Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Forum Veteran Joined: Nov 07, 2003 - 09:12 PM Posts: 901

hansundfranz wrote:

OK this is a F-16 fansite but sometimes it gets a litty silly.

negative hansundfranz,

this is a F-16 fan site, but the Vipers enthusiasts are looking for impartial views. It is a nice piece of war machine performed as it was intended, and has evolved since. It is definitely not THE super platform.

cheers,

F-16.net Sponsor

Hansundfranz, it's probably a good idea to have a radar in the jet, but with today's datalink technology, having an AWACS around probably makes it nearly redundant. If you can tell where you are by GPS and the AWACS knows where it is the same way, then the AWACS can datalink you his radar data and the software can compensate for the different positions. Now you have a virtual radar that doesn't disclose your position. Just let the software feed position data to the AMRAAMs and watch the enemy jets start fallin'...
Another possibility for the future is space based radar. Give a pilot the same data in the same manner as described for the AWACS above and now he has a very long range radar system that would be VERY difficult to shoot down!
Like I said before, it's probably a good idea to keep a radar on the jet, but if the datalink technology could be made reliable enough, losing the onboard radar wouldn't be that bad an idea as a way to save weight and space for more avionics!

Pumpkin

Quote:

but the Vipers enthusiasts are looking for impartial views

Some do some don´t.

Parrothead; it would be interesting how good or bad all that datalink/sensor fusion stuff works in war against a sophisticated nation.

My guess that heavy jamming and the chances of passive detection (if you increase output power of your datalink to counter the jamming) will make the usage of all that very difficult,

Well such a war is not very likely and sensor fusion is for sure helpful against 2nd or 3rd world countries,

hansundfranz, I agree it would be very interesting indeed! I don't think that passive detection would be that big of a concern. I'm thinking of the AWACS or satellite broadcasting its radar data over a secure data link and all the fighter would have to do is compare its position with the position contained in the data it's receiving. Basically, the fighter in this scenario is a completely silent entity, only passively receiving the data and transmitting none of its own. Any radar emitting the kind of wattage put out by an AWACS or a hypothetical SBR will show up like a beacon anyway, so I don't think the datalink would do anything to make it easier to see. If you really want to have some fun and create an even harder system to defeat, why not uplink the datalink to a satellite, bounce it off a couple of other satellites using a different frequency for each hop, then downlink it to the fighters straight from the last satellite. That way, you can hide the datalink signal inside a whole bunch of other noise.

What I wanted to say is that jamming is actually easier then tranmitting properly besides the jamming attempts.

If you want a realistic chance to win a war against teh USA you either have to have similar capabilities when it comes to sensor fusion or you have to jam the litte crap out of everything,
If you train accordingly (with your assets fighting autonomus) and the other side planned to rely on their data links whicha re suddenly not working as advertised it will ebcome really interesting.

Lets hope we´ll never find out, Such a war would not be a limited affair.

I agree completely! I'm not one to put all my eggs in one basket which is why I still think it's a really good idea to put a radar in the jet! I was really playing devil's advocate and wondering out loud. I certainly hope we never find out, too!!!

Well look at Kosovo:
The sophsticated NATO hit nothing but fixed targets, really nothing that affected the ground forces really or their will to resist. At the beginning they started with 350 ACs, at the end they deployed 1000AC in the region.

War ended by negotiations....
Now just imagine Serbia was equipped not with 70s equipment, but with some of the 90s (not only light wepons).
This really shows the capabilities of NATO, and that is not very much...

CheckSix, you seem to have forgotten about the ROE there. Nobody was allowed to fly below 20K feet. Also, we had an extremely risk averse administration in power at the time here in the US. Let in the Apaches and Warthogs and let the Viper get down a bit lower with JSTARS support and we'll see what mobile targets get hit!!! Little risk leads to little reward.

OK, so the war ended with negotiations, so what??? We tried to do everything through air power due to political will to do it on the ground didn't exist! When was the last time air power alone won a war? I can't think of one. I love military jets, but the fact of the matter is that in the end, rifles and bayonets are what take ground and hold it. Trying to say that this scenario really shows the capabilities of NATO is like saying that a drive to the local grocery store in a pickup truck really shows Michael Schumacher's driving abilities!!! I think this post shows how much you really understand the situation, and that is not very much...

Hans, Boyd did not want the F-16 to have no radar, he wanted a small one in it. And at the distances Pilots turn on their radars it's for the best.

Forum Veteran Joined: Nov 07, 2003 - 09:12 PM Posts: 901

hansundfranz wrote:

Pumpkin

Quote:

but the Vipers enthusiasts are looking for impartial views

Some do some don´t.

hansundfranz, for the record, there're some 2000+ members here. And I'm afraid this is an opened forum. Some might have made comments base on mere passions. Why be too bothered?

cheers,

This thread is so long I can't be bothered to read it all, but I found ParrotHead's comment about space based radar interesting. I'm sure Hansundfranz will correct me if I'm wrong Embarassed

, but I will through out my theories Confused

The range of a space based radar would be so long that the accuracy to use it in anything but BVR would be limited. Why not use the GPS signal as the radar. With half a dozen or more satellites over head you will have as many signals to work with. You measure the signal bouncing of targets in your vicinity. As you know the location of the satellite, your self and a very accurate time sync of the GPS signal it should be possible to determine the location of multiple targets with some fancy (nasty) algorithms. I would imagine that the higher altitude the better it would work, as the signal would not be compromised by reflections from the ground Idea

One big problem is emitter power of your satelite based radar.
You only have rather small sonar panels to provide the necessary energy.

Even when you want to use your sattelites not as radars bit only as relays for your datalink/ sensor fusion network it becomes doubtful.

Low emitting power and extreme distance to the recievers make jamming very easy.

Interesting idea there lamoey! I don't know enough to tell how good it would work, but it might be worth looking into!

hansundfranz, we could easily remedy the power situation - nuclear batteries! It could be done secretly and kept that way due to "National Security"! Also, satellites are used regularly to relay data such as TV programs and internet connections. My parents live too far out in the boondocks to get DSL or cable, but they still wanted high speed internet. Guess what? They get their internet through Dish Network just like they get their TV!

As for the low emitting power and whatnot, I'm sure there are other ways around jamming. One would be to keep the system tightly under wraps and use the same frequency hopping etc. that the new radars use to hide the fact that they're transmitting a datalink at all. As for the radar bit, I'd think a system using a unique identifier in each transmission to identify and filter returns from other noise might work. I could be wrong here, but it sounds good to me!

Quote:

nuclear batteries! It could be done secretly and kept that way due to "National Security"!

Well, at the moment the USA lacks the necessary lift capacity to bring heavy stuff (e.g Satellites with their own litte reactors) into orbit, and asking the russians or the ESA to do it, seems not the best way.

Quote:

As for the low emitting power and whatnot, I'm sure there are other ways around jamming. One would be to keep the system tightly under wraps and use the same frequency hopping etc. that the new radars use to hide the fact that they're transmitting a datalink at all.

if we assume that the other side (whoever they are) have the money and the power to challange the USA they for sure also have the necessary skills to analyze such hidden signals. Once you knwo it is there jamming it will be easy.
There are things that can be done to make jamming more difficult, but the necessary effort to Jam will be lower then the effort to make jamming harder.

Quote:

As for the radar bit, I'd think a system using a unique identifier in each transmission to identify and filter returns from other noise might work. I could be wrong here, but it sounds good to me!

I am sure that this is simply impossible (radar network from Satelites in space). This would mean detection from maybe 500 miles distance (with Low output power as aditional problem)

I think it could maybe once be possible to have passsive systems in Space. Active systems seem very doubtful to me.

Quote:

nuclear batteries! It could be done secretly and kept that way due to "National Security"!

Well, at the moment the USA lacks the necessary lift capacity to bring heavy stuff (e.g Satellites with their own litte reactors) into orbit, and asking the russians or the ESA to do it, seems not the best way.

Project Prometheus which is already underway should take care of this in the next decade or so. It is intended for research but...

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 versus F-15