitative idea as to how well these jammers might be susceptible to burn-through?

 

Back to the Eagle and Viper example: they each carry their own jammers.

 

The F-15C, an internal ALQ-135 and for the F-16, an external ALQ-131/184. Would these fighters have to engage WVR to burn through and get a lock? I mean of course it depends on the classified technique, but I'm trying to get an idea here. I assume that BVR combat is still possible even through jamming since missiles and radar have a HOJ capability. Plus, the US is still - to this day - very focused on BVR 'first look first kill' scenarios.

 

There is no real information on such things - particularly with post cold war systems - but a few guesses I suspect..........based on General Dynamics highly accurate sales brochures :)

 

For example - Falcon 4 simulates burn through about 25 miles with the APG-68 against Russian pods.

 

 

Its not just the jamming method - it would be different for every Jet depending on Radar type/pod type and RCS of Jet. Then for example the RCS changes depending on external stores carried - and also some F-16s will have reduced signatures due to Have Glass etc etc.....

 

So short answer is - you have to make it up.

Edited September 1, 2011 by MigBuster

[busdriver 35]

The F-15C, an internal ALQ-135 and for the F-16, an external ALQ-131/184. Would these fighters have to engage WVR to burn through and get a lock? I mean of course it depends on the classified technique, but I'm trying to get an idea here. I assume that BVR combat is still possible even through jamming since missiles and radar have a HOJ capability.

Try poking around Secret Projects and you might find what you're looking for. Steve Davies is a knowledgable author. To be fair I'd have to confine my remarks to the F-16A of 20 years ago. We didn't have a BVR capability so it wasn't a major consideration for us. Against a BIG airplane like the F-15, we picked up a tally pretty far out. That's one of the reasons they would fly wider lateral and vertical splits than us. Even in a 2-v-2 they often had a very hard time getting a tally on both of us. Only F-15 guys could review their video tapes (unless they were sanatized) due to some of the very cool sh*t they had.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Try poking around Secret Projects and you might find what you're looking for. Steve Davies is a knowledgable author. To be fair I'd have to confine my remarks to the F-16A of 20 years ago. We didn't have a BVR capability so it wasn't a major consideration for us. Against a BIG airplane like the F-15, we picked up a tally pretty far out. That's one of the reasons they would fly wider lateral and vertical splits than us. Even in a 2-v-2 they often had a very hard time getting a tally on both of us. Only F-15 guys could review their video tapes (unless they were sanatized) due to some of the very cool sh*t they had.

 

Thanks for more of your comments and found an ace post on Phantom II avionics on that site!

 

Yes I have several of his books where some of that thread info comes from, US Multi role Fighters, F-15C Eagle Units in Combat, F-15E Strike Eagle Units, F-16C Fighting Falcon Units of Iraqi Freedom....well worth a look!

[Caesar 305]

Regarding your question on range to burn-through, I can tell you that a radar putting out a lot of power is typically going both see an object sooner, and get through ECM more quickly than one that does not. Now, I worked with the Upgraded Early Warning Radar on a daily basis, but this is a Missile Warning radar, not a tactical radar. We could see an object with the RCS of a softball several thousand nautical miles away. Too bad we can't sling one of those to a fighter! For tactical radars, I'll have to defer to the experts, but I can tell you that in my best estimate, you wouldn't have to get within VR to burn through ECM with a modern fighter. The F-14's AWG-9, for example, puts out 10.2kW of power, while the F-15's APG-63 does 5.2kW[1], both could detect a target the size of a small fighter at about 100NM[2, 3], and the AWG-9 proved able to lock up and send a Phoenix at a jamming target more than 47 miles away (F-14 had burned through while engaging two drones over 25 miles apart at once)[4]. A might bit further than WVR!

 

EDIT: Now, in practice, with TTP's, etc, there were clearly ways to fool these radars, exploit weaknesses, etc., to help (especially) a small fighter land in a position of advantage, even without robust radar (if you get a chance, check out "Roger Ball!" by Donald "Duck" Auten).

 

1. Ed. Lake, Jon, Grumman F-14 Tomcat, Shipborne Superfighter, 87

2. Stevenson, J.P., F-14 Tomcat, 79

3. Stevenson, J.P., F-15 Eagle, 76

4. Gillcrist, Paul T, TOMCAT! The Grumman F-14 Story, 41

Edited September 1, 2011 by Caesar

[GalmOne 1]

Regarding your question on range to burn-through, I can tell you that a radar putting out a lot of power is typically going both see an object sooner, and get through ECM more quickly than one that does not. Now, I worked with the Upgraded Early Warning Radar on a daily basis, but this is a Missile Warning radar, not a tactical radar. We could see an object with the RCS of a softball several thousand nautical miles away. Too bad we can't sling one of those to a fighter! For tactical radars, I'll have to defer to the experts, but I can tell you that in my best estimate, you wouldn't have to get within VR to burn through ECM with a modern fighter. The F-14's AWG-9, for example, puts out 10.2kW of power, while the F-15's APG-63 does 5.2kW[1], both could detect a target the size of a small fighter at about 100NM[2, 3], and the AWG-9 proved able to lock up and send a Phoenix at a jamming target more than 47 miles away (F-14 had burned through while engaging two drones over 25 miles apart at once)[4]. A might bit further than WVR!

 

EDIT: Now, in practice, with TTP's, etc, there were clearly ways to fool these radars, exploit weaknesses, etc., to help (especially) a small fighter land in a position of advantage, even without robust radar (if you get a chance, check out "Roger Ball!" by Donald "Duck" Auten).

 

1. Ed. Lake, Jon, Grumman F-14 Tomcat, Shipborne Superfighter, 87

2. Stevenson, J.P., F-14 Tomcat, 79

3. Stevenson, J.P., F-15 Eagle, 76

4. Gillcrist, Paul T, TOMCAT! The Grumman F-14 Story, 41

 

 

 

Thanks again so much, gents for the plethora of info you've dug up for me! I'm going to look up these books at the store near campus right away. School starts next week - Aerospace Engineering.... funnn.

 

Well Busdriver, I suppose that's why Eagles have such extensive ECM in their TEWS as well as a huge radar. They're big airplanes! It's too bad you couldn't review your own stuff.

Edited September 2, 2011 by GalmOne

[JediMaster 451]

It all depends on the power of the jammer and the power of the radar trying to burn through. There are no quick and fast answers.

The MiG-25 for example had a super-powerful radar. While it's detection range wasn't particularly notable, it was capable of getting through noise jamming at greater ranges than its contemporaries. A plane like the F-16 with its small radar I would imagine would have to get closer to a target than the F-15 to burn through. On the flip side, I'd imagine the F-16s jammer to have less power than the F-15s, so an attacker could fire on the F-16 from farther out. If it was the EF-111 or EA-6B, you'd have to get probably in IRM range anyway, so why bother using the RHMs anyway?

Deception jamming isn't as susceptible as noise jamming because the idea is the attacker doesn't know he's being jammed necessarily and will fire weapons at the wrong (inaccurate/misplaced) target.

 

Then there are the towed array decoys, whose job isn't to be noisy, but a form of deception in making the plane look like it's well behind its real position. Those have yet to be faithfully modeled in a sim, although some attempts have been made by 3rd party modders for SF.

[WLJet 1]

Sorry gents, I'm not trying to start anything. I was just asking for a basic idea - i.e. whether the F-16s passed (survived into the merge) or failed (were wiped out). After all, until the Block 25, Vipers had no choice at all but to find a way to merge.

 

From what I've read about missiles of the time, I'm under the impression that you'd have to get pretty close to WVR to get a P_k higher than 70% if using something like an Aim-7F. Anyway, I going to see if I can find myself a copy of Sierra Hotel for myself. Clever title there

 

GalmOne, you can download a free pdf copy of Sierra Hotel here: www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a476975.pdf

 

Enjoy ;)

[Derk 265]

Plus...I was at Kunsan during the conversion from A models to the C model. I was one of the last A model only guys in the sqdn. There was no BVR discussions/tactics or training. I was the sqdn Training Officer.

Just a little bit OT: what were your experiences concerning manoeuvrability comparing the Block 15's against the C model?

Our 306Sq alias 148 FS (the KLu OCU), flying MLU's moved from Springfield (Ohio) back to Tucson where they share the ramp with 152 FS and 196FS flying Block 42's and Block 25's respectively. The A models, with or without the ALQ-135 , according to the KLu detachment commander, consistently outmanoeuver the C models i.e. are the better dogfighters.... Rather less powerfull but a lot lighter is the story but I wonder if it really makes that much difference....

 

 

Houdoe,

 

Derk

Edited September 2, 2011 by Derk

[busdriver 35]

Derk asks about the maneuverablity of a C model versus an A model.

Rather less powerfull but a lot lighter is the story but I wonder if it really makes that much difference....

According to sqdn mates that flew both...indeed the lighter A model was (seemed) more maneuverable. According to "Target Arms" (FWS graduates) the C's software and LEF (Leading Edge Flap) programming was different. Add that to a heavier jet. From my prospective, one or two sorties flying against a C, I felt like I had the advantage in a turning fight.

[busdriver 35]

From JediMaster

Deception jamming isn't as susceptible as noise jamming because the idea is the attacker doesn't know he's being jammed necessarily and will fire weapons at the wrong (inaccurate/misplaced) target

I don't follow what you're trying to say with "Deception jamming isn't as susceptible..." and I'm not sure why you might think a pilot would not now he's being subjected to jamming. Suffice to say he knows...honestly...he knows. And the radar knows...it's telling him.

Edited September 2, 2011 by busdriver