F-16.net

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1031 Status: Offline

Triangulation cannot be done in this case...its real simple to figure out. I think you guys are thinking the right thing, just not thinking about it in this case but thats okay. I said it once and I'll say it again, AWACS can communicate with the Raptor the ENTIRE time its on sortie with no ill effects on stealth.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Elite Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 1093

Emag theory was the reason I switched from EE to Computer Science. Laughing

Yes, AWACS can communicate with the Raptor the entire time. The Raptor can't necessarily talk back w/o breaking comm silence, but the SA the Raptor provides a pilot is... yummy.

Elite Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1089

checksixx wrote:

Triangulation cannot be done in this case...its real simple to figure out. I think you guys are thinking the right thing, just not thinking about it in this case but thats okay. I said it once and I'll say it again, AWACS can communicate with the Raptor the ENTIRE time its on sortie with no ill effects on stealth.

When did I say triagulation could be done in this case? I don't think you're reading what I wrote very carefully at all. As far as AWACS' ability to communicate with another aircraft one-way, I don't think I ever said anything about receiving radio comms having ill effects. Anyway, for the Raptor to communicate its position to AWACS in an active way, it would have break radio silence for a quick position update burst transmission. Note likely to be intercepted and certainly not triagulated upon. I simply said that breaking radio silence period can alert the enemy to your general presense. Not saying it will, not saying they'll triangulate your position, etc.

Elite Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1089

Guysmiley wrote:

Emag theory was the reason I switched from EE to Computer Science. Laughing

Electromagnetic theory? Don't want to hear about it, whatever it is. Laughing

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1031 Status: Offline

[quote="Raptor_One]As Guysmiley stated, a radio transmission can be triangulated regardless of whether it's "two-way" or whatever. [/quote]

Sorry, I guess when you typed this sentence I somehow misread it. As far as everything else goes a Raptor can communicate with AWACS securely and without worry of giving its relative position away. Thats as far as I'll go with it. If you don't know how, then you never had a need to know in the first place.

-Check

Elite Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1089

checksixx wrote:

Sorry, I guess when you typed this sentence I somehow misread it. As far as everything else goes a Raptor can communicate with AWACS securely and without worry of giving its relative position away. Thats as far as I'll go with it. If you don't know how, then you never had a need to know in the first place.

-Check

I'm just going to chalk this one up to some sort of communications barrier. As far as my need to know about RF communication systems, I really don't WANT to know that much. If I wanted to know about various types of secure communications systems with low probability of detection, I'd have studied electrical engineering and not aerospace engineering. If you think that it's impossible to detect communications between one aircraft and another though, you're fooling yourself. No comms system is 100% secure or undetectable. I'm sure datalink transmissions between F-22 and AWACS are very secure and don't compromise the F-22's inherent stealthiness. Later.

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1031 Status: Offline

Sometimes its hard not to laugh when reading some of these posts.... LMAO

-Check

Elite Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1089

checksixx wrote:

Sometimes its hard not to laugh when reading some of these posts.... LMAO

-Check

Sorry if I offended you or insulted your intelligence. I do not know you or your background. I never claimed to be an expert on RF communications of any sort. If I've said something that isn't correct on a purely academic level or I've stated things as fact that are plainly false or mostly false, just point it out. I have no problem being educated by you or anyone else on these forums. I've spent most of my life being educated and very little time educating others.

If you wanted to know what the leading and trailing edge flaps on the F-22 were used for and how they affected the aerodynamics of the aircraft in a general sense, I could give you a generally correct answer simply because of what I studied in college. I doubt I'd respond to that question if I was an aerodynamicist actually working on the F-22 program or any other advanced and highly classified aircraft. I'd simply say nothing. I REALLY doubt I'd come in here and say, "If you don't know what those devices on the F-22 do, you don't have a need to know."

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: If you have a background in electrical engineering with a focus on RF engineering in particular, drop some of your academic knowledge on this subject. If that's your background but you work on highly sensitive RF communication systems like that used by AWACS and fighters to communicate securely and discretely, best not post on here... period. If you are neither of the above, don't come off like you're the final authority on the subject in question.

But again, sorry if I offended you.

Quote:

You can triangulate any radio signal given 2 (or ideally 3) antennas. However, you can't determine speed or direction of travel from an instant signal. This is one of the points of using burst transmission radio. You may know about where a radio call came from, but what good does that do you really? At best you know "something's out there".

The Link 16 terminals changes frequency 77600times/second. good luck in triangulation... Laughing

Quote:

Yes, AWACS can communicate with the Raptor the entire time. The Raptor can't necessarily talk back w/o breaking comm silence, but the SA the Raptor provides a pilot is... yummy

Right now the Raptors can't "talk back' using datalink. They have (that's official info for those concerned Shocked

)a receiveing-only Link 16, so they can receive data from AWACS/Rivet Joint/GCI and an IFDL used to communicate between Raptors. In future a full Link 16 terminal will be installed and than the Raptor will be able to talk back with AWACS...

Elite Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1089

Cru,

I don't think anyone said that it would be possible to triangulate an F-22's Link 16 transmissions and whatnot. If you're saying it's impossible to detect these sorts of transmissions though, I'd say BS on general principle. That's like saying it's impossible to detect an F-22 with radar. It may be hard to detect a modern fighter's communications, but not impossible.

Elite Joined: Jan 31, 2004 Posts: 1496 Status: Offline

I think what's bein' lost in traffic here is that for triangulation to happen you need a halfway decent fix on the signal long enough for each listening station to do its thing. What's that take? 2 seconds? 5 seconds? More? Dunno. But one-way data burst rates can be on the order of MIILISECONDS in some cases (and I may be generous there) and then everyone goes quiet again. So you might, might hear maybe a very short burst of static and then nothing, and even that's assuming you know what freqency band the burst comm happens in. Not nearly enough time to get a tracking fix on it.

Quote:

I think what's bein' lost in traffic here is that for triangulation to happen you need a halfway decent fix on the signal long enough for each listening station to do its thing. What's that take? 2 seconds? 5 seconds? More? Dunno. But one-way data burst rates can be on the order of MIILISECONDS in some cases (and I may be generous there) and then everyone goes quiet again. So you might, might hear maybe a very short burst of static and then nothing, and even that's assuming you know what freqency band the burst comm happens in. Not nearly enough time to get a tracking fix on it.

You're right. Moreover, the best EW suites today requires ~5-10 seconds of continuos tranamssion only for establishing the direction...

Elite Joined: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 535 Status: Offline

Well, some military information sources have declared that F-22A won't equip the full Link-16, which is too slow (50 kb/sec) and not stealthy enough according to USAF's opinion today.

The NG data-link that is suitable for F-22, F-35, and F/A-18E/F will be TTNT:

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/news/page5678.html

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/news/page6555.html

Elite Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1089

Ahhh... not stealthy enough. Well well well... it's not the ultimate discrete communications system after all. Very Happy

Elite Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 965 Status: Offline

If you wanted to you could probably put an antennae on top of the aircraft mounted in a depression (it would be covered over so you're not going to see a dent in the aircraft Rolling Eyes

) and make most of the world "over the horizon" if you know what I mean. Just use the antennae to communicate with satellites. Of course that doesn't help the notion of using the APG-77 transmit massive amounts of information but in a completely covert mode you could still send brief bursts of data to the AWACS through a satellite and be undectable by things below you. I suppose Question

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Raptor - invisible to AWACS?