Dude, I think you may need to substantiate your claim further. A radar contact is a radar contact. There are established procedures for getting locked by friendly aircraft, aka "Buddy Spike" and you are telling me that Western Aircraft cannot lock on Western aircraft?Originally posted by ferryman2393:i've offered my explanation before in other threads.
from what i gathered its the inability of the a/craft to register Western made a/craft as bogeys. there was an explanation from the RAAF abt this peculiarity with their hornets but they managed to sidetracked it due to their in-house capability which i reckon does not pleased uncle sam.
all this arises from the tomcats uncle sam sold to iran during the shah's reign where it was used to wallop saddam hussein's airforce during khomeini's reign. they learnt their lessons thereon. or so it seemed. apparently, they don't want future weapons they sold to be used against them. the drawback to potential buyer was that it couldn't be used not only against uncle sam. but against uncle sam allies as well. or uncle sam does not wish his allies to grab each others' throats.
the turkish f16s were up against ground targets for which they should not have any problem. but try pitting them up against the greeks' western a/craft. see how it'd go.
makes sense or not?
can.....surely IAF have thought RSAF to lift that restriction...if any.Originally posted by fvwerra:The question is can RSAF shoot down any US made planes if what Mr Ferryman said is correct.
Wow, what is this? Black magic? But you have to figure out, how an F15J was shot down accidently by a sidewinder from another fighter, a same type F15J!Originally posted by ferryman2393:i've offered my explanation before in other threads.
from what i gathered its the inability of the a/craft to register Western made a/craft as bogeys. there was an explanation from the RAAF abt this peculiarity with their hornets but they managed to sidetracked it due to their in-house capability which i reckon does not pleased uncle sam.
all this arises from the tomcats uncle sam sold to iran during the shah's reign where it was used to wallop saddam hussein's airforce during khomeini's reign. they learnt their lessons thereon. or so it seemed. apparently, they don't want future weapons they sold to be used against them. the drawback to potential buyer was that it couldn't be used not only against uncle sam. but against uncle sam allies as well. or uncle sam does not wish his allies to grab each others' throats.
the turkish f16s were up against ground targets for which they should not have any problem. but try pitting them up against the greeks' western a/craft. see how it'd go.
makes sense or not?
COOLANT, i'm challenging the notion that western aircraft cannot lock on to western aircraft. It has NOTHING to do with IFF. What is suggested is that even if the IFF indicates a hostile contact, a radar such as the APG-68 is unable to enter STT mode to provide firing solutions for missiles BECAUSE the target in question is a western aircraft.Originally posted by coolant:SHOTGUN, the radar usually accompanied with IFF probe, fighters are primarily based on IFF signals to know the targets are friendly or not. The pilot wonÂ’t care the target is western made stuff or not, as long as the opposite doesnÂ’t answer his IFF signal correctly, he will be in high alert. Besides radar, there are many other sensors carried by fighters, a good ESM sensor suit can tell the remote targetÂ’s radar in emitting is what type, at what mode, the sensor fusion will combine all inputs from different sensor units, to be passive or active, and present to the pilot for fire control.
Australia 'cracked top-secret US jet fighter codes'By Don Woolfordhttp://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22451478-2,00.html
September 20, 2007 04:23pm
KIM Beazley has told how Australia cracked top-secret American combat aircraft codes while he was defence minister in the 1980s.
"We spied on them and we extracted the codes," Mr Beazley told Parliament during his valedictory speech today.
Mr Beazley, who was defence minister from 1984 to 1990, said that when he took over the job he soon learned that the radar on Australia's Hornets could not identify most potentially hostile aircraft in the region.
In other words, Australia's frontline fighter could not shoot down enemies in the region.
Mr Beazley said he was greatly tempted to "belt" the Liberals with this and lay to rest their claim to be best at managing defence.
"I shut up, I said nothing," Mr Beazley said.
"I went to the US and for five years, up hill and down dale, with one knock-down, drag-out after another, with Cap Weinberger, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, I tried to get the codes of that blasted radar out of them.
"In the end we spied on them and we extracted the codes ourselves and we got another radar that could identify (enemy planes).
Mr Beazley said the Americans were Australia's most important ally.
"But they are a bunch of people you have to have a fight with every now and then to get what you actually need out of them," he said.
Mr Beazley said that the story of getting the Hornet codes was well known within Defence, but not beyond it.
He said the problem was that the old codes related to Warsaw Pact aircraft, rather than ones in Australia's region.
The Americans kept saying they'd provide the codes, but never did.
"So we tried to crack the codes so we could enhance them," Mr Beazley said.
"And we made a lot of progress."
Mr Beazley said the Americans knew what the Australians were doing and were intrigued by the progress they made.
If the characteristics of the Malaysian Hornet radar is included in the 'threat library' of radar warning receivers fitted on the Singaporean fighters, yes the RSAF fighters will be able to identify the Malaysian fighters as bogeys.Originally posted by ferryman2393:first off, i never claimed the radar could not detect western aircraft as bogeys. try to chew first before swallowing anything. LOL.....
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22451478-2,00.html
so i asked again, makes sense or not?
second question, could the RSAF F16s (and soon to be PR F15SG) be able to register RMAF's F/18s as bogeys?
So far, the U.S. has protected its most sensitive technology with so-called "black boxes," physical or electronic barriers to reverse engineering. But U.S. allies are now demanding that this practice be stopped. For example, Israel and Turkey want U.S. companies to transfer software the fire-control radar source codes in order to win major attack helicopter contracts. Germany has also threatened to pull out of joint development of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) because of the black boxes around U.S. technology."source codes for fighter aircraft radars allow the user to change the pre-set friend or foe designator". what does this mean? how would they know which one will be friend today and foe tomorrow?
So far, the Pentagon has resisted succumbing to this blackmail, but signs point to a reversal in policy. Recent reports state that Germany will gain access to the MEADS "black box" technology , and Israel is confident that it will be granted the source codes it requested. Once the precedent is set, it will be difficult to resist demands from other allies. Technology transfer at this level will not only enable states to incorporate U.S. technology into their exported arms, but also to adapt their own equipment in a way which may threaten U.S. interests. For example, source codes for fighter aircraft radars allow the user to change the pre-set friend or foe designator.
Second, the aircraft was suitable for coastal defence of the southern shores. Third, the Swedish supplier agreed to a technology transfer by releasing the source code data of the aircraft and weaponry that would enable the Air Force to further develop its aviation capability.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/10/17/politics/politics_30052838.php
Thailand has traditionally purchase fighters from the United States and suggested the armed forces might be better off with buying more F-16."not wise to deploy aircraft similar to your neighbours". meaning its inability to register a/craft from the same host nation as bogeys? in this case SU30.
Chalit said the time consuming process was the main reason why he ruled out the F-16s and that Gripen fighters were designed to counter Russian jets deployed in the region.
"Aircraft purchase is very complicated, sometimes a supplier cannot sell or refuse the weaponry needed, even if you have the money, and it is not wise to deploy aircraft similar to your neighbours," he said.
Negotiations for F-16s would take at least four years, making it impossible for deployment in time for decommissioned F-5 fighters, he added.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.militaryCheers,
From: Shade
Date: 2000/01/26
Subject: Re: Su-27 question
Besides taking out four Eritrean MiG-29s (plus one written off due to damage recieved from a AAM) Ethiopian Su-27s also carried out many strike missions against the Eritrean ground forces. While MiG-23s carried most of the bombing missions i think the Su-27 was used in a more penetrative role using Air-to-ground missiles etc.
On one website (i'll try find te address) there was footage of a MiG-29 falling from the sky after it had been hit by a R-73 missile. The amateur footage was taken from the ground by a reporter traveling with the Ethiopian soldiers.
There's also footage of an Su-27 attacking some tanks. The camera work is jittery and is taken from a considerable distance (usually a mountain over-looking the area)
Interesting to note that all MiG-29s were shot down in close-quarters turning dogfights. All kills were by means of the R-73. R-27s fired by both MiGs and Su-s on various occassions failed to find their mark.
One uneventful incident occured when two Su-27s were intercepted over Eritrean airspace by four MiGs. The lead Su-27 was targeted by the MiGs which fired three R-27s head-on. The Lead evaded the missiles and then proceeded to engage all four MiGs by firing four R-27s in quick succession. The missiles missed and the MiGs left in a hurry.
Yes correct. The IFF interrogates and awaits for a return code signal. If the other aircraft doesn't give a valid response code, then the target is a bogey.Originally posted by coolant:As I said in my last post, you use IFF to interrogate those bogeys, if it doesnÂ’t answer correctly, then itÂ’s up to the pilot or CGI for proper action, how many times NATOÂ’s blue on blue fires are caused by the IFF failure already?
Tornado crew shot down after friend-or-foe system failed
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article424174.ece
WITH 60 seconds to decide whether the dot approaching at a rapid speed from 23,000ft was a friendly bomber returning from a mission over Baghdad or an incoming Iraqi missile, an American Patriot anti-aircraft battery opened fire.
The split-second decision led to one of the tragedies of the Iraq war last year: the dot was an RAF Tornado GR4, flown by Flight Lieutenants Kevin Main and David Williams who died instantly as their aircraft disintegrated in a ball of fire.
On the publication yesterday of the RAF’s board of inquiry into the incident, a senior British defence source said the lives of the two men had been “cut short by a terrible accident”, caused by “human intervention and technical failure”.
After more than a year of investigation by the RAF and the US Army, it was revealed that several factors led to the disastrous “friendly-fire” incident on March 23 which was only the third day of coalition airstrikes on Iraq.
The American Patriot crew which had “misidentified” the approaching Tornado as an anti-radiation missile, was inexperienced, and had no direct communications with its battalion headquarters to seek advice about friendly aircraft in the area.
British defence sources said the American crew had not been trained specifically about the likely threat from Iraqi aircraft or missiles.
In fact, although the Iraqis launched a number of ballistic missiles at Kuwait, IraqÂ’s air force never became engaged and there were no anti-radiation weapons fired at coalition ground systems throughout the war.
However, the fundamental flaw which played a key part in the destruction of the Tornado was that its “identification friend-or-foe” (IFF) system which was supposed to send coded signals to anti-aircraft batteries had failed.
Steps have now been taken to install a new IFF system to all Tornados.
In outlining the findings of the RAF board of inquiry, the senior defence official said that Flight Lieutenant Main, the pilot, and Flight Lieutenant Williams, the navigator, never knew that their IFF system had stopped working.
There should have been a warning light in the cockpit, but a power failure had scuppered what was supposed to be a crucial fail-safe system.
Believing that it was safe to start a descent from 23,000ft to return to the Kuwaiti air base at Ali al-Salem, the Tornado pilot reduced altitude rapidly.
The aircraft was about 16 miles from the Patriot missile location on the Kuwaiti/Iraqi border — one minute’s flying time — when it received a direct hit. There was no time for either crew member to eject to safety. The defence official said that the Patriot missile crew followed a strict computerised procedure under which the signature of the approaching “target” was assessed to judge whether it was a coalition aircraft or a hostile missile.
But with no working IFF on board the Tornado, the Patriot computer deduced that it was an anti-radiation missile, and the target was attacked.
The board of inquiry said the criteria programmed into the Patriot computer were based on the many anti-radiation missiles available worldwide “and were, therefore, very broad”.
The board considered that the criteria should have been “much tauter, based on the known threat from Iraq”.
It also concluded that the US rules of engagement covering hostile anti-radiation missiles were “not robust enough to prevent a friendly aircraft being classified as an anti-radiation missile”.
In other words, Australia's frontline fighter could not shoot down enemies in the region.
"In the end we spied on them and we extracted the codes ourselves and we got another radar that could identify (enemy planes).
1: Yeap, if your IFF is bust, its hard for others to tell whether you are friendly or not. So, if there is anyway of transmitting your identity, eg turning on ur radar and hoping friendlies ESM identify you, or trying to contact AWACs if you still can communicate. Usually, battle damage would not allow one to do any of these.Originally posted by ferryman2393:if so, why was this statement came out?
The article which those statements were taken from seemed to have a political agenda. Perhaps, not a good evaluation of the actual situation.if so, we can take dear dr M's revelations abt RMAF's F18s shortfalls as mere musings of a senile ol man.
Well, its also hard to deny that Mr Beazely has criticized the Labor Party's defense purchases before. IMO, its more politics than meets the eye. As for M'sia's F-18s, again, no technical details were made known. What exactly prevented them from "dropping" bombs. From what I understand, the computer needs to know what bomb its carrying in order to load the right algorithms for bomb impact calculations to occur. So, if the M'sians didn't buy the bombs they wanted to load in their original purchase, then there is a chance, that those weapon's data weren't loaded. Of course, thats just me guessing.Originally posted by ferryman2393:if so, we can take dear dr M's revelations abt RMAF's F18s shortfalls as mere musings of a senile ol man.
could we also take it that statements from the jokers in office to have political agenda?
or we can take these as healthy revelations befitting an open society rarely enjoyed by a dictatorial or a 'yes man' regime.