Register here

Author Topic: Soviet/Russian ECM technology  (Read 31771 times)

Offline Pit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Soviet/Russian ECM technology
« on: September 03, 2006, 02:00:14 pm »
Ok, let's continue dicussion here.

Offline Dilbert

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Soviet/Russian ECM technology
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2006, 08:33:29 pm »
I'm interested in the performance of SPS-141 Gvozdika jammers against HAWK SAM sites.

How did they work?  Does the HAWK not have monopulse guidance, allowing it to home on a source of jamming?  Perhaps AHMAD RUSHDI can comment about their use against Iranian HAWK sites.  Was the ECM used only to confuse the search and tracking ground radars about when the target was in range, and whether or not to shoot?  I don't expect that it would actually prevent a launched HAWK missile from hitting its target...  This type of ECM didn't work very well to protect Israelis against the (also monopulse) SA-6, for example.

Offline Pit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Re: Soviet/Russian ECM technology
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2006, 08:49:03 pm »
If Ahmad Rushdi don't minds, he posted this at Acig.org forum

Will let the rest for him

Quote
No Iraqi aircraft carrying the SPS-141MVG pod was ever shot down by the Iranians, whether Ground defence system (HAWK Missiles) or Radar guided air to air (Sparrow and Phoenix Missiles) during the entire Iraq ĖIran war.
This ECM pod works on both air and ground threats and it was externally mounted in pods in the SU-22 aircrafts. It was internally mounted in the Mig-23BN and Mig-25RBS. It was designed to affect the missiles homing head automatically once the enemy radar had locked and launched a missile against the aircraft carrying it. No special training was required for the pilots carrying the pod since it was a defensive one. The pilot has only to select the most probable threats in priority. This type of jammer was received by the Iraqis in 1984 from the Soviet Union along with the SU-22M3 aircraft batch. It was used successfully by the SU-22 belonging to the 69 squadron during the first highly successful raid on the Iranian Island of Kharg on the 15th of August 1985, when 6 aircrafts flew over the fortified island and attacked the oil terminals and got out unscathed. The I-Hawk battery in the island did nothing to the Iraqi aircraft neither did the F-4s and F-14s patrolling its skies.
The Iraqis received their first jamming pod of the SPS-141 type early in 1981.It was designed to counter HAWK MIM-23A, since this system dealt with head on targets only the SPS-141 had a frontal antenna only. That type was less capable than the SPS-141 MVG type, and was a little bit problematic in actual deployment. The SPS-141 MVG came with the SU-22 as a complete package and there was no begging by the Iraqis, but rather a forceful demand for such equipment. That system was designed to jam the MIM23B as well as F-14, F-15, F-16 radars in the lock-on mode. The pod will affect the homing heads of the AIM-7M, F Skyflash as well as the Phoenix missiles.
The Iranian HAWK operators had no way of countering the work of the pod since they were not aware of its operation. The ECM pod affects the missile homing head after it's launched. The ground operator could do nothing about that. The Iraqis used the pod successfully from 1984 to1988. This is compared with the useless and tragic way of the Iranian use of the AN/ALQ-109 and the AN/ALQ-119 American ECM pods which the Iraqis obtained in large quantities from the Iranians when they shot their aircrafts down since September 23 1988. There was a full warehouse full of these American pods in the Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in Baghdad. Many of these pods were in good condition, some were undamaged. This shows the bad attitude of the Iranians towards the philosophy of Electronic Warfare.
Again the KH-28, AS-9 was supplied in 1982and was used operationally in late 1982 against the Iranian Hawks with a devastating effect. The missile was usually launched from a range of 70km when the launching aircraft usually a SU-22 M2 was flying at an altitude of 7km and a speed of 750km/hr. To launch the missile to a range of 100km the aircraft has to fly at an altitude of 10km. This would make the aircraft handling a little bit sluggish, something not very popular with the pilots.
The KH- 28 homing head had a very good coverage in both in azimuth certainly much better that the American HARM/HTS pod which used the same philosophy of missile/pod arrangement. The Kh-28 had a high sensitivity receiver and it could detect the HAWK illuminator sidelobes at a range exceeding 200km. However the METEL pod which has the missile firing envelope programmed in it would prevent the pilot from launching of the missile, unless the aircraft is within the firing envelope of the anti radar missile itself.
The Iraqis implemented the soviet ECM doctrine with great success. Iran was left with 3-5 HAWK batteries out of 36 originally purchased by the Shah and despite the US/Israeli support both in missiles and ground equipments well as tactics during the Iran-contra affair. The Iraqis didnít have to employ the mass soviet tactics since they were not confronting NATO forces. The soviet doctrine calls to the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the NATO HAWK batteries to open a gap in their coverage.
The Iranians started to use the mobility tactic upon the advice of the Israelis in 1986. However the Iraqis implemented a combined tactic of SEAD and conventional bombing to destroy the Iranian batteries.
I donít know where the figure of 77 aircraft the Iraqi admitted to lose between February and March 1987 came from. This was part of the Iranian propaganda and was never said by the Iraqis. The contrary was correct. During one incident in February1987 a formation composed of four Iraqi SU-22s equipped with SPS-141 MVG were fired upon by 9 HAWK missiles from three different batteries in the south of Basra sector of the front. All 9 missiles missed their targets although the Iraqi aircrafts were flying at an altitude of 1000 meters only. The Iraqi aircraft which were carrying 6 FAB-500 bombs each bombed their target which was the Iranian infantry in that area and returned safely to base.
The KH-25MP is something entirely different from the KH-28. The principal of those missiles are entirely different. The KH-28 is an offensive weapon, while the Kh-25 is a totally defensive weapon aimed to protect the carrier aircraft.
The SPS-141 MVG was supplied by the Soviet Union and the East Germans had nothing to do with it, nor were East German experts ever utilised by the IrAF in the EW arena.
The SU-22 aircraft that tried to land near an airstrip near Dezful AB (the Iranians call it Vahdati AB) was not running out of fuel but its pilot was having some bad orientation and he figured that he was landing inside Iraq. The Iranian AAA near the strip shot him down and no aircraft or missile or pod was ever captured. The pilot ejected and returned to Iraq in 1990.
The Iraqi SEAD accompanied every attack on Iran in a continuous basis from 1984 and until August 1988. Every strike package was accompanied by SEAD elements according to the perceived Iranian threat and this led to minimise Iraqi losses to an unprecedented level. The Iraqi packages sometimes exceeded 80 fighter bombers simultaneously.
The Iranians had the MIM-23B advanced HAWK missile system, both the radar illuminator and the missiles since the seventies and so it was not new to them in 1987.
Till the end of the war Iranian AD operators never knew what hit them, whether it was KH-28or conventional bombs. They had some very good support from the Israelis and the Americans due to lack of their experience which resulted in loosing such a large amount of HAWK batteries and a very high rate of expended missiles.
The Caimen Standoff jammer was a standoff jammer against early warning radars and not the HAWK missile system. The Mirage F-1s that were carrying it flew over the Iraqi territory and never flew over Iranian territory. No Mirage F-1 carrying Caimen was ever shot down by Iranian Hawks.
In describing the events at Dezful AB, our friend Tom resorts to the usage of the highly exaggerated and extremely inflated Iranian stories about the war which has to betaken with extreme caution by any serious person. They look like dream fantasies more than real world facts.
Iraq never received or operated the Mig-25BM or Mig-25 RBT SEAD aircrafts nor did this aircraft set its foot on Iraqi soil or roamed its skies. Iraq acquired the Kh-58 only with the arrival of the SU-24 after the war. It contracted the Kh-31 but never received it. The Iraqi EW equipment and experience was more than enough in countering the deteriorating the Iranian AD as a whole.
Tom's stories about the Iranian air defence in the battle of Faw in 1986 were very far from reality, they are based upon Iranian claim stories none of which happened in actual combat. The Iranians never managed to shoot down 12 or 9 aircrafts per day. The maximum they achieved was shooting two aircrafts during one of the days. The two aircrafts were not from the same formation or package. During the battle that lasted from February9th 1986 to early April 1986 the Iranian Hawk batteries claimed more than 71 aircraft shot don by them alone. The truth was that the IrAF performed thousands of CAS and interdiction sorties with the total loss of 23 fighters only, and that was due to all type of Iranian AD.
No Iraqi TU-22 was ever sent to Kharg Island, how did the Iranians perceived the Iraqis had done so, I donít know? Maybe the Iranians were so extensively battered and shocked that they never envisaged what hit them.
Iraq never received or operated the Mig-25BM or Mig-25 RBT SEAD aircrafts nor did this aircraft set its foot on Iraqi soil or roamed its skies. Iraq acquired the Kh-58 only with the arrival of the SU-24 after the war. It contracted the Kh-31 but never received it. The Iraqi EW equipment and experience was more than enough in countering the deteriorating the Iranian AD as a whole.

Offline crossiathh

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 52
SPS-141MVG
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2006, 12:05:45 am »
At http://www.manfred-bischoff.de/SU22.htm#St%F6r-/T%E4uschbeh%E4lter%20SPS-14 you will find a short description in german of the SPS-141MVG (Export) used with the german SU-22.
From the text:

Four modes are avaiable.
Mode 1: "Individual Protection"
Self-protection for the carrier of the pod.
Mode 2: "Group Protection"
Protection for a group of aircraft (two or more) with one pod.
Mode 3: "Doppler Noise Mode"
Having two carriers with one SPS-141 each working together.
Mode 4: "Low Level Flight Mode"
Flying below 300m using "terrain-bouncing". Proved problematic over large woodlands.

Offline Vadifon

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 29
Re: Soviet/Russian ECM technology
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2006, 05:16:14 am »
russian

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4078
Re: Soviet/Russian ECM technology
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2007, 06:39:11 am »
I look for Information about ECM Technology on 1960s Soviet Bombers

like
The Yolka ECM system that was install on board of Tu-16
(featured a row of three steerable antennas under the bomb bay and a bulk chaff-cutter/dispenser)

but who was ECM system on Tu-95 and Rest in 1960s ?

and how good was those system against Nike-Hercules SAM ???

many thanks for answer
I love Strange Technology

Offline PG_69

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 15
Pallard jammer?
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2008, 05:52:40 pm »
Some sources say the Su-27 was fitted with an internal jammer named Pallard. This could only be used in aft arc if the radar was in use.

Is this correct? If so where are the antennas for the jammer?

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10824
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Soviet/Russian ECM technology
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2008, 12:00:44 am »
Its actually "Pallad" not "Pallard". I've never see any hard evidence to support this. If true, it might apply to the earliest Su-27s built before Sorbstiya provision was added.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Pavel Novak

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 1
Re: Soviet/Russian ECM technology
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2010, 06:34:00 am »
I'm interested in the performance of SPS-141 Gvozdika jammers against HAWK SAM sites.

How did they work?  Does the HAWK not have monopulse guidance, allowing it to home on a source of jamming?  Perhaps AHMAD RUSHDI can comment about their use against Iranian HAWK sites.  Was the ECM used only to confuse the search and tracking ground radars about when the target was in range, and whether or not to shoot?  I don't expect that it would actually prevent a launched HAWK missile from hitting its target...  This type of ECM didn't work very well to protect Israelis against the (also monopulse) SA-6, for example.

OK
I am reacting to this somewhat late but SA-6 don't use monopulse method in its engagement radar but continuous wave method which is something completely different. As for HAWK the spread sentence about its guidance is "The guidance system uses an X-band CW monopulse semi-active radar seeker" which is however total nonsense as it is either monopulse or continuous wave (CW). Unfortunatelly I don't know what method uses HAWK in its engagement radar.

monopulse - transmiting pulses and computing time of return to get info about target
continuous wave - no pulses just continous wave  ;) and gaining info about moving target thanks doppler effect

Btw. the soviet SAM system which use monopulse method in its engagement radar is SA-4 (2K11 Krug).

Regards
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 06:40:12 am by Pavel Novak »

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Soviet/Russian ECM technology
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2011, 01:10:57 pm »
Original HAWK illuminator was MPQ-57 (continuous wave, J-band).

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Soviet/Russian ECM technology
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2011, 06:08:21 pm »
Some continuous wave systems actually still do pulsate, just not nearly as rapidly as pulse doppler radar. This is done to reduce the duty cycle on the radar transmitter so it can output a higher wattage signal without melting.

Offline Ardavan.K

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 148
Re: Soviet/Russian ECM technology
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2013, 05:17:41 pm »
 It would be wrong to dismiss everything he say as he really has knowledge about this or that, but looking at his posts as a whole - bias and holes in his stories are clearly visible. For those with nerves to read and think I will expose some of mistakes. He claims that first SPS-141 pods arrived in Iraq in 1981, but he also claims that MiG23-BN carried them internally. Those two claims beat each other as Iraq had BNs from the very beginning of the war and that would mean that they had SPSs all the time. The mistake lies in fact that lot of BNs were produced without SPS jammer and only crude (SPO-10) RWR - this is why many Iranian pilots wondered why Iraqi aircraft do nothing after they have launched missiles against them. Another thing clearly faulty in logic is claim that Iran was left with 3-5 HAWK sites from 36 purchased, only to claim further that in 1987 Su-22s were engaged somewhere "South of Basrah" by 9 missiles fired from three sites. It appears that Iran has stationed all surviving HAWKs "South of Basrah" and in such density that they can all engage one formation. This is of course incredibly stupid thing to say. The idea that KH-58 was used "to devastating effect" is also problematic because you have no idea what has your KH-58 done or not done. If they have calculated every time HAWK radar goes off as a hit it is easy to understand where did he got the idea about only 3-5 HAWKs remaining in Iran. Another catchy idea is that SPS-141 needs no special training because it is purely defensive device. SPS-141 works in at least four different submodes: "Individual protection, pair protection, doppler noise and low level" as mentioned earlier in this thread, so it is absolutely not true that it can't be detected by hostile radars or that "it only affects guidance heads of missiles. Major consequences are loss of radar lock and false azimuth and distance measurement. I have the complete manual for Sorbtsia ECM used by Su-27 and it doesn't need any special training??? seriously???  ???  ???  I really do not think so  ::). That's a serious piece of equipment and over 8 pages are needed for explanations and technical description.

~Ak
Aeronautics was neither an industry nor a science.
It was a miracle.

Offline stealthflanker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: Soviet/Russian ECM technology
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2015, 02:46:37 pm »
Sorry for bumping up old thread but. i got a question.

Does anyone have info regarding Russian/Soviet era ECM system to protect cruise missile ?

Like 3B47 "Kvarts" for P-700 Granit and 4B89. Kinda curious on what kind of technique it use and against what kind of radar.

Thank you very much.

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Soviet/Russian ECM technology
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2015, 03:17:37 pm »
What do you mean by "protect cruise missile"?
ECM onboard a cruise missile?

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Soviet/Russian ECM technology
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2015, 04:02:10 pm »
What do you mean by "protect cruise missile"?
ECM onboard a cruise missile?

Ground Bounce Jammers