It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another "F-117 Companion" thread and a bit of history!

page: 24
18
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Silentvulcan

I wouldn't get too excited about the model. It looks like something the film production crew brought in as a prop just to have something in the background. It doesn't have to look perfect because it will be out of focus anyway. I have worked on a lot of documentaries where they did stuff like this.




posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: penroc3

the real question is with the name and mission figured out.


And supposing it were electronic warfare and recon, then I guess something like ER-118? Probably be designated for its original mission?

That History Channel documentary on the F-117 development with interviews from pilots had something interesting: that the missions were pre-programmed into a computer back at the base and the computer executed the autopilot's program, pilots were 'systems managers.' It sounded quite rigid and controlled, more like Soviet than US doctrine.

What might a companion do potentially? Be able to upload new programs on the fly if new targets of opportunity were observed? Or if sudden threats of previously inoperative SAM sites popped up? Contrary to propaganda stealth is not invisibility, even to radar. It decreases detection range, but detection is still possible with a ground station with lots of RF power and a big ass antenna. This means that planning around SAM is still important for F-117 mission success--stealth provides holes in the otherwise blanket coverage. Suppose the companion were a radar-station recon & mapper & signal characterizer (need to know which kind of ground station to assess capability & threat)? Makes sense then to retire the F-117---mission replaced by F-22, but keep the recon companion. there may be some special sauce in making a quality detection antenna system and yet still be stealthy, usually opposing requirements. Conventional electronics needs mixing oscillators to go to an intermediate frequency and that can emit on its own, so even a detector may have emissions.

What if the companion flew around and mapped the radars accurately and covertly transmitted (LPI) to the F-117 computers which then checked the compatibility with the assumptions in the flight plan, and gave a go/nogo option to the pilot? Maybe the discussion that the flight plans were all preloaded ahead of time is a cover, and the two systems dynamically create a plan around the radars?

Notice that the A-6's were dual-crew craft, there's enough work for two people.

edit on 5-2-2018 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:54 AM
link   
probably right...I just thought it didn’t look like a F117...as for what you can model...Waynos has a large model collection of interesting things he designed and made...I liked his VG Lightning..!
edit on 5-2-2018 by Silentvulcan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

My understanding of that system, was it helped to provide a course through the SAM Radar installations?

This is quite a good read if not read before:

www.historynet.com...



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Aaaahhh thats where the fallacy of the F19 started from..



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadowhawk

Just remembered what that shape reminds me of...a model kit called the XR7 Thunderdart! Can now sleep as it was bugging me as to where I had seen that shape before..!!



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Interesting video about the F-35 and EW.




posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The AN/ASQ-239 data sheet says it provides "Simultaneous jamming without interfering with radar and
radar warning receiver".

Is the lack of interference a significant capability jump or have recent systems also been able to achieve this?



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: The one?

It's an improvement. For years brute force jamming was just that, and it blocked out everything. If you had an EA-6B flying with the package, and it was blotting out a certain band of radar, that included your own radar if it was in that band. There was no getting around it. Being able to open a window, and see through it, is a big advantage.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

offencive EW, i wonder what their ability to implant software is.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Would you speculate that the advance is from increased signal agility or a physics-related improvement?



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

did you mean to s(t)utter?




posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: The one?

It's just a logical upgrade to the EW systems. New antennas, new signal processors, etc.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: The one?

lol i have no idea what you talkkk k k ing about.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: The one?

It's an improvement. For years brute force jamming was just that, and it blocked out everything. If you had an EA-6B flying with the package, and it was blotting out a certain band of radar, that included your own radar if it was in that band. There was no getting around it. Being able to open a window, and see through it, is a big advantage.


You don't return false targets by blotting out an entire band. Noise is good for jamming radios, but radar is different. Even with radios, you can get more sophisticated than just random noise. Adding periodic spikes is great for messing up AGC circuits. But back to radar, you need to make your false return looks as if it comes from a moving target.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

There are three main types of jammers that have been commonly used. Brute force jammers use RF noise to create interference in every radar receiver that operates on that frequency. They're not as flexible, and easier to use. It's also like putting up a neon sign by the EW aircraft that's jamming.

Sweep lock jammers read the incoming radar signal and time their response. They don't operate continuously and focus their power when the signal is received, and drop it when the signal drops off.

The third is a deception jammer. These are the ones that match the EW signal to the radar frequency and generate false returns that appear to be real targets.
edit on 2/7/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

There are three main types of jammers that have been commonly used. Brute force jammers use RF noise to create interference in every radar receiver that operates on that frequency. They're not as flexible, and easier to use. It's also like putting up a neon sign by the EW aircraft that's jamming.

Sweep lock jammers read the incoming radar signal and time their response. They don't operate continuously and focus their power when the signal is received, and drop it when the signal drops off.

The third is a deception jammer. These are the ones that match the EW signal to the radar frequency and generate false returns that appear to be real targets.


The radar pulse or chirp is of limited bandwidth. A narrowband filter will allow it to work in the presence of broadband noise. The filter needs to be linear phase if you expect to use a chirp and or look for Doppler shift. But in any event, broadband noise isn't all that effective.

By sweep lock doesn't exactly work as you say since the jammer is out of theater. That time delay needs to be compensated. But the idea is to send a pulse that should hit the gate.

This is really simple stuff if you have diagrams. Georgia Tech profs have produced a few good texts.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Once again, sure, whatever you say. Obviously you know better than everyone else, again.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Back on airframe specs.With the F111 and F15 both being Mach 2+ airframes and the F117 being subsonic would the companion fit in their somewhere?They say wingplan fits the task,elongated diamond shape equals high speed.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join