Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 14:57
by mixelflick
Not sure how I missed this, but an interesting article here about towed decoys..

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... althy-skin

I see its present on all sorts of fighters, bombers etc.. My question is, does Russia have such decoys that can be deployed from its Flankers, etc?? I'm assuming the Chinese do...

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 17:11
by spazsinbad
https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/foun ... adadvv.jpg

Image
"The towed decoy deployment door is located just aft of the dual flip-open infrared countermeasures dispenser door" https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/foun ... adadac.jpg

Image

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 18:49
by SpudmanWP
Behind the IR Dispenser door

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 20:38
by blain
I find the interplay of active ECM and decoys on the F-35 as interesting. At least in the short term I think F-35 will not need to employ decoys or jamming against targeting radars.

I do wonder how much tactics will change with search radars. Typically, stand off jammers have been used to support strikes by stealth fighters by masking the ingress and egress of strike packages. I am not sure if it is wise to have the F-35s to perform this function. It would require the F-35 to fly relatively closer to the emitter to generate enough power to temporarily blind the radar. Relying on another platform for jamming support enables the F-35 to better mask its route. You could task F-35s to serve as stand off jammers, but why would you want to do that when you have EA assets?

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 01:27
by optimist
Like what's on the fa-18ef. Calling it a towed decoy is really selling it short. There is no reason not to have it as a receive and transmit antenna, to play a larger role in the EW system. It's like a towed array sonar and all that that indicates.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 08:34
by geforcerfx
Seems like it will be more useful in the SEAD role, allows a couple F-35's to become juicy targets with the ability to just wind the array back in and go stealth again if the environment get's to hot. While there fully stealthed buddies are hunting down anything searching for the fake targets. Basically a on-demand MALD that's reusable (or at least the article implies they are reusable).

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 13:49
by mixelflick
Fascinating stuff.

Does the SU-35 make use of such things? I googled SU-35 towed decoy, and didn't see where they had a similar system - at least built into the jet. Pods yes. Internal, no.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 17:58
by hythelday
"Khibiny" system does not use towed decoys, as far as I can tell.

"Khibiny" is an umbrella term for two components: SIGINT (internal) and jammer (podded). The jammer uses vaunted "active stealth" approach to either hide the target or create enough false targets through DRFM - mirroring illuminating signal. There are several versions of "Khibiny" system, which are mounted on Su-34 (original gangster, "Khibiny-V"), Su-35S ("Khibiny-M") and Su-30SM ("Khibiny-U"), the latter supposedly being the most advanced version. Russian sources say that active jammer component of Khibiny-U, the "SAP-518 Regata" (SAP = stancija aktivnyh pomeh/active jammer) will be upgraded as a result of "Syrian experience" to the new SAP-518SM standard. The upgraded version for Fullback also supposedly has "collective defense" functionality, meant to protect entire flight of four(?) Fullbacks.

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... c-802.html

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... -regata%2F

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... -hibiny%2F

For all the bravado Russians write about the "Khibiny" keep in mind that this is yet another system they wanted to field in the 90s but didn't, due to collapse of the empire. After 20 odd years they picked it up again. Surely it makes killing Flankers harder for legacy fighters, but this is nothing out of ordinary on modern battlefield.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 19:33
by bring_it_on
Leonardo has also been working on a new form factor BriteCloud DRFM solution to better fit other fighters so I wonder if they'll position the product as a potential solution for future F-35 needs down the road.

Image

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2019, 21:34
by spazsinbad
Interesting comment about DFRM jamming pods for fourth GEN F-15 aircraft against F-22s from AVM Brown RAAF: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=21808&p=268446&hilit=britecloud#p268446 'popcorn' says for the quote below: "...testimony of Air Vice Marshal Geoffrey Brown before Australian Parliament last May 16 [2013] as to the ability of 5Gen aircraft to defeat his F-15 in Red Flag exercises. In his words:"
"...But getting back to the situational awareness, the ability to actually have that data fusion that the aeroplane has makes an incredible difference to how you perform in combat. I saw it first hand on a Red Flag mission in an F15D against a series of fifth-generation F22s. We were actually in the red air. In five engagements we never knew who had hit us and we never even saw the other aeroplane at any one particular time. That is in a current fourth-generation aeroplane. The data fusion and the stealth makes such a difference to your overall situational awareness it is quite incredible. After that particular mission I went back and had a look at the tapes on the F22, and the difference in the situational awareness in our two cockpits was just so fundamentally different. That is the key to fifth-generation... In that engagement I talked about at Nellis, in Red Flag, the ability to be in a cockpit with a God's-eye view of what is going on in the world was such an advantage over a fourth-generation fighter—and arguably one of the best fourth-generation fighters in existence, the F15. But even with a DRFM jamming pod, we still had no chance in those particular engagements. And at no time did any of the performance characteristics [of an aircraft] that you are talking about have any relevance to those five engagements.…"

In this forum quote first from 'mangler-muldoon' here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24148&p=253879&hilit=brown#p253879 from: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... rsy-05089/ quote from 'Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade_2013_05_16_1947.pdf' somewhere also in this forum PERHAPS?.... Meanwhile another 'popcorn' Brown quote:
'popcorn' said: "From recent Parliamentary hearing Down Under, an indication that DRFM jamming may not be effective against the latest AESA radars?"
"Air Marshal Brown: They are going down that road, but let me tell you I do not think they have the level of stealth that is available in US fifth-generation aeroplanes—and it is by a significant factor that they are still not there. So I still think there are significant advantages with an F35. You have got to remember that PAK-FA, J20 and J31 are possibly where we were in excess of 10 to 12 years ago in their development time frames at the moment—so all those aeroplanes have still got a long way to go. I am not sure they will have the degree of sensor fusion that is available with the JSF. To me that is key: it is not only stealth; it is the combination of the EOS and the radar to be able to build a comprehensive picture. In that engagement I talked about at Nellis, in Red Flag, the ability to be in a cockpit with a God's-eye view of what is going on in the world was such an advantage over a fourth-generation fighter—and arguably one of the best fourth-generation fighters in existence, the F15. But even with a DRFM jamming pipe, we still had no chance in those particular engagements. And at no time did any of the performance characteristics that you are talking about have any relevance to those five engagements." viewtopic.php?f=62&t=23680&p=252547&hilit=Parliamentary+brown#p252547

The F-35 bits from AVM Brown in 245Kb PDF download here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17588.html

F-35A part only Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade_2013_05_16_1947.pdf pp9

Last page PAGE 9 has the last quote. Earlier 18 page PDF: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17587.html

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade_2013_05_16_1947.pdf pp18 283Kb

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2019, 00:19
by firebase99
spazsinbad wrote:Interesting comment about DFRM jamming pods for fourth GEN F-15 aircraft against F-22s from AVM Brown RAAF: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=21808&p=268446&hilit=britecloud#p268446 'popcorn' says for the quote below: "...testimony of Air Vice Marshal Geoffrey Brown before Australian Parliament last May 16 [2013] as to the ability of 5Gen aircraft to defeat his F-15 in Red Flag exercises. In his words:"
"...But getting back to the situational awareness, the ability to actually have that data fusion that the aeroplane has makes an incredible difference to how you perform in combat. I saw it first hand on a Red Flag mission in an F15D against a series of fifth-generation F22s. We were actually in the red air. In five engagements we never knew who had hit us and we never even saw the other aeroplane at any one particular time. That is in a current fourth-generation aeroplane. The data fusion and the stealth makes such a difference to your overall situational awareness it is quite incredible. After that particular mission I went back and had a look at the tapes on the F22, and the difference in the situational awareness in our two cockpits was just so fundamentally different. That is the key to fifth-generation... In that engagement I talked about at Nellis, in Red Flag, the ability to be in a cockpit with a God's-eye view of what is going on in the world was such an advantage over a fourth-generation fighter—and arguably one of the best fourth-generation fighters in existence, the F15. But even with a DRFM jamming pod, we still had no chance in those particular engagements. And at no time did any of the performance characteristics [of an aircraft] that you are talking about have any relevance to those five engagements.…"

In this forum quote first from 'mangler-muldoon' here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24148&p=253879&hilit=brown#p253879 from: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... rsy-05089/ quote from 'Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade_2013_05_16_1947.pdf' somewhere also in this forum PERHAPS?.... Meanwhile another 'popcorn' Brown quote:
'popcorn' said: "From recent Parliamentary hearing Down Under, an indication that DRFM jamming may not be effective against the latest AESA radars?"
"Air Marshal Brown: They are going down that road, but let me tell you I do not think they have the level of stealth that is available in US fifth-generation aeroplanes—and it is by a significant factor that they are still not there. So I still think there are significant advantages with an F35. You have got to remember that PAK-FA, J20 and J31 are possibly where we were in excess of 10 to 12 years ago in their development time frames at the moment—so all those aeroplanes have still got a long way to go. I am not sure they will have the degree of sensor fusion that is available with the JSF. To me that is key: it is not only stealth; it is the combination of the EOS and the radar to be able to build a comprehensive picture. In that engagement I talked about at Nellis, in Red Flag, the ability to be in a cockpit with a God's-eye view of what is going on in the world was such an advantage over a fourth-generation fighter—and arguably one of the best fourth-generation fighters in existence, the F15. But even with a DRFM jamming pipe, we still had no chance in those particular engagements. And at no time did any of the performance characteristics that you are talking about have any relevance to those five engagements." viewtopic.php?f=62&t=23680&p=252547&hilit=Parliamentary+brown#p252547

The F-35 bits from AVM Brown in 245Kb PDF download here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17588.html

F-35A part only Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade_2013_05_16_1947.pdf pp9

Last page PAGE 9 has the last quote. Earlier 18 page PDF: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17587.html

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade_2013_05_16_1947.pdf pp18 283Kb


Its the last part that catches me the most..." And at no time did any of the performance characteristics that you are talking about have any relevance to those five engagements." I wonder how the development of the PCA takes shape in regards to this?

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2019, 18:43
by michaelemouse
blain wrote:I do wonder how much tactics will change with search radars. Typically, stand off jammers have been used to support strikes by stealth fighters by masking the ingress and egress of strike packages. I am not sure if it is wise to have the F-35s to perform this function. It would require the F-35 to fly relatively closer to the emitter to generate enough power to temporarily blind the radar. Relying on another platform for jamming support enables the F-35 to better mask its route. You could task F-35s to serve as stand off jammers, but why would you want to do that when you have EA assets?


You could play missile whack-a-mole: Whenever one F-35 is fired at, his first buddy could use his towed decoy to seduce the missile. Then he goes quiet and another buddy uses his towed decoy to seduce the missile in another direction then goes quiet. That makes the missile lose energy or ends up going between two seducers. Being stealthy would be useful here because you could turn off the towed decoy and disappear from the opponent's radar, move to another location then turn it on then turn it off and disappear again, something which an EA-18 might find difficult to do.


optimist wrote:Like what's on the fa-18ef. Calling it a towed decoy is really selling it short. There is no reason not to have it as a receive and transmit antenna, to play a larger role in the EW system. It's like a towed array sonar and all that that indicates.


I thought about that too but then I wondered: You can have a lot of transceivers on a towed sonar array without much problem because you're moving slowly thru water. I wonder how fragile a long, heavy-ish (with those transceivers) towed array would be. One of the main advantages of towed sonar arrays is that you can make them very long. Can that be done here too?

I agree that radar arrays are promising. I mean, an AESA is a radar array. If you network a flight of 4 5th gen fighters and 2 dozen auxiliary drones and spread them out, you could have something pretty interesting. Real-time SAR from the fused data coming from dozens of sensors might be possible.


I don't know how representative it is but at $22 000/decoy, especially if it's reusable and is protecting a $100M plane and considering how small/light it seems, I'd bring plenty. As missiles get more sophisticated, they get more expensive and getting the enemy to waste a $1M missile on a $20K decoy seems like a great trade and one that might cause the enemy to be more hesitant to shoot. I expect we're going to see even more decoys although I'm quite curious to know what form they might take.

How would an opponent discriminate between a towed decoy carried by the F-35 and the F-35?

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 01:25
by marauder2048
michaelemouse wrote:How would an opponent discriminate between a towed decoy carried by the F-35 and the F-35?


1. Multi-mode seekers (it's why SM-2 Block IIIb has that side-looking infrared seeker)
2. MMW seekers for improved angular and range resolution to distinguish between the decoy and the aircraft
3. Improved signal processing. Example: the aircraft and towed decoy have slightly different velocities
*if* your doppler processing is sufficiently sensitive you might be able to distinguish between them

or

A huge warhead so that it doesn't matter

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 04:45
by wrightwing
marauder2048 wrote:
michaelemouse wrote:How would an opponent discriminate between a towed decoy carried by the F-35 and the F-35?


1. Multi-mode seekers (it's why SM-2 Block IIIb has that side-looking infrared seeker)
2. MMW seekers for improved angular and range resolution to distinguish between the decoy and the aircraft
3. Improved signal processing. Example: the aircraft and towed decoy have slightly different velocities
*if* your doppler processing is sufficiently sensitive you might be able to distinguish between them

or

A huge warhead so that it doesn't matter

Towed decoys are far enough away, that a large warhead isn't going to be a threat. The decoys are generating EA waveforms, to keep seekers spoofed. Lastly, by the time the missile realizes that it's a decoy, it's geometries are not going to be close to ideal, to re-engage the aircraft.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 05:09
by taog
mixelflick wrote:Not sure how I missed this, but an interesting article here about towed decoys..

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... althy-skin

I see its present on all sorts of fighters, bombers etc.. My question is, does Russia have such decoys that can be deployed from its Flankers, etc?? I'm assuming the Chinese do...


This article claims that the F-35 doesn't have chaff, but i remember it does.

And if F-35 truly doesn't have chaff, where will the advanced chaff (block 4 upgrade) be placed? Integrated and shared the room with IR dispenser?

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 05:54
by spazsinbad
The F-35 does have chaff for the other horsedogs to eat. There is a thread of course....

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... cation.pdf (1.4Mb)

download/file.php?id=30519&mode=view

Image

AN/ASQ-239 Electronic warfare/countermeasure system
https://www.baesystems.com/en/download- ... 878736.pdf (150Kb) attached

I'll delete the incorrect nomenclature in the zoom part of the old image to repost it. CORRECTED JPG Attached now.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 06:35
by taog
spazsinbad wrote:The F-35 does have chaff for the other horsedogs to eat. There is a thread of course....

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... cation.pdf (1.4Mb)

download/file.php?id=30519&mode=view

Image

AN/ASQ-239 Electronic warfare/countermeasure system
https://www.baesystems.com/en/download- ... 878736.pdf (150Kb) attached


No, that's not the chaff. That site of the RFCM (RF counter measurement) is represented the four ALE-70 tow decoys.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 06:42
by taog
This is the ALE-70 canister.

Image

This is the ALE-55 canister.

Image

And the site for ALE-70 (A) and IRCM (F).

Image

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 06:45
by wrightwing
The F-35 has chaff, flares, and towed decoys. There is no debate on this.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 06:53
by taog
wrightwing wrote:The F-35 has chaff, flares, and towed decoys. There is no debate on this.


So where is the room for chaff ? Integrated and shared the room with IRCM ? Or it shared the same space with the towed decoy ?

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 07:01
by spazsinbad
'taog' the three images do not show up here (in IE 11 anyway) - I gotta go so here is the BAE PDF in GIF format also.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/download- ... 878736.pdf

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 07:09
by taog
spazsinbad wrote:'taog' the three images do not show up here (in IE 11 anyway) - I gotta go so here is the BAE PDF in GIF format also.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/download- ... 878736.pdf


I have read. But i don't see the chaff....

The description for ALE-70 is:

"The ALE-70 Towed Decoy is a countermeasures dispenser system designed to fit into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft. The ALE-70 provides aircraft self-protection against radar guided missiles.
Funds procure all system components: decoys, canisters, and explosive cartridges to deploy the decoys. "

That canister in the picture is used to contain the decoy. And there are 4 canister on the F-35 as you showed above.

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=53652&fbclid=IwAR0Pz7q08gQS9RIo371OtizGVcrCxzg32lU_F-g0pC7v1HLZlJHficdpoqA

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=50951&hilit=countermeasures+dispenser&fbclid=IwAR22hUCc-LGz4SA2TQXyjDy-Sw7dlq2DV2dqye2_0vZ9xZmcJrheDRXmK-g

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 08:28
by Dragon029
taog wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The F-35 has chaff, flares, and towed decoys. There is no debate on this.


So where is the room for chaff ? Integrated and shared the room with IRCM ? Or it shared the same space with the towed decoy ?

It'll share the same space as the flares (in a separate bucket, etc). At present it sounds like chaff hasn't been actively implemented (with stealth, AESA jamming and ALE-70 decoys / jammers it'd be slightly redundant), but in public F-35 simulator demonstrations cockpit displays have shown both flares and chaff available to the pilot.

I suspect that integration would be quite minimal; countermeasure programs would be set by pilots (with any default configurations likely coming from mission data files rather than Block 3F, etc operating system software) and flight testing might not strictly be required if their deployment method is considered to be sufficiently similar to that of existing flares. The only real question would be whether the software would recognise / can be programmed by the pilot to consider a bucket of chaff to different than flares.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 09:45
by spazsinbad
Dragon029 wrote:
taog wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The F-35 has chaff, flares, and towed decoys. There is no debate on this.


So where is the room for chaff ? Integrated and shared the room with IRCM ? Or it shared the same space with the towed decoy ?

It'll share the same space as the flares (in a separate bucket, etc). At present it sounds like chaff hasn't been actively implemented (with stealth, AESA jamming and ALE-70 decoys / jammers it'd be slightly redundant), but in public F-35 simulator demonstrations cockpit displays have shown both flares and chaff available to the pilot.

I suspect that integration would be quite minimal; countermeasure programs would be set by pilots (with any default configurations likely coming from mission data files rather than Block 3F, etc operating system software) and flight testing might not strictly be required if their deployment method is considered to be sufficiently similar to that of existing flares. The only real question would be whether the software would recognise / can be programmed by the pilot to consider a bucket of chaff to different than flares.

Yep. I made a big error in haste. The CHAFF & FLARES are in a mixed container: [I'll add a 26 page PDF about stuff]

RIGHT NOW & recently was a busy time for me so I still cannot see the images posted by 'taog' (but I can see them by following the URLs) that was not helpful for the conversation. Anyway this is the chaff/flare bucket DRAGON refers.

OK NOW I see the three 'taog' images - they have just appeared because I looked at them separately so now they are in my internet explorer 11 cache but I STILL do not see them in EDGE or Firefox (because I have not looked at them separately there). This gets tiresome to explain. Some websites do not allow 'hot linking' so images do not appear for others to view.

http://www.sibat.mod.gov.il/Industries/ ... 015_16.pdf

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 09:56
by taog
@spazsinbad

Thx a lot !

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 10:01
by spazsinbad
taog wrote:@spazsinbad - Thx a lot !

For what? Do you require me to put the three invisible images into 1 image to attach here or somewhere else (invisible)?

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 10:08
by taog
spazsinbad wrote:
taog wrote:@spazsinbad - Thx a lot !

For what? Do you require me to put the three invisible images into 1 image to attach here or somewhere else (invisible)?


Your new pdf. Thanks, great information.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 10:17
by spazsinbad
OK. No worries. I'll try NOT to answer questions in haste in future, but I did not know about the RFCM dispenser (this is all mind boggling stuff to me). Can anyone else see the missing 3 'taog' images? Or do you see nada or Xs / crosses.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 13:10
by steve2267
You're not crazy Spaz... I see no Taog images either.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 13:47
by Dragon029
I couldn't see them either, so I had to quote his post, grab the urls and paste them into the address bar manually. They're appearing for me now, but that might be because of the image caching you mentioned Spaz.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2019, 16:07
by steve2267
<deleted> for now...

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 21:57
by marauder2048
wrightwing wrote:Towed decoys are far enough away, that a large warhead isn't going to be a threat. The decoys are generating EA waveforms, to keep seekers spoofed. Lastly, by the time the missile realizes that it's a decoy, it's geometries are not going to be close to ideal, to re-engage the aircraft.


Normally, the bigger warhead is accompanied by some trajectory shaping and late seeker turn-on.
The average miss-distance goes up which you compensate for with a large warhead.

Keep in mind that if the platform needs to maneuver aggressively, the tow line length isn't all that great
and there's a real tradeoff between tow line length and decoy power though the latter isn't so prominent
with fiber optics and solid state amplifiers.

And then there are some deliberate proximity fuze designs that are intended to be less sensitive to the returns
from the decoy on the assumption that say in a tail chase, the missile's trajectory will bring it beyond the
decoy and on to the platform.

But I agree that there is no generalized counter-countermeasure that's going to work without
some annoying tradeoffs or be cheap enough to implement widely.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 22:25
by wrightwing
https://i2.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp ... ight-1.jpg

At that distance, the decoy should be outside of a lethal blast radius, and the incoming missile likely won't have the energy to change course (assuming, the ruse is recognized.)

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 23:37
by marauder2048
wrightwing wrote:https://i2.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/decoy-highlight-1.jpg

At that distance, the decoy should be outside of a lethal blast radius, and the incoming missile likely won't have the energy to change course (assuming, the ruse is recognized.)


Do you mean that the platform would be outside of the lethal radius with say a missile coming in broadside?

Some of the S-300 missile variants have lethal radii in the 100 ft range.
That is uncomfortably close for some of the shorter tow line lengths.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 00:53
by Dragon029
marauder2048 wrote:Keep in mind that if the platform needs to maneuver aggressively, the tow line length isn't all that great
and there's a real tradeoff between tow line length and decoy power though the latter isn't so prominent
with fiber optics and solid state amplifiers.


On that, it's my understanding that towed decoys (at least those using fiber optic cables) are powered exclusively by a battery - I saw online (accuracy unknown) that the ALE-55 for example has an 8 hour stand-by time. If systems like BriteCloud (which are smaller, but probably not by an order of magnitude) have a battery life of around 10 seconds (of transmitting), I wonder how long something like the ALE-70 can transmit for until it runs out of power.

Ultimately it'll be able to save power by being able to offload most of its processing to the ASQ-239 computers on the jet, plus it doesn't need to be as powerful as an ALE-50, ALE-55, etc due to the stealth of the F-35, plus towed decoys are only emitting when they need to / when the ASQ-239 tells them, plus the F-35 can carry 4 of these decoys to use one-after-the-other, but I still wonder if we're talking (eg) 20 seconds of transmitting time, or multiple minutes, or whether the ALE-70 has some method of getting power from the F-35 (conductive material between the fiber optic and kevlar braiding for example).

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 02:09
by wrightwing
marauder2048 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:https://i2.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/decoy-highlight-1.jpg

At that distance, the decoy should be outside of a lethal blast radius, and the incoming missile likely won't have the energy to change course (assuming, the ruse is recognized.)


Do you mean that the platform would be outside of the lethal radius with say a missile coming in broadside?

Some of the S-300 missile variants have lethal radii in the 100 ft range.
That is uncomfortably close for some of the shorter tow line lengths.


If you look at how far that decoy is behind the Typhoon, you'll see it's well over 100' (and possibly >100m.)

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 03:50
by marauder2048
The FOTDs I'm familiar with are externally powered; the TWT based amplifiers have 5000 V power lines.
You're right that MMICs, operating at much lower voltages, could be battery powered and that might
help reduce the complexity of the tow line.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 04:13
by marauder2048
wrightwing wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:https://i2.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/decoy-highlight-1.jpg

At that distance, the decoy should be outside of a lethal blast radius, and the incoming missile likely won't have the energy to change course (assuming, the ruse is recognized.)


Do you mean that the platform would be outside of the lethal radius with say a missile coming in broadside?

Some of the S-300 missile variants have lethal radii in the 100 ft range.
That is uncomfortably close for some of the shorter tow line lengths.


If you look at how far that decoy is behind the Typhoon, you'll see it's well over 100' (and possibly >100m.)


From memory, for aggressive maneuvering tow line lengths are around 150 feet but the rule of thumb
is that the tow line length needs to be at least twice the lethal radius of the missile's warhead.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 07:57
by wrightwing
marauder2048 wrote:

From memory, for aggressive maneuvering tow line lengths are around 150 feet but the rule of thumb
is that the tow line length needs to be at least twice the lethal radius of the missile's warhead.

That decoy is more than 3 plane lengths behind the Typhoon, which is 52.4' long.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 09:46
by marauder2048
[YouTube][/YouTube]
wrightwing wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:

From memory, for aggressive maneuvering tow line lengths are around 150 feet but the rule of thumb
is that the tow line length needs to be at least twice the lethal radius of the missile's warhead.

That decoy is more than 3 plane lengths behind the Typhoon, which is 52.4' long.



Could be the braking point. But they also look like that when they are still untethering.


Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 10:28
by aussiebloke
In 2003 over Iraq Dan Hampton repeatedly deployed towed arrays. At one point in the book Viper Pilot he gives a length for the tow line:

Flipping the Viper on its back, I deployed one of my towed decoys. This little thing would stream out 300 feet behind me on a cable and generate a nice fat signal for missiles to track instead of my jet.


From the section of the book dated April 7, 2003 http://abramtsevo.msk.ru/rlib/utf8/480601.html

Presumably this decoy was the ALE-50.

Re: Towed Decoys

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2019, 22:06
by marauder2048
aussiebloke wrote:In 2003 over Iraq Dan Hampton repeatedly deployed towed arrays. At one point in the book Viper Pilot he gives a length for the tow line:

Flipping the Viper on its back, I deployed one of my towed decoys. This little thing would stream out 300 feet behind me on a cable and generate a nice fat signal for missiles to track instead of my jet.


From the section of the book dated April 7, 2003 http://abramtsevo.msk.ru/rlib/utf8/480601.html

Presumably this decoy was the ALE-50.



Given that they can actively brake the tow line length based on threat how is this relevant?