Countering decoys equipped with active jamming system

[hornetfinn]

If we have F-35 against any 4th gen jet, we have to remember that:
- F-35 is VLO stealth jet and 4th gen jet won't be able to detect and track it at really meaningful ranges compared to how far F-35 will be able to detect, ID and track it. F-35 can use radar, EOTS, Barracuda (detecting all kinds of emissions like radios and data links) and even EO DAS. So that's quite serious handicap from the start as those 4th gen jets would not even know when and where to launch those decoys.

- Even if 4th gen jets could detect the emissions from APG-81/85, they would not be abe to know the distance. Same with the IRST system and this is further exacerbated with the next point

To play devil's advocate for a moment, it's worth acknowledging that fourth-generation aircraft do have an advantage in terms of their IIR sensors, as off-board pods tend to receive more frequent upgrades compared to internal sensors like the EOTS or DAS. Additionally, off-board pods offer greater flexibility; for instance, the F-15EX can simultaneously carry both the Sniper-XR and Legion pods, providing detection capabilities across SWIR, MWIR, and LWIR bands.

Original EOTS is still one of the best targeting pods around and there are not many pods in actual service that can outperform it in any real way. Advanced EOTS is also now available and that has at least as good performance as other targeting pod in the market. So I don't think 4th gen jets really have any real advantage there.

it’s indisputable that fifth-generation aircraft enjoy a significant advantage in radar detection range. However, enemy pilots are not morons. If they are unable to win within the confines of the current "game," they will adapt, shifting the dynamics to something more favorable to them. Let’s consider the situation from the perspective of an F-15EX pilot. If you know your radar can’t detect a fifth-generation fighter from long range and will reveal your position to enemy ESM, what would you do? Likely, you would deactivate your radar and datalink, opting instead to rely on your IRST21.
On the opposite side of the coin, if the F-35 is using the APG-81, it faces the risk of detection by EPAWSS . While ESM sensors may struggle to determine the exact range to airborne targets, they are still capable of providing direction, which is sufficient to launch self propelled decoys toward that bearing. However, in a scenario where both sides rely on their IIR sensors, then the gap now become much closer and more uncomfortable. F-35 obviously has lower IR signature than F-15EX but then IRST21 is arguably better A2A sensor than internal Sniper-XR especially at high altitude.

IMG_7573.jpeg

Of course, the F-35 pilot isn't idiot either, they will likely fly in a rectangular pattern, staying just outside the IRST21's detection bubble, and then attempt to flank the F-15EX. It is like cat and mouse game where both side will try their best to win.

In that scenario F-35s would likely use tactic where say only one F-35 would use radar actively and rest would remain radar silent and use their passive sensor and be widely separated as they would be able to use their MADL to full extent without F-15s having a clue of those MADL emissions. F-35s could also alternate which one emits with their radar at any one time which along with the wide separation would make it impossible for F-15s to measure even the general area where they came from. This would also help F-35s overcome any EW employed by the enemy aircraft or those MALD-X or similar.

Btw, how would the F-15EX coordinate between each other if they don't use data links and radios? How would they share tracks, identifications and own ship status/location/IFF information? If and when they do use them, F-35s would easily pick the emissions due to omnidirectional emission pattern.

- F-35 force is using MADL and can share far more information at higher fidelity level and much lower latencies between each other without even being detected by the opposing force all the while using far larger spacing between each other than has been possible with 4th gen fighters.

Directional discrete datalink is a key strength of fifth generation aircraft; however, fourth-generation aircraft are rapidly closing the gap. The integration of Legion pods on these platforms now offers enhanced broadband and high-bandwidth datalink capabilities

IMG_7574.jpeg

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/ne ... space.html

New Sniper-XR pod also offer ability to communicate using MADL datalink

IMG_7575.jpeg

I don't think that's MADL although it does have some of the advantages, namely bandwidth and latency. I think that's dedicated data link to link those targeting pods in multiple aircraft with each other to have some form of sensor fusion capability between the pods. But I think it's still omnidirectional data link but focused solely to targeting pod functionality to overcome Link 16 restrictions. But it's definitely a real improvement for 4th gen fighters.

[ricnunes]

I don't think that's MADL although it does have some of the advantages, namely bandwidth and latency. I think that's dedicated data link to link those targeting pods in multiple aircraft with each other to have some form of sensor fusion capability between the pods. But I think it's still omnidirectional data link but focused solely to targeting pod functionality to overcome Link 16 restrictions. But it's definitely a real improvement for 4th gen fighters.

THIS!

Actually that same procedure happens with HTS (HARM targeting system) pods. They share information between pods fitted on aircraft of the same flight and do some sensor fusion between each pod information. But and like I previously said this sensor fusion doesn't come even close to what a centralized sensor fusion engine found in each F-35 can do, this both in terms processing power/capabilities and above all in terms of processing sensor information which in the F-35 is done with the information coming from all and every sensor available (Radar, EOTS, DAS, EW...) while those pods can only do some sensor fusion limited only to the information generated by those same pods.

[disconnectedradical]

Original EOTS is still one of the best targeting pods around and there are not many pods in actual service that can outperform it in any real way. Advanced EOTS is also now available and that has at least as good performance as other targeting pod in the market. So I don't think 4th gen jets really have any real advantage there.

I think original EOTS is the equivalent of the early 2010s era Sniper ATP in terms of sensor quality with all components packaged inside F-35 fuselage. As far as pure sensor quality it has fallen behind the latest Sniper and Litening Pod variants, but it's still a great sensor and makes up for it by the F-35's sensor fusion.

Advanced EOTS should be equivalent to a late-2010s era Sniper ATP-SE variant in sensor quality which has much improved resolution and easily competitive with pretty much all pods on the market in terms of raw sensor quality. Although, in terms of raw sensor quality and resolution I do think the Litening LA that was first seen in 2022 is the best on the market, simply cause it likely got latest tech refresh. However, the EOTS still has the advantage of the F-35's sensor fusion.

That said and based on pilot testimonies I've heard, while Sniper ATP and EOTS can have pretty good air-to-air IRST capability, the sensors themselves being mid-wave IR are not quite as optimal as a dedicated IRST with long wave IR like the AN/ASG-34 IRST21 on the Legion Pod or the Skyward-G. Again I think the F-35 sensor fusion will offset some of that, along with the fact that it has measures to reduce IR signature, and at the end of the day the IRST is still narrow FOV sensor that needs cueing. The most formidable combination for air-to-air coming in near future is likely F-22 with it's AIRST which appears to be a completely new sensor from even IRST21. Here you have both an extremely stealthy aircraft combined with one of the latest IR sensors dedicated for air-to-air.

I don't think that's MADL although it does have some of the advantages, namely bandwidth and latency. I think that's dedicated data link to link those targeting pods in multiple aircraft with each other to have some form of sensor fusion capability between the pods. But I think it's still omnidirectional data link but focused solely to targeting pod functionality to overcome Link 16 restrictions. But it's definitely a real improvement for 4th gen fighters.

Honestly there's not a whole lot of information out about the Sniper Networked Target Pod. It's advertised as being able to communicate with 5th gen aircraft like the F-35 which would remove the need for a BACN, and that implies that it may be MADL. But that said I don't think the specific datalink has been confirmed.
https://www.twz.com/air/networked-snipe ... -kill-webs

[hornetfinn]

I don't think that's MADL although it does have some of the advantages, namely bandwidth and latency. I think that's dedicated data link to link those targeting pods in multiple aircraft with each other to have some form of sensor fusion capability between the pods. But I think it's still omnidirectional data link but focused solely to targeting pod functionality to overcome Link 16 restrictions. But it's definitely a real improvement for 4th gen fighters.

Honestly there's not a whole lot of information out about the Sniper Networked Target Pod. It's advertised as being able to communicate with 5th gen aircraft like the F-35 which would remove the need for a BACN, and that implies that it may be MADL. But that said I don't think the specific datalink has been confirmed.
https://www.twz.com/air/networked-snipe ... -kill-webs

I think it has own data link as MADL would likely be difficult to implement. F-35 has a lot of those MADL antennas around the airframe to be able to communicate to all directions and that would be difficult to achieve in a pod. Another thing is that MADL is integral part of whole F-35 CNI and sensor fusion system and I think it would be difficult to replicate in a pod.

My own bet is that it is L3 Harris CMDL, which is used:

https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabiliti ... -data-link

CMDL 2i offers AES encryption support and high-definition video1 encoding capability. It is intended for use on group 3 UAVs, targeting pods and smaller manned aircraft.CMDL 2i is a member of the L3Harris small form-factor product family, which is based on a common product architecture.

Key Features

- Full-duplex UHF-, L-, S-, C-, and Ku-Band capable modem
- Compact with low SWaP—perfect for UAVs, targeting pods and smaller aircraft
- FIPS 197 AES encryption
- CMDL 2i offers an expanding list of standard waveforms and data rates, allowing the user to maximize throughput while maintaining interoperability with legacy systems
- Increased frequency band coverage, lower power, advanced video processing, user interface compatibility, and even smaller form factor than original CMDL

The CMDL family has been deployed on over 1000 airborne UAV platforms, tactical manned aircraft and targeting pods

It might be that F-35 and F-22 implement this data link with software.

[eloise]

I think it has own data link as MADL would likely be difficult to implement. F-35 has a lot of those MADL antennas around the airframe to be able to communicate to all directions and that would be difficult to achieve in a pod. Another thing is that MADL is integral part of whole F-35 CNI and sensor fusion system and I think it would be difficult to replicate in a pod.

MADL uses very small antenna because it operate in Ku-band, so I don’t think it would be particularly hard to add some of these antenna to a pod

IMG_7632.jpeg (46.92 KiB) Viewed 1621 times

My own bet is that it is L3 Harris CMDL, which is used:
https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabiliti ... -data-link

Assuming they use L3 Harris CMDL instead of MADL, they still need to use Ku-band to communicate. With the same antenna aperture, Ku band is still more directional compared to L-band of Link 16

[hornetfinn]

I think it has own data link as MADL would likely be difficult to implement. F-35 has a lot of those MADL antennas around the airframe to be able to communicate to all directions and that would be difficult to achieve in a pod. Another thing is that MADL is integral part of whole F-35 CNI and sensor fusion system and I think it would be difficult to replicate in a pod.

MADL uses very small antenna because it operate in Ku-band, so I don’t think it would be particularly hard to add some of these antenna to a pod

Yes, but problem with such directional antennas is that you need several of them to cover all directions as each one has limited FoV. For example a targeting pod usually has the front end covered with electro-optical sensors and installing a directional antenna to cover the front sector would be quite difficult to do.

Of course it could be done at least with a separate pod, but I'm not sure any targeting pod currently has such directional antennas. For example latest Sniper pod information does claim an advanced data link compatible with F-35, but does not claim to be MADL.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/ne ... am-up.html

While the F-35 comes equipped for interoperability, two technical enhancements in this new Sniper Networked Targeting Pod will keep 4th Generation fighters and other legacy platforms in sync:

- An advanced datalink compatible with the F-35 will allow seamless sharing of target and surveillance information between aircraft.
- A Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) radio, meanwhile, will support a decentralized but highly secure mesh network of multiple air, ground and sea platforms ready to share and act on that information.

The rapid development of Sniper is a direct response to NATO defense forces that seek closer collaboration between new F-35s and existing fleets of 4th Generation fighters, which they expect to fly another 40 years. Customers also want continuous target-tracking data from aircraft sensors to improve ground-based precision fires’ capabilities and strike targets that relocate after being discovered.

Lockheed Martin’s investment in the Sniper Networked Targeting Pod is part of the company’s vision for 21st Century Security®, which aims to integrate 5G.MIL® Unified Network Solutions capabilities and edge computing across customers’ aircraft, sensor systems and weapons.

For example, the enhanced Sniper will enable missions in which F-35 multirole fighters and their advanced sensors serve as forward observers that identify and track targets while sharing precise coordinates with F-16s and ground-based Command and Control Systems that allow the employment of MLRS family of munitions from either HIMARS or M270.

Also

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... ochure.pdf

My own bet is that it is L3 Harris CMDL, which is used:
https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabiliti ... -data-link

Assuming they use L3 Harris CMDL instead of MADL, they still need to use Ku-band to communicate. With the same antenna aperture, Ku band is still more directional compared to L-band of Link 16

Sure it is if it is a directional antenna but it can also be omnidirectional and/or use different band as CMDL can use anything from UHF to Ku-band. Of course Ku-band offers by far the best bandwidth but also shortest range with the same antenna. Even L-band can also have quite high transmission rate these days.

I have to say that latest developments in the tactical communications technology is very interesting and I'm not sure what kind of solutions latest systems really have. It seems like now there are solutions to combine very different technologies and network protocols and transmission mediums together.

[jointsovietfighter]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, it's worth acknowledging that fourth-generation aircraft do have an advantage in terms of their IIR sensors, as off-board pods tend to receive more frequent upgrades compared to internal sensors like the EOTS or DAS. Additionally, off-board pods offer greater flexibility; for instance, the F-15EX can simultaneously carry both the Sniper-XR and Legion pods, providing detection capabilities across SWIR, MWIR, and LWIR bands.

There's nothing that guarantees or proves that external/pod IRSTs like IRST21 have better/longer detection range compared the F-35's EOTS in IRST mode. For example, all F-35's sensors including the EOTS are linked/connected to a sensor fusion engine and processing units which can process information from sensors (such as EOTS/IRST) much more effectively and reliably than a "federated" or standalone sensor like an IRST pod can ever do.

Moreover, the F-35 has extensive IR reduction measures which obviously helps against IRST. The same cannot be said about 4th gen fighter aircraft! And large 4th gen fighter aircraft like the F-15EX should have an even bigger IR signature compared to smaller 4th gen ones, let alone compared to the F-35 (which again has extensive IR reduction measures).

You can shield the jet engine(s) &/or mix in cold air with the exhaust to at least try to cancel each other out, so to speak, but there's nothing that can be done about skin friction, which is made even worse when flying at night when the aircraft really stands out against the cold black sky.

[hornetfinn]

You can shield the jet engine(s) &/or mix in cold air with the exhaust to at least try to cancel each other out, so to speak, but there's nothing that can be done about skin friction, which is made even worse when flying at night when the aircraft really stands out against the cold black sky.

I think you can do something to that with coatings, materials and actively cooling the skin. Basically idea is to avoid any serious hot spots and remove as much of the generated heat as possible from the surface. Also airframe design for lowest drag will help with it, but of course that might be difficult to do. The difference will likely not be huge like in radar stealth, but everything that helps is advantageous.