Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 22 Mar 2015 13:57

tsarkar wrote:.... If the IIR seeker developed for Nag be suitably modified for Astra, then we've achieved self reliance here. ....

Nag uses LWIR seeker. You need NIR and MWIR seekers for air to air. The MWIR seeker currently being developed are for the BMD program.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 22 Mar 2015 16:13

Singha wrote:there is not much point to hide the smoke trails of a MLRS as they would fire from deep behind the line on mostly static targets.
ie. not unless enemy airpower were dominant and hunting closely our artillery units.

Few websites are mentioning new propulsion for pinaka-2, so it could be possible

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 22 Mar 2015 17:05

^^^
1st this smoke less propulsion doesn't come cheap and why is that MBRLs needs rockets with such propulsion ?????

Till date only NAG/HELINA and ASTRA have such propulsion and it is quite understandable why they have such properties, an anti tank missile needs masking as the missile launching platform will be near to the enemy units ,same for a/c too. Maybe later date , we will see strategic missiles like SLBMs too employing similar smokeless propulsion .

Jayram · Post by **Jayram** » 23 Mar 2015 10:19

Not sure if posted earlier..A slide show of Astra Launch including video.. Smokeless is to be seen to be believed.. Have to navigate this thru ads but worth it for dedicated folks..
Astra Slideshow

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Mar 2015 19:45

On reflection, its the smokeless fuel that allows the visualization of the shock pattern which are normally masked in the smoky exhaust.
So it could be due to any number of smokeless fuels.

So in other words the Astra exhaust does not mean it has CL-20.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 23 Mar 2015 20:01

http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/no-f ... 541263.ece
No flight of fancy - T.S. SUBRAMANIAN

IT was a flight that far exceeded the expectations of the missile and aeronautical engineers of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on October 17. It was only the second flight of Nirbhay, India’s subsonic cruise missile, which takes off vertically like a missile, jettisons its booster engine and then starts flying horizontally like an aircraft at a subsonic speed of 0.7 Mach.

However, the smooth flight of Nirbhay on that day for more than an hour, covering a range of 1,010 km, demonstrated not only the DRDO’s ability to blend missile and aeronautical technologies into a single contraption but also filled a vital gap in India’s arsenal. While India’s supersonic cruise missile BrahMos has a range of just 290 km, and can carry only a conventional warhead, Nirbhay is a long-range missile that can attack targets 1,000 km away. Besides, it can carry both nuclear and conventional warheads. In addition, it is a “treetop” missile: it can fly at a height of just five metres, undetected by radars. It is a “loitering missile” as well: it can hover above an area for several minutes, pick out a target and attack it with precision. In several DRDO engineers’ reckoning, Nirbhay is the base on which more powerful subsonic cruise missiles with longer ranges can be developed.
................
Avinash Chander, Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister and Director-General, DRDO, called Nirbhay “a new addition to our weaponry because it can penetrate [areas] where aircraft cannot reach”. Since it can fly at heights varying from five metres to 5 km, “it can go deep into the enemy territory, undetected by radars. It is unstoppable,” said Chander, a missile technologist himself. Nirbhay can attack targets with a precision of one to two metres. In other words, its circular error probability is one to two metres. On October 17, “the missile maintained an accuracy better than 10 metres throughout its path,” said Chander. It performed steep dives too. It was carrying a dummy warhead, “simulating the final warhead”.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 23 Mar 2015 20:24

Is smokeless always a good thing? Won't smoke help by masking the IR signature of a launch?

At least for laser seekers, smoke is an enemy, which is why tanks use them

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Mar 2015 02:56

Smoke is mostly un-burnt fuel. So its a waste.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 24 Mar 2015 04:11

Prem Kumar wrote:Is smokeless always a good thing? Won't smoke help by masking the IR signature of a launch?

At least for laser seekers, smoke is an enemy, which is why tanks use them

Depends saar if you are launching an ICBM and you know that you have early warning LEO sats looking for plumes with long range optics then yes smoke will relatively reduce chances of being picked up. For a medium to long range AAM best to have smokeless as it will provide much lower visual clues for bogie to identify incoming. (obviously discounting the fact that bogie's own RWR and ECM will be squaking away but then this would depend on whether its a LOAL or LOBL shot and targeting FCR LPI modes ityadi entirely different discussion).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2015 05:15

Prem Kumar wrote:Is smokeless always a good thing? Won't smoke help by masking the IR signature of a launch?

At least for laser seekers, smoke is an enemy, which is why tanks use them

As they come out of the exhaust - smoke particles will be glowing white hot and emitting IR like anything else and will not help masking an IR signature. Maybe 20-30 meters behind the missile the particles become cooler and appear as "smoke"

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Mar 2015 08:38

Andy B. I think only long wave IR can be seen by sats in high orbit.

kit · Post by **kit** » 24 Mar 2015 08:42

The US uses imaging ultraviolet sensor in satellites to track all sorts of missiles

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Mar 2015 09:38

Could we not also develop a naval version of Astra? It would be a very useful cost-effective med. range naval SAM which does not take up much space either and can be fitted to our corvettes,frigates.and even missile craft.Most nations develop naval/land variants of anti-air/missile AAMs.This is the staple Wik info. From it one can see that it has excellent naval variant potential.

The maximum range of Astra is 110 km in head-on chase and 20 km in tail chase. The missile could be launched from different altitudes - it can cover 110 km when launched from an altitude of 15 km, 44 km when fired from an altitude of eight km and 21 km when the altitude is sea level. The missile can reportedly undertake 40 g turns close to sea level, when attacking a maneuvering target.[6] It will have an active homing range of 25 km. The missile has a pre-fragmented warhead and is fitted with a proximity fuze.[21] A radar fuse already exists for the Astra, but the DRDO is currently working on a new laser fuse. Astra has on-board ECCM capability allowing it to jam radar signals from an enemy surface-to-air battery, ensuring that the missile is not tracked or shot down. The Mark 2 version of Astra will have a maximum range of 150 km and tail chase range of up to 35 km, and will feature shorter fins than the original Mark 1 design.

PS:The hesitation in finalising the amphib req. until the Japanese further explain in detail the parameters of the deal ,means further delays.Typical.However,the Japanese have never exported major weapon systems and the future of this deal are fraught with future irritations if the contours are not properly defined. The aircraft however as mentioned before does not have any ASW capability,a definite handicap for the IN.The Japanese could develop an ASW/LRMP version given their experience with the earlier US-1 amphib .Buiulding at home even 20 aircraft will be very expensive as the Japanese saw with their 20+ US-1s. There are several other amphib types/models available. It is not necessary that only one large and expensive type is bought for all 3 services. The IA from the report also appears interested,perhaps for use in lakes and rivers . Smaller amphibs could serve the purpose.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2015 16:46

BVRAAM question: Imagine a war in which 12 Indian attack aircraft are sent out in groups of 2 to attack targets at the same time of day. All are within 200 km of each other and the Indian border. After an hour 9 aircraft return and report heavy opposition from enemy interceptors. Three have not returned and their fate is unknown. An Indian AWACS reports seeing 6 aircraft near the border heading low towards India. There is no response to IFF.

Are these 6 aircraft enemy attack aircraft? Or are they one, two or three Indian aircraft being pursued by a variable number of enemy fighters? Should the IAF shoot them all down using BVRAAMs?

This kind of situation occurred every single day of all our hot wars with shitistan. What use would BVRAAMS be under such circumstances?

negi · Post by **negi** » 24 Mar 2015 16:57

^ They will fly low only until they cross the international border , after that they will fly high , most probably via a pre-determined path and establish a radio contact with the AWACs and nearby base .

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Mar 2015 18:30

Shiv,this is the point that many analysts make,that remove BVR from the equation,for whatever reason,the enemy gets into your "armpit space" and it then becomes a dogfight.Why many air forces insist on guns,SRAAMs and dogfighting abilities fundamental requirements and why the JSF is going to find the going tough when it loses loses virtues of stealth.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Mar 2015 19:20

Philip wrote:Shiv,this is the point that many analysts make,that remove BVR from the equation,for whatever reason,the enemy gets into your "armpit space" and it then becomes a dogfight.Why many air forces insist on guns,SRAAMs and dogfighting abilities fundamental requirements and why the JSF is going to find the going tough when it loses loses virtues of stealth.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6203&p=1817167#p1817167

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2015 21:15

negi wrote:^ They will fly low only until they cross the international border , after that they will fly high , most probably via a pre-determined path and establish a radio contact with the AWACs and nearby base .

In most real life instances friendly planes that were hit would fly high to take them as far as possible, not low. Also in many instances they would have lost communication equipment due to battle damage. Many are simply trying to cross the border to eject over friendly territory. Some may have lost their bearings. In many instances a buddy would escort them - but these "lost planes" occur when buddies too lose track of friends and start running short of fuel and need to hurry back.

If 3 out of 6 planes seen are hostile - they might simply shoot down the three flying/damaged planes. But in the absence of IFF, BVR would be useless.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2015 21:17

Philip wrote:Shiv,this is the point that many analysts make,that remove BVR from the equation,for whatever reason,the enemy gets into your "armpit space" and it then becomes a dogfight.Why many air forces insist on guns,SRAAMs and dogfighting abilities fundamental requirements and why the JSF is going to find the going tough when it loses loses virtues of stealth.

True. The complication arises when the expensive BVRAAM has a finite life when it can be carried on a pylon only for a limited number of flights after which it can no longer be used. So BVRAAMs have a limited role under very specific conditions unless superduperpower is fighting Iraq/Libya.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Mar 2015 21:30

that same restriction would apply to other missiles such as WVR AAMs, they are not meant for infinite carries either.

old adage is always true. find the enemy, fix the enemy, attack the enemy. all at as great a distance as possible (so he cant hit back). ergo BVR missiles, long ranged radars etc.

its one more tool in the toolbox. essential to have it. if short range is a greater issue than long, then develop a missile that spans the categories, like the israelis did with derby.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Mar 2015 00:22

shiv wrote:BVRAAM question:...This kind of situation occurred every single day of all our hot wars with shitistan. What use would BVRAAMS be under such circumstances?

This scenario brings forth two real life questions.

1. Real time situational awareness is often not possible.

I remember during the Gulf War, USAF fighters shooting down Army helicopters. More recently, TFTA Buk missile battery could not differentiate between Ukranian military aircraft and Boeing 777 airliner and shot down MH17

Which is why intercepting fighters close-in to either visually confirm or to ensure more sensors like IRST come into play to provide better situational awareness.

Corollary to this is because of the need to close in, WVR fighting capabilities are required. That makes capabilities like ITR, STR & AoA vital & essential.

Kukhris & Bayonets are issued to jawans and Kukhri Ustads teach jawans to use Kukhris for the same reason. For use if the enemy is too close to use TFTA Multi Caliber rifle.

2. Equipment serviceability - Any squadron will have its aircraft at different stages of serviceability. And no aircraft or ship will have 100% of its equipment serviceable.

Even the best equipment fail or degrade gradually.

It does not make economic or logistic sense to replace a LRU that has degraded to 50% of its manufactured specification. It might make sense to replace them when they're 80% degraded.

If we start replacing equipment early at 50% instead of 80% degradation, then we end up doubling the logistic effort or economic cost.

Corollary to this is that the MMR radar might not be performing at manufactured specification but maybe at 70% or 50% of manufactured specification. The HMDS might fail. Which is why airframe aerodynamic capabilities like ITR, STR & AoA become vital & essential.

And as you correctly pointed out, lack of situational awareness has been part of every war - including the recent shootdown of MH-17. Equipment failure too has been part of every war.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Mar 2015 00:35

Well, in Indian context, wouldn't the radar signature be clear enough for the AWACs operators? By now, having trained for so long vs. F16s et al., most of Indian inventory would look very different from TSP or PlAAF fighters (other than perhaps the flanker). In a worst case scenario, there is always the QRA mission to establish visual comm. In case incoming are threats their response and positioning upon seeing our a/c would give them away.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Mar 2015 05:10

Cain Marko wrote:Well, in Indian context, wouldn't the radar signature be clear enough for the AWACs operators? By now, having trained for so long vs. F16s et al., most of Indian inventory would look very different from TSP or PlAAF fighters (other than perhaps the flanker). In a worst case scenario, there is always the QRA mission to establish visual comm. In case incoming are threats their response and positioning upon seeing our a/c would give them away.

At 100 to 150 km, how much difference in radar signature would be there between Mirage 2000 and Mirage III, of JF 17 and MiG 21, or Su 27/JH 15 and Su 30? To what degree of certainty could one identify that a radar signature is a friend or foe? This info is unavailable in public in any detail. In fact great confidence in such a method would make IFF redundant. Why bother with IFF if a distant AWACS knows who is who? Save weight. Carry more fuel. It would be heart rending to shoot down a friend with a BVRAAM and let off the adversary. It would be equally bad to do nothing and watch as a pursuing enemy aircraft proceeds to shoot down a stricken friend

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 25 Mar 2015 05:19

shiv,

It is naive to think in terms of discrete situational awareness. Either you know what is going on with your own assets, or you dont. Hopefully, people dont still call in their intentions or even rely on radio transponders in the subcontinent. This is the sort of "can track up to x targets" and "control/direct y aircraft/interceptions" entails.

Yet, friendly fire accidents do happen. Even in TFTA forces.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 25 Mar 2015 06:14

https://books.google.com/books?id=Mj9b- ... &q&f=false

Gents, read chapter 4 "Avoiding Fraciside Of Air and Sea Targets" from page 49. This complete chapter contains most of the techniques used so far.

Shiv, your answer is kindof on page 51.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Mar 2015 06:49

Sid wrote:https://books.google.com/books?id=Mj9b- ... &q&f=false

Gents, read chapter 4 "Avoiding Fraciside Of Air and Sea Targets" from page 49. This complete chapter contains most of the techniques used so far.

Shiv, your answer is kindof on page 51.

http://www.filedropper.com/pff321998

Am backed up on work but I'll try posting some more recent literature on the subject matter by the weekend.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Mar 2015 07:58

Can an Su 30 fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 15 degrees in level flight
Can an Su 30 fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 30 degrees in level flight
Can an Su 30 fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 45 degrees in level flight

Can an Su 30 fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 15 degrees while climbing at an AoA of 10 degrees
Can an Su 30 fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 30 degrees while climbing at an AoA of 20 degrees
Can an Su 30 fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 45 degrees while climbing at an AoA of 30 degrees

Can an Su 30 fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 15 degrees in while descending at an AoA of -10 degrees
Can an Su 30 fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 30 degrees while descending at an AoA of -20 degrees
Can an Su 30 fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 45 degrees in while descending at an AoA of -30 degrees

Can a Rafale fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 15 degrees in level flight
Can a Rafale fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 30 degrees in level flight
Can a Rafale fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 45 degrees in level flight

Can a Rafale fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 15 degrees while climbing at an AoA of 10 degrees
Can a Rafale fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 30 degrees while climbing at an AoA of 20 degrees
Can a Rafale fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 45 degrees while climbing at an AoA of 30 degrees

Can a Rafale fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 15 degrees in while descending at an AoA of -10 degrees
Can a Rafale fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 30 degrees while descending at an AoA of -20 degrees
Can a Rafale fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 45 degrees in while descending at an AoA of -30 degrees

Can an LCA/Tejas fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 15 degrees in level flight
Can an LCA/Tejas fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 30 degrees in level flight
Can an LCA/Tejas fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 45 degrees in level flight

Can an LCA/Tejas fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 15 degrees while climbing at an AoA of 10 degrees
Can an LCA/Tejas fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 30 degrees while climbing at an AoA of 20 degrees
Can an LCA/Tejas fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 45 degrees while climbing at an AoA of 30 degrees

Can an LCA/Tejas fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 15 degrees in while descending at an AoA of -10 degrees
Can an LCA/Tejas fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 30 degrees while descending at an AoA of -20 degrees
Can an LCA/Tejas fire an AAM flying at 0.8 Mach doing a turn with wing banked at 45 degrees in while descending at an AoA of -30 degrees

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 25 Mar 2015 08:00

brar_w, thanks for the full copy, but just a caution to readers.

It's a huge 225 MB PDF file so download when you have appropriate network and device.

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Mar 2015 08:32

shiv wrote: In most real life instances friendly planes that were hit would fly high to take them as far as possible, not low. Also in many instances they would have lost communication equipment due to battle damage. Many are simply trying to cross the border to eject over friendly territory. Some may have lost their bearings. In many instances a buddy would escort them - but these "lost planes" occur when buddies too lose track of friends and start running short of fuel and need to hurry back.

If 3 out of 6 planes seen are hostile - they might simply shoot down the three flying/damaged planes. But in the absence of IFF, BVR would be useless.

Well that is the key difference between say a Mig-21 and Tejas latter has redundancies built in , the air data system is triplex redundant . Say if IFF system goes kaput along with both INCOM1 and INCOM2 commn modules, Tejas can rely on INS-GPS combo to navigate it's way back and once it is within LOS of a ground station the TACAN will give accurate slant range to the said station.

Coming back to BVR scenario I think this is more about decision making on ground based on situational awareness i.e. the IAF would know that if they have sent in ACs for a deep penetration strike within TSP then unless they return engaging bogeys in BVR mode will have to be done only after establishing their identity , however if there was no deep strike planned then it would make such a call much more easier.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Mar 2015 08:54

negi wrote:Tejas can rely on INS-GPS combo to navigate it's way back and once it is within LOS of a ground station the TACAN will give accurate slant range to the said station.

TACAN gives off emissions that can tell an enemy aircraft where is is coming from and help them navigate accurately. TACAN will not be up and running when the air is thick with enemy fighters waiting to come in.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Mar 2015 10:15

RF will be used to cue the landing aircraft in.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 25 Mar 2015 10:36

Returning a/c with all IFF modes and radio disabled are supposed to fly a certain pattern, enter at a certain speed, through specific lanes. If their navigational aids are also in tatters, they revert to type and use visual aids/markers. It is not unlikely as a scenario, but most of our pilots will be familiar with their sectors and are definitely expected to know the lay of the land. I fail to understand the nitpicking over a specific failure scenario when there are so many other means such as the simplest - disorientation. Precisely why our claws will be advanced and account for these (being the shivering banias that we are, we prefer to plan for all failure scenarios). Considerable time has passed since the last air war. So is it beyond theory/concept that an a/c could deploy a physical beacon with a specific squak either during such catastrophic failures or when in terminal range of one of our own BVR missiles? One would imagine such devices would be helpful as a final resort.

Is there any public domain literature on the losses from friendly strikes on a/c with IFF and comm failures and lessons learned that have been recently adopted by the IAF?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Mar 2015 11:06

^^ I know one incident in 1965 war when an IN Seahawk lost its radio flying from Jamnagar(?) to Mumbai. While flight plans were known, lack of communication made Mumbai defences, including INS Vikrant undergoing refit in dockyard go "guns free". Fortunately the pilot being familiar quickly came in & landed.

Fratricide is psychologically more devastating. Killing a guy who was your coursemate, whose family stays in your housing complex and whose kids go to the same school as your kids will leave a deep impact on everyone in the squadron & base.

So when own aircraft are known to be in the area, pilots go the extra mile to confirm.

VOR/DME, TACAN are all "industry standard", so can cue in enemy fighters as well. Worse, SIGINT aircraft flying standoff can triangulate location to cue missiles.

IFF on fighters also advertises own location to enemy AWACS, so are switched off. The Indian AEW has so many SIGINT sensors precisely for this.

No easy answers to IFF, as MH17 disaster showed.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Mar 2015 13:06

>>IFF on fighters also advertises own location to enemy AWACS, so are switched off. The Indian AEW has so many SIGINT sensors precisely for this.

Not so on modern fighters. These are emcon controlled and only respond to correct IFF transponder code. IFF Tx getting intercepted is not an issue as the radar itself broadcasts stronger. Indian AEW has IFF working in tandem with radar. Special new system with aforementioned and more ECCM features.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Mar 2015 14:13

Assume Wave 2 comprising 4 a/c enroute to Sargodha interrogates using proper encryption Wave 1 of 4 a/c returning from Sargodha that responds using proper encryption. Even with encryption and burst transmission, the emission can be used by enemy SIGINT aircraft or ground station to get a rough bearing.

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Mar 2015 14:39

^ Only if the radiated signal is highly directional one can get a proper info on bearing of the source emanating the signal for example an AC using it's radar in active mode , however it is difficult to infer any bearing info by intercepting a commn link because that signal has been spread over the entire spectrum using frequency hopping and is omnidirectional .

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 25 Mar 2015 16:21

Shiv Gaaru, in your scenario - the three damaged fighters returning with possible 3 enemy fighters tailing.

The returning fighters will most probably not be flying 'in formation' - this could be a give away. Also for the enemy, it will be easier and preferable to 'shoot down' rather than 'track and follow' as the AA systems of the airfield that these aircraft are returning to will probably be able to destroy the intruder.

If they are flying Low and then take a high profile on crossing border. Here HUMINT takes over, where spotters on the ground will probably relay the info to the ground controller in network centric environment

The returning aircraft need not be radio silent and will probably transmit 'all channels'.

Most importantly, will the chase aircraft continue to follow them over the border, in which case, ground SAM's at borders will take over BEFORE BVR defence by aircraft.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Mar 2015 16:55

Here is the story, in Air Marshal (retd) Tipnis, former CAS' words about how Sq Ldr Sikand ended up landing his Gnat in Pasrur in Pakistan in '65 about which Pakis fart one heck of a lot. Sikand is "Black 3" in the story. Fog of war.. (Excerpt from 50 yrs of MiG 21 by AM Rajkumar et al

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Mar 2015 17:43

Guys this is the missile thread. The points being discussed can be better explored in the Indian military aviation thread.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Mar 2015 23:57

negi wrote:^ Only if the radiated signal is highly directional one can get a proper info on bearing of the source emanating the signal for example an AC using it's radar in active mode , however it is difficult to infer any bearing info by intercepting a commn link because that signal has been spread over the entire spectrum using frequency hopping and is omnidirectional .

Check here https://dreampak.files.wordpress.com/20 ... 000ig9.jpg

The #1 on the drawing describes the location of the ESM fit. It is possible to get a broad bearing of the direction simply based on the direction from where the sensor picks up the signal. And DRFM can capture hopping patterns that can be mapped against existing library.

Most U Boats in WW2 were sunk by corvettes equipped with direction finders. While Ultra from Enigma gave generic locations, U Boats Wolf Packs coordinating attacks via radio were detected by direction finder equipped corvettes who then hunted the pack down.

INAS 310 Cobras flies SIGINT equipped planes, and has shown extremely effective outcomes. They established Information Warfare in India, and IAF has extensively requested and used their services.

"Fingerprinting" is a well established SIGINT practice. The Pakistani Atlantique that was shot down was "fingerprinting" our border installations.