Peter G“Not until 0735Z on 1 May were Belgrano’s likely movements reported, including its entry into the TEZ. By this time the SSN Conqueror was looking for the cruiser. On the morning of 29 April, it had been told of the likely assembly of the Belgrano group; by the afternoon of 30 April it had detected by sonar the oiler, Puerto Rosales. That afternoon it received orders from Northwood to intercept and attack the Belgrano group, but only within the TEZ. The next morning, 1 May, it received the intelligence summary that anticipated a deliberate incursion into the TEZ on 2 May between 0630Z and 0930Z. At 1400Z on 1 May Conqueror sighted the Belgrano group, and began to shadow.”
The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, Volume II, War and Diplomacy. Sir Lawrence Freedman
Page 273-274
The comment on the quieter tanker being looked at comes from my time in the RAN, for the reason It makes no sense in having quiet escorts (Perry FFG, Anzac FF) in company with a noisy auxiliary doing ASW.
Peter GCentreline tank doesn’t reduce the agility that much, especially if the fuel as already been used.
They plan on 150 tank/pods.
Peter GPre-HMAS Sirius they looked at a dedicated military type. One of the reasons was reduced acoustic signature.
Using converted civil types is cheaper, but opposing force submarines detect the noiser auxiliaries and hang around till someone shows up for a drink – this is what happened with General Belgrano.
Peter Ghttp://www.defense.gouv.fr/layout/set/popup/content/view/full/167737
Can someone confirm the image above shows the Mirage 2000-5F? This is the late 2007 upgrade (SF1-IR) which, as the photo shows, Mica IR replacing the Magic 2.
Can anyone confirm the Mirage 2000D will also soon be fitted with Mica IR?
Peter GNo, the Rafale M F1 have been stored pending a decision on upgrading to F3 standard.
Peter GPeter dont blur the boundaries between emitter classification, something that has been around for a very long time, and platform classification. If I detect an E-band emission, in the middle of the IO, that the system tells me is a Fregat-series set I can extrapolate what from that?. Do I hold an IN Talwar, a Chinese Sovremenny, a Russian Neustrashimy or even the Kuznetsov?.
Jonesy, you are incorrect.
As you say ESM gives the radar radar type, Fregat-series or Top Plate, Top Steer, Half Pate, etc,
HULTEC/SEI is matching the unique characteristics of an individual radar set to a known hull. Initially military radars were virtually hand made and all differed. Later computers could analyse even mass produced commercial navigation sets.
‘Each radar transmitter is slightly different, and it imposes some UMOP (unintentional modulation on each pulse), , a characteristic that may not change much with frequency. At the least, emitters may be sorted on a UMOP basis. At best, if electronic reconnaissance has fingerprinted an enemy’s radar, they can be individually recognized. Such fingerprinting is called SEI (specific emitter identification); it was a major feature of US Cold War efforts to track specific Soviet naval units. One great pos-Cold War question was whether mass-produced commercial radars could be fingerprinted; in the late 1990s, the US Naval Research Laboratory proved that they could be. Fingerprinting makes it possible for a ship seen in one place to be re-identified by another platform somewhere else. For example, a Coast Guard cutter observing a drug-running ship off the South American coast need not to leave her station to pursue the ship north, knowing that by transmitting SEI parameters, she can ensure that another cutter hundreds of miles away can recognize the ships, despite attempts to camouflage her. This practice explains why the Coast Guard installs sophisticated ESM systems on its cutters.’
Source: The Naval Institute Guide to Naval Weapons Systems 5th edition, pg xxi.
In the 1970s the USN would fly EP-3 missions, gather the radar fingerprinting data and then overfly the ship. They would match the unique radar characteristics to the actual ship. They built up a HULTEC (Hull to Emitter) library. In the example above the ‘Fregat-series’ radar would be matched, not only to the class, but to the individual ship.
This is different to the standard ESM determining there is a ‘Fregat-series’ radar active.
So yes the above detection would result in knowing the individual ship name based on the HULTEC database.
In recent times the technology has been extended to civil radars and is known as SEI. Its unlikely ESM sets exported have the full SEI library – for this reason Australia purchased the ALR-2001 (‘includes radar fingerprinting’) – ISTR the US had not cleared the planned SEI set for export. Australia purchased the Israeli system which also had the ability to build up a national HULTEC library.
Technology has and is moving on. The USN White Cloud satellite system included HULTEC technology:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/surveill/noss_andronov.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/noss.htm
And its also fitted to ship ESM sets and aircraft (Hawkeye 2000, P-3C, etc) in recent times. Its been exported and in use with UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Israel, etc etc. I’m not sure whether the PRC and Russia uses the same technology, but its fairly likely (the above information has been declassified since the mid-1990s).
Two other vital reads on HULTEC, and OTH targeting systems, etc (history of US and Soviet systems) are both by Norman Friedman:
“Seapower & Space”
“Network-centric Warfare”
Both are excellent and answer many of the questions in this thread.
Peter G…but how many long range recon aircraft?. How many A-50’s are there and how many could be spared to go orbiting 300km offshore trying to find carrier groups?. Carrier groups that will detect the A-50 on ESM long before counter-detect on any USN air unit!.
The radar satellites you are talking about are passive ones that have the same limitations as all such systems. You need several for triangulation, you only ID the set-type and not the platform carrying it and you are dependent on the signal being recognisable in the first place. I think there is also some issue on just how ‘shortly’ shortly is at the moment?!.
This all boils down to the same thing. Can the carrier battlegroup RELIABLY be detected, tracked and identified at such a range as to prevent concentrated long-range land-attack fire, from the group, attriting those systems intended to counter battlegroup theatre-entry?.
Recent ESM sets (both warships and aircraft – New Zealand has these fitted to her Orion aircraft) are fitted with SEI (Specific Emitter Identification) – not only has this demonstrated to capability to ID military radars, they can also ID mass produced civil navigation radars.
The US also has these systems fitted to satellites designed to track ships.
And yes they had worked out to add this to the tactical picture. Look up JOTS for an example of a working global near real time targetting system. Being in Sydney harbor and looking an Iranian and New Zealand warship location in the Persian Gulf….
Peter GAustralia? Let us consider how many strike aircraft Australia has, where they are stationed, how many could be assembled & launched from a base or bases within range of a single CVBG, & how many tankers there are operational to support them.
Not a hope, mate. They’ll be able to get closer when all the A330s are in service, but I still don’t see it as possible.
Fair call on tankers (which would also be a problem for the CVBG) and forgetting numbers and aircraft ranges for the moment – which bases do YOU think Australia could use to defend the air sea gap?
Peter GJG 31 is dual tasked to include naval operations from June 2005. Although they lack dedicated anti-shipping missiles.
Back in the day, the Soviets would move Backfire regiments around from base to base as required.
Peter GDuring the Cold War the Soviet Air Force Backfires did train for maritime missions as well.
There is no reason to think the Russians would be any different….
Peter GAustralia, Sweden, German Air Force (not Navy anymore!).
Peter GI thought CAMM is currently planned as TARH only?
Peter GCheck out the Youtube video for AIM-9X scenarios:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA&feature=related
Anyone have decent IRIS-T and/or ASRAAM videos?
Its turning very fast, almost directly off the rail. Its much easier to put the agility on the missile than the aircraft – although obviously aircraft agility is still important.
The US requirement was for something like 10000 AIM-9X, hence the need to reduce costs with AIM-9M component re-use. It has sold to at least South Korea, Switzerland and others.
For comparison the UK has ordered something like 1300 ASRAAM, Germany 1250 IRIS-T (reduced from 1812) – Germany also reduced Meteor from 1480 to 880.
Peter GThis goes directly against MBDA own brochures:
Cooling system
Accepts argon, nitrogen or air supplies
Every single source I’ve seen state the the ASRAAM (and IRIS-T) seeker uses a classic Joule-Thomson cooler.
You are correct: “The coolant supply system for the IR head is installed in the launcher, and the seeker can be cooled using argon, nitrogen or air. “
Peter GAnyone have the Meteor warhead weight? There were ~20 kg nuclear warheads, although there is no reason to add nuclear warheads to AAM in modern times.
Pretty much the best source for info on the WE177:
http://www.nuclear-weapons.info/vw.htm#WE.177
If the RAF wanted nuclear free fall bombs back quickly, quickest national way to be take the physics package from some Trident warheads and engineer these into bombs. Again why bother?
Sign In
