Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

i need some help regarding the AN/ALQ-131 ecm pod versions , i found some manuals showing AN/ALQ-131 pods i have never ever seen and maybe somebody knows this versions and if they ever came in to service 

this are the  AN/ALQ-131 like it is used on many aircraft ( deep Version and shallow version ) with a lenght of 111,4 inch

Image4.thumb.jpg.5fe5131dac3feccbf62cda5c26d0656b.jpg

Image1.thumb.jpg.6fa9f07089b296d899fc59e149102cf9.jpg

and this are the AN/ALQ ecm pods that are in the manual but i never saw one of this pods on any aircraft

this pod has a length  of 86,5 inches and a weight of 390 LBS and this pod is a available as shallow or deep option as you can see on the picture below ( from an other manual )

Image3.thumb.jpg.542cdf8c63971d6804b51e9dcf9bd3d1.jpg

Image5.thumb.jpg.3dff2a88504e0dce89cca2443c6c8126.jpg

and than is the  this pod with 133 inches , also available as shallow or deep option , length 133 inches weight 776 LBS

Image2.thumb.jpg.8784045ce24cd545e79bf8905a004f3c.jpg


and for aircrafts who dont have enough power supply for this pods there is a RATG that can  be added to any of the available versions , i never have seen an AN/ALQ-131 with that RATG

by the way the pod in that picture below has a length of 157 inches no info about the weight  , this would be the largest AN/ALQ-131 even with out the RATG

Image6.thumb.jpg.bdee2c0b004a842bc342e5989ecd2759.jpg

 

if anybody could give me some info if this pods ever enter service and maybe some pictures of it would be really helpful and i would not waste time building ecm pods that where never used 

  • wich pod was used in service 86,5 inches , 133 inches and or 157 inches ???
  • also what year did they enter service  ??? 
  • and what aircraft where carry them  ???

 

Edited by ravenclaw_007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terminal Threat Deep Pod with Receiver Processor in USAF/EPAF F-16AB early 1980s and USAF CD early 80s manuals.

 

CD also lists Two Band Shallow. (535 lbs without receiver processor)

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MigBuster said:

Terminal Threat Deep Pod with Receiver Processor in USAF/EPAF F-16AB early 1980s and USAF CD early 80s manuals.

 

CD also lists Two Band Shallow. (535 lbs without receiver processor)

 

 

this is what i found to , and i found some notes that the other pods could have been put together by the Squadrons / Units it self as they needed it  , means they had the parts and could have add or remove some modules as the mission or expected threat  needed it

will search some more 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Two things going on: It was designed to be modular/adaptable to needs. It also went through at least three revisions, block I, block II, and another upgrade that I did not have a name.

Edited by streakeagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

the 3rd and latest update is a digital AN/ALQ-131 EAPUP  , the contract is from 2019 worth 44 million dollars and this pod will replace all existing AN/ALQ-131 pods  , no idea if there will be a shallow version  of it

Stoerbehaelter-Northrop-Grumman-AN-ALQ-131-169FullWidth-41495df-1615853.thumb.jpg.dbb0bc9e1814b0b75d7c905b052093f2.jpg

Edited by ravenclaw_007
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

based on some pictures i found the AN/ALQ-131 block-1 was in service from 1983 , the Block-2 from 1989 and i assume the Block-3 (EAPUP) from 2020/2021 , i hope i´m right with my time frames 

visual differences on the pods / blocks are mainly the lower antenna housing

Block-1

Block-1.thumb.jpg.a944fe544fade9fd9b1e7203a65a8b38.jpg

Block-2

Block-2.thumb.jpg.50390436c693a81a2412b616aa5b766b.jpg

and the Block-3 (EAPUP) this one is not yet final 

Block-3.thumb.jpg.cf4396f2f2f815849068e178d9ecb87b.jpg

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I fly the F-16, I'll be sure to have these on it, beautiful work... :ok:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i found more on the EAPUP , the contract to Northrop-Grumman for the upgrade was awarded in 2012  , the 44 million contract i mention above is the 3rd additional order placed 

this is the original text from Airforce Technology

" the US Air Force (USAF) has awarded the third production order to Northrop Grumman for the Electronic Attack Pod Upgrade Program (EAPUP).

The $44m order is part of an existing contract and will significantly increase the number of EAPUP systems for the USAF.

In April 2012, Northrop Grumman secured a $52.8m, 27-month engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contract to upgrade the USAF’s electronic attack (EA) pods.

 
The programme included EMD, a low-rate initial production phase (LRIP) and five production options.

Northrop Grumman’s upgraded, digital AN/ALQ-131 pod is designed to operate in support of A-10, C-130, F-15 and F-16 aircraft and aircrews.

The EAPUP solution will replace the service’s current EA pods. "

 

so this pods may be in service already for some time , sadly i cant find any pictures of them , if you find one please send it to me  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ravenclaw_007 said:

no idea if there will be a shallow version  of it

i would rather doubt it, shallow versions seem to have popped up most commonly on the Phantoms and Warthogs. They did appear on Vipers, but the blockier full ones are more common in photos and that may have been at a time when there were just more shallows on hand

Shallow appears to fit better with Phantoms so it could have been a areodynamics thing initially (given the Phantom was the main USAF tactical striker in 1972 and still at the pods intro in 1980). With the Hogs, i think they just got the Phantoms hand me downs (institutional Air Force never liked the Hog)

could be wrong. thats just me playing junior amatuer photo analyst off of the last couple years of searching and noticing trends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

got more info on the service years for Block 1 and Block 2

  • Block 1 development started in the 1970´s , service start in 1980
  • block 2 development and start of production in 1983 , no word when it was available for the squadrons though
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ravenclaw_007 said:

block 2 development and start of production in 1983 , no word when it was available for the squadrons though

judging usual development times and fact that several systems were put into "provisional" service, i would not be suprised to see some on Desert Storm birds. that might not be the official date of IOC, but look at the E-8A JSTARS. the two prototypes got sent to the desert still wearing civil codes from their development work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, daddyairplanes said:

judging usual development times and fact that several systems were put into "provisional" service, i would not be suprised to see some on Desert Storm birds. that might not be the official date of IOC, but look at the E-8A JSTARS. the two prototypes got sent to the desert still wearing civil codes from their development work!

AN/ALQ-131 block II was used in Desert Storm  based on my info as well as the AN/ALQ-184 , the service start years i found so far for this version is between 1987 and 1989 but  this are not 100% sure thats why i keep searching for better info

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..