God Bless you sir!!! I showed your book to a buddy the other day and was wondering how you were... Hope your wife is well too🙂Please take care of yourselves🙏🙏🙏
@@n7565j Thank you! ECM has interested me for years, and I try to keep abreast of current techniques by applying the rules of physics to new situations.
Very informative. I spent 8 years working on search radar systems, and your ECM and ECCM info really made the function of various features of our system make sense. It also made it obvious why there was so much secrecy surrounding our PRF's and frequency ranges. I love seeing how the end users used the systems. The early history or radar in the UK and Germany was also fascinating.
cdstoc - Electronic warfare is fascinating! I enjoyed the story of R.V. Jones driving around England at night with a radio receiver in his car, trying to pick up the German signals -- and finally deciding that he had to get the RAF to give him a two-seat Spitfire to do the task. When the RAF wouldn't give him the plane, he wrote to Winston Churchill and got the order right from Winnie himself! R.V. Jones personally told me the story of America's V-1 Buzz Bomb, which I researched on the Web and saw it at the USAF Museum at WPAFB, Ohio. I then made the video about America's V-1, which is here on RUclips.
Bruce Gordon I’m commenting on a year-old video but with a bit of luck you’ll see my comment anyway. Speaking about R.V. Jones, I highly recommend the 1970s BBC documentary series _The Secret War_ which in one episode features The Battle of the Beams, and several episodes contains interviews with Reginald Jones himself. The series can be found here on RUclips, although I don’t know how legitimate the uploads are so there is a risk they might disappear in a cloud of copyright smoke at any time... There is also a book with the same name by Brian Johnson that I also highly recommend. It goes through what’s in the documentaries in greater detail. Thank you for a most interesting RUclips channel!
In theory, yes but I don’t think the cost of doing so would be worth it. These rifles aren’t wildly proliferated and are only transmitting when they need to. A jammer would only have a few seconds to react to potentially throw off the ballistic computers. And if that was somehow successful, it would be easily defeated by just using traditional techniques not dependent on electronic technology
Unless maybe you were expecting certain frequencies to be used and just wanted to broadcast at all times or at random. Say if you were trying to protect a VIP and were anticipating one of these rifles as a potential threat
I also wanted to mention that the National Electronics Museum near BWI Airport between Baltimore and Washington DC has several exhibits concerning electronic warfare. They have old radio and radar equipment from ground and air units, as well as various jammer pods and so forth, and an exhibit explaining the Battle of the Beams. I recommend it to your listeners if they're ever in that area.
@@spiritofattack Great informative video about Electronic Warfare and how it works. I've seen the jamming pods on aircraft but didn't know how they work. 👍
I‘m from Germany with education in informatics. I never had problems with exams and learning in university, but realy to get an idea of why & how, technology has developed how it has done nowadays - with content like that it would be much easier to imagine!
Great info. I knew a good bit of this info, piecemeal. This talk tied some things together for me. The thing that jolted me the most was the human eye being the right size to fit antenna for visible light. Well, duh... I feel kind of silly now for not realizing that before now. That was a real eye-opener. This guy is great for teaching the basics. Most instructors learn so much, over so many years, that they forget how to think and explain things on a basic level.
I really enjoyed this presentation. I have mentioned in another of your videos that I was a Navy Electrician's Mate Petty Officer 3rd Class, in the Navy ECM squadron VAQ-33, based at N.A.S. Norfolk, from 1971-75. Our mission was to help train the fleet ships and aircraft in ECM warfare. Supposedly, it was the only Navy squadron that did that. Did you ever hear of that squadron ? We had 4- ERA-3B Skywarriors ( A-3), 4- A-4 Skyhawks, 2-F-4 Phantoms, and 1 Super Constellation and they all had all kinds of ECM gear on them. I was a Plane Captain for the ERA-3B's and I loved taking care of "my" planes and in a real sense, taking care of the pilots and air crew that flew them. The ERA-3B's had a chaff dispenser in the tail and quite often the chaff boxes would leak and those little strips of foil would get all over the place..LOL..!! It was exciting and a very rewarding challenge for me to be so involved with our planes. Even though I was only there for 3 years ( the 1st year being Boot and then schools ), we were always so busy with exercises at different bases, that it seemed that I lived about 10 years worth of living and experiences. I loved it...I thrived...it has always been the most exciting few years that I have ever had. Mr. Gordon, I am happy to see you still alive & kicking..!! You are among the very few pilots that do anything like what you do here on Y.T. I thank you very much..!!
Marbleman52 - Thanks for the comments - it's good comments like that which motivate me to keep going! The Air Force and the Navy didn't work closely on ECM. While I was at the EW program office at Wright-Patterson, we had only one meeting with Navy people to discuss ECM techniques. At that meeting, I was mostly interested that the Navy was working on "hot chaff" which would do the work of both chaff and flares at the same time. The Air Force called our EW people "crows" and the Navy called the same people "ravens". Both were black birds -- black for secret, birds because they were aircraft. I understood that Navy ships had very little ECM, and their ability to change frequencies was nowhere near what we did with airplanes. I think that might change now that they are afraid of Chinese long range missiles targeting our ships. It seems that jamming the guidance of such missiles would be a lot better than missile defenses to hit them.
Your explanation of low observability breaking the "kill chain" (at around 12 minutes) is particularly good, Major Gordon. Overall, an excellent presentation which I will forward to other people. You are an engaging speaker, sir!
Thank you! I have about 20 videos online under "Spirit of Attack" and also a book by that name. I'm 86 years old now and want my military lessons to be understood by people who will carry it on to the future. Too many people think that you buy an Electronic Warfare system and put it on your plane and it makes you safe. They need to know every time you develop a countermeasure, the other guy will develop a counter-countermeasure. That is electronic warfare by scientists! I found at Wright-Patterson AFB that our scientists were too fixated on one problem, and were not asking what the other guy was going to do to get past whatever they were doing. There's always another step.
This was an extremely informative (yet beginner-friendly) video. That last sentence - we can therefore use high frequency radars and lasers in space - blows my mind. I hope to never see the widespread militarization of space, but it's fascinating that such design concepts can be predicted.
Radars and lasers are already being used in space, mostly for peaceful purposes. However, tests have already been done to shoot down satellites in space, and the use of space for surveillance and navigation of weapons is already a fact. The large number of satellite debris left from shoot-down tests threatens peaceful satellites and multiple shoot-downs in wars would have a severe impact on peaceful projects. Electronic Warfare against enemy satellites wouldn't have the same debris field in space. Militarization of space seems unavoidable -- but EW in space would not have such bad long-term consequences.
This was fascinating introduction to ECM/ECCM. Thank you so much for sharing this. It is so interesting that some of these techniques exist in nature, particularly in the echolocatory arms race between bats and moths.
Robert Littell Yes, that may have been the high point in my flying career- deliberately attacking 20 MIGs! Another great moment was buzzing Russian warships off of North Korea in 1969. Have you seen my video “Something BIG “ ?
@@spiritofattack Yes, its crazy to think that you may have averted a crisis by trying to take a picture. I have a question about the F106, my favorite aircraft of the Cold War: when you flew the F106 to intercept B52s and other American planes for training, would the controllers fly the aircraft for you through the MA-1 system, or would you control it yourself?
Robert Littell The MA-1 system linked to SAGE and got target and steering information digitally. I usually could see a better attack than the ground radar gave me. I would follow the ground data until I was certain which target was mine (there might be several), then I would call “JUDY” and make the rest of the attack myself. In one case, the ground radar SAGE gave me good target information, then the SAGE system had a computer failure. The controller said to break off because he couldn’t see anything. I already had good target data and my F-106 internal MA-1 computer could calculate a good attack, so I called “JUDY” from more than 50 miles away and completed the attack without help from the ground. That was a great relief for the ground controller because he was helpless, but it was a feature of the MA-1 airborne computer in case the SAGE system was destroyed. It is a good example of using the F-106 airborne computer and our other planes of the day had nothing comparable.
Thanks for the comment. I first flew radar intercepts with the F-86L, F-102 and F-106 and got to see jamming from the attacker's point of view. Then I retired into Civil Service and worked in the Electronic Warfare System Program Office developing systems on the other side -- ECM to defend against incoming missiles or fighters. I was the only person in the EW SPO who had ever been jammed, and could tell them what an interceptor pilot would do if he encountered different kinds of jamming. Then I taught classes about ECM and ECCM techniques to people in the SPO who were developing our ECM equipment. My greatest success was in the concept that from Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) to ultraviolet (including the human eyeball) was one big electronic spectrum for jamming. As the wave lengths grew shorter, the antenna sizes became smaller but the energy output was reduced. Throw in absorption lines from different minerals (or atoms) and what was possible became clear. Many people look at each ECM technique as a single solution -- I saw it as a broad spectrum of capabilities. I'm now 90 years old and still scan current articles on ECM show how the more that technology changes, the original physics remains the same.
I’m already an enthusiastic in warplanes and that topic is totally out of my background one of few prof military videos explained by military pilot experts and historian
I just learned more than I was taught at Nellis Weapon school or at Laurey Technical weapons school! Or perhaps I just forgot it all. USAF teach you how to drink from a fire hose!
Hi Bruce, The ECM was effective against SAM installations in tight formations (not effective in fighter sweeps) but effective when flying over an overcast sky. The Wild Weasels carried (required) them but left them turned off because it interfeared with their ECM. The example of the German radar you used resembled the early instrument approaches in the US. 'Throw a nickel on the grass' Regards
My favorite episode from the book was F-102 vs F-106 encounter "...and the battle was on!" If you ever have time, please do a video about it. Greetings from Croatia (we exchanged a couple of emails).
Glad you liked it! That was all there was to the encounter - the F-106 simply couldn't get behind the Deuce. The F-106 has a light wing loading - 42 lbs/sq ft. It uses almost the same wing as the F-102, but the F-102 is lighter, so the F-102 has a wing loading of 35 lbs/sq ft. I had lots more power, but I could not out-turn him. Compare the F-102's 35 lbs/sq foot with the F-100's 72.1 lbs/sq ft, the F-4E at 78 lbs/sq ft, the F-104 at 105 lbs/sq ft -- the F-102 could out turn any of them! Also the MiG-17 at 48 lbs/sq ft or the MiG-21 at 92 lbs/sq ft. We didn't know the F-102 was such a good fighter until very late in its service life. We kept getting pilot reports of the F-102 against the F-100, and the F-102 always won. Later I flew the F-100 myself and can personally report that the F-102 was a lot better maneuvering fighter than the F-100, and they both had the same engine. Greeting to you in Croatia!
@@DonSolaris Don -- fighter pilots are always looking for a fight! It's all against the rules, but I've engaged F-84, F-102, F-4 and T-33s in unauthorized combat. I love the story of the great General Billy Michell, who led the 1942 B-25 raid on Tokyo, and then led the US bombing campaign attacking Germany. After the war, he visited Williams AFB in Arizona, where they were teaching pilots to fly the new F-86 Sabre. He said he wanted to fly the Sabre. He hadn't had any training in it, but the Squadron Commander said Billy Mitchell could fly. There was no two-seat version of the F-86, so a crewchief started the engine for Billy. Billy flew #2 on the Squadron Commander's wing, and the two more joined to make a four-ship tactical flight. They took off and Billy Mitchell flew good formation, no problems. As they swung through the Arizona sky, suddenly they saw a flight of F-84 Thunderjets headed their way -- coming from nearby Luke AFB, where they were training in the Thunderjet. The F-84s turned toward the F-86s and swung in for the attack. The Squadron Commander knew it was against regulations to do unplanned air-to-air combat, and he had a General on his wing watching - what would he do? The F-86s continued straight as the F-84s swung to attack. After a minute or so of this, Doolittle's voice came on the radio: "You gonna let them do that to us, Colonel?" That was it! "Break!" called the Squadron Commander and the battle was on! Yes, fighter pilots enjoy a good fight when they can find one!
Very interesting presentation. The only fault I spotted was that the aircraft used by R V Jones during the Battle of the Beams wasn't a 2-seat Spitfire. There were no 2-seat Spitfires in 1940. They use an Avro Anson piloted by Flight Lieutenant H E Bufton and the detection equipment was operated by Corporal Mackie. They were told that they were looking for transmissions with the Lorenz characteristics, but not who was transmitting them.
An excellent video on electronic warfare and no other channel is able to explain this simple. I have a question sir, is ground based electronic warfare system like turkey's koral effective against ground based radars?? Because what I think, the radiowaves travel in straight lines and the earth's curvature or the terrian could block jammer signal. They claim koral has a range of 150 km, maybe that's against high flying targets?? Because against ground based radars the jammer would have shorter range?? During turkey's operation against Syrian army in idlib they say koral was able to blind Syrian radars and therefore was unable to bring down Turkish drones namely Anka-s and bayraktar. I don't know if those old Syrian radars are capable of switching frequencies to avoid jamming........But in Libya, haftars army was able to shoot down 60+ drones. And my another question, why ground based EW systems can't jam AWACS??
Thank you for a good question. I don’t know Turkey’s Koral system. You are correct saying that jamming goes mostly in a straight line and the curvature of the earth limits the range of ground based jammers. Yes, ground based jammers could jam AWACS, but AWACS has ECCM so AWACS radars are hard to jam. Jamming would be complex and expensive, could not be done cheaply. The jammer could protect only the areas close to the jammer. The AWACS would quickly locate the jammer and it could be quickly targeted by fighters or drones. The AWACS could be attacked by fighters or air defense missiles. If an AWACS uses ECM to protect itself it will also tend to jam its own radar and defeat its main mission as a radar station. The USAF is going to phase out AWACS because it is vulnerable to the S-400 missile systems and also vulnerable to the new Chinese stealth fighters like the J-20. It looks like the F-35 is able to do the AWACS job and also destroy targets that it detects.
@@spiritofattack Thanks for reply, sir. Systems like Patriot and S-400 are capable of switching frequencies to avoid spot jamming, but how effective is barrage and sweep jamming against such systems? Is it possible to home on jam if the ground based Jammers are transmitting intermittent? And my other question, is DRFM effective against modern systems mainly Patriot and S400? I heard that mono pulse active radar seekers on modern antiship missiles are hard to jam, is that true??
I am fascinated by ecm and radar systems. Sadly it is hard to find out much about older radar equipment. I want to know more about how they were actually used, what did the scope actually show? How does a 1960s attack radar discern between a boulder and a tank? Did a AA radar scope show an analog blip or did it generate a symbol showing a target? I have no idea.
Answers: A 1960's attack radar COULD NOT discern between a boulder and a tank. It showed an analog blip, not a symbol showing a target. That had some benefits because the pilot could see exactly what ECM the enemy was using, and not what a computer thought it was showing. However, it was all up to the pilot (or radar operator) to figure out what the radar blips meant. See my video on RUclips, "Radar Scopes": ruclips.net/video/45mzPH23f_s/видео.html&pp=ygUZcmFkYXIgc2NvcGVzIGJydWNlIGdvcmRvbg%3D%3D
Absolutely terrific information, I’ve always wanted to know how this works. My job was Field Artillery & it was much more nuts & bolts than this fancy stuff!
Field Artillery has become more technical every year, with HIMARS and ATACMS replacing aircraft for interdiction of supply routes. Drones are doing the artillery observation. I don't know how the drones can get the GPS coordinates of a target that they see. Drones are now being attacked by ECM, and GPS is now being jammed. Everything is getting involved with ECM and ECCM!
@@spiritofattack The drones getting the GPS coordinates is probably a simple matter of trigonometry- the drone knows its own altitude and coordinates, so by pointing the camera at the target and measuring the angle and bearing the location of the target can be estimated. There would be some error due to things like the ground not being perfectly level and so on, but probably good enough for a ranging shot by the artillery. Then the drone can observe where the shell lands and relay this to the gunners, who correct their aim and fire again.
@@nerd1000ify Right now, the Russians are jamming the GPS coodinates that drones use, so their targeting data is useless. Moreover, our guided weapons (artillery and MLRS, ATACMS, etc) coordinates are jammed. Our much acclaimed Excalibur artillery shell has been withdrawn from the battlefield because ECM has made it so inaccurate. We have no quick fix available -- this is bad news. There are systems (inertial, solar position sensiing) but these are extremely expensive and nowhere nearly as accurate as GPS. Optical guidance is possible, but needs to know where it is before it can pinpoint a target. The situation is serioius.
@@nerd1000ify You are correct - the jamming is limited in area. Ukraine is actively hunting the jammers. Russians could put the jammers in sensitive locations. I wonder why Ukraine isn't jamming the Russian glide bombs that are causing havoc. I expect that Ukraine uses GPS for so many things that using jammers in their own areas would do more harm than good. Maybe the Russians don't rely on GPS for their own weapons as Ukraine does.
@gastarbieter I haven't heard of this issue specifically, but I can answer in a general way. Most of the ECM antennas on a B-52 are on the underside of the aircraft. When the aircraft turns, the antennas rotate toward the outside of the turn and the big wing comes down and blocks jamming to the inside of the turn. The entire pattern of jamming would change during a turn. In fighters, we sometimes flew in a "box" pattern which had a broad area of jamming so the SAMs would not see a specific aircraft. If an aircraft fell out of its position (possibly during a turn) the aircraft would slide out of the ECM coverage of the box and it could be targeted separately by the SAMs. Maybe the same thing happened to B-52s during a turn.
@@spiritofattack Many thanks for your reply. What you described makes a lot of sense. This problem is mentioned quite a number of times in this documentary. ruclips.net/video/ImD2O9gm1vA/видео.html
@@gastarbieter Very interesting video. Yes, they mention that the B-52s were using the same "box" idea that we used with fighters, and that the turns broke the coverage of the boxes. Our ECM was actually quite effective -- they fired about 70 SAM missiles for each B-52 hit. ECM jammed the guidance, so they often used the missiles like anti-aircraft guns -- tracking them manually and detonating them when they thought the missiles were near the bombers.
@@terjeoseberg990 No, I don't think modern pilots know as much about ECM as we did in the 1960's. In the 1960's we saw raw radar on the computer and could see the ECM actively working and could see the effect of our ECCM. Now the pilot doesn't see raw radar, but sees a computer display. The computer decides what ECCM to use. The pilot doesn't have to know the kinds of ECM; the computer does it for him. We did a few informal tests in the 1970s which showed this. A pilot with no ECM experience in an F-15 was defeated by an ECM target -- he didn't realize that his computer was goofed up. A pilot with experience in ECM from interceptors quickly recognized the computer error, changed his attack profile, and got the target. We did the same thing with F-4s. A regular F-4 crew with no ECM experience was defeated; an F-4 crew with interceptor ECM experience got the target. Seeing ECM on your scope, and interpreting it correctly, was important. I'm sure the computers these days are much better with ECCM, but my point is that the pilots no longer see raw radar and therefore leave it up to the computer to decide what to do. The pilot doesn't have to know as much about ECM as we did in the 1960's or 1970's.
Don Solaris - Yes, that was a very good video but I made an error and mis-stated the thrust of F-4 engines. I got so much grief about it (and admitted my error several times) so I finally deleted the video. I don't know how to correct just the words about the F-4 engine thrust, so I have to re-do the entire video. I'm an old man (85 years old) so making a video takes me about a week under ideal conditions. I hope to re-do the video completely in the next week or so and re-post it.
Good presentation, Bruce. Was the B-58 really able to outrun an F-106? Both are amazing airplanes; I would think the F-106 is a design that would still do well today with avionics and other upgrades on new airframes. Also, you should get in contact with the Fighter Pilot Podcast channel and see if they would like to have you on as a guest. It's a youtube channel run by a former Navy F-18 pilot and they always talk to combat air crew veterans, starting with Navy fighter pilots, but also covering helicopter pilots, attack plane air crews, and lately they had a French Navy pilot on. They'd love you, I bet they don't know many F-106 pilots who also flew F-100s in Viet Nam! Here's a link to their channel: ruclips.net/channel/UCI_mZTC4UmH2ICN5MBbrDrQ
Helium Road -- I didn't chase the B-58 very far -- we were headed toward populated areas and sonic booms were not appreciated by the civilians! If it had been war, I would have stayed with him because supersonic flight in afterburner consumes huge amounts of fuel and I could probably have run him out of fuel. A Russian would have come a long ways and not had the fuel to burn. I was close to my home base and I could have landed or parachuted anywhere -- for me, the natives would have been friendly! The B-58 and F-106 were both rated for Mach 2, so neither of us could outrun the other. Thanks for the link the Fighter Pilot Podcast channel -- never heard of them - sounds interesting.
Not normally. The ICBM is a ballistic missile and does not rely on outside signals, so is immune to ECM. Some missiles now use GPS satellite signals to improve their accuracy -- but then they're no longer ballistic, and it opens them to ECM against the GPS signals. The improvement in accuracy by using GPS might be worth the added vulnerability to ECM.
Hypersonic missiles & drones did not exist when I wrote that piece. However, hypersonics have the same targeting problems as subsonic missiles, except that the defender's reaction time is less. Going faster has some downsides: the missile heats up rapidly, emitting a lot of IR radiation, making the nose cone thicker and less able to see the target, and increasing the radius of turn. To get the energy, the missiles have to be big and expensive. They're another variable, but are not a game changer.
@@khatokhato9350 Ah, yes, I remember a discussion about the whiskey compass! It was very complex to use, especially in turns. We studied it for hours in classrooms -- but now it's seldom used.
@@spiritofattack I am glad we are having conversation again! I am just back from my friend. Back in 80s he was an employee on aircrafts manufacturing facility. They were manufacturing su25s. His objective was testing the electrical circuitry of the aircraft. He recollected the quality of assembly was so poor, that first plain when flown lost its wing and collapsed. After it was investigated that the fasteners were forcibly stuck with hammers into holes, because the wing and fuselage attachment holes did not coincide exactly. Once flown the joints cannot withstand the forces and broken off!
@@khatokhato9350 I heard that the first production SU-27 crashed on its delivery flight. Never heard why it crashed. In the USA, planes are test-flown at the factory before they are delivered. There are always likely to be some problems, but big problems should be fixed before the plane is delivered to the military.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm still around -- 90 years old -- I wanted to get the old stories and techniques on record for future generations!
God Bless you sir!!! I showed your book to a buddy the other day and was wondering how you were...
Hope your wife is well too🙂Please take care of yourselves🙏🙏🙏
@@n7565j Thank you! ECM has interested me for years, and I try to keep abreast of current techniques by applying the rules of physics to new situations.
Very informative. I spent 8 years working on search radar systems, and your ECM and ECCM info really made the function of various features of our system make sense. It also made it obvious why there was so much secrecy surrounding our PRF's and frequency ranges. I love seeing how the end users used the systems. The early history or radar in the UK and Germany was also fascinating.
cdstoc - Electronic warfare is fascinating! I enjoyed the story of R.V. Jones driving around England at night with a radio receiver in his car, trying to pick up the German signals -- and finally deciding that he had to get the RAF to give him a two-seat Spitfire to do the task. When the RAF wouldn't give him the plane, he wrote to Winston Churchill and got the order right from Winnie himself! R.V. Jones personally told me the story of America's V-1 Buzz Bomb, which I researched on the Web and saw it at the USAF Museum at WPAFB, Ohio. I then made the video about America's V-1, which is here on RUclips.
Bruce Gordon I’m commenting on a year-old video but with a bit of luck you’ll see my comment anyway. Speaking about R.V. Jones, I highly recommend the 1970s BBC documentary series _The Secret War_ which in one episode features The Battle of the Beams, and several episodes contains interviews with Reginald Jones himself.
The series can be found here on RUclips, although I don’t know how legitimate the uploads are so there is a risk they might disappear in a cloud of copyright smoke at any time...
There is also a book with the same name by Brian Johnson that I also highly recommend. It goes through what’s in the documentaries in greater detail.
Thank you for a most interesting RUclips channel!
In theory, yes but I don’t think the cost of doing so would be worth it. These rifles aren’t wildly proliferated and are only transmitting when they need to. A jammer would only have a few seconds to react to potentially throw off the ballistic computers. And if that was somehow successful, it would be easily defeated by just using traditional techniques not dependent on electronic technology
Unless maybe you were expecting certain frequencies to be used and just wanted to broadcast at all times or at random. Say if you were trying to protect a VIP and were anticipating one of these rifles as a potential threat
@@bennylofgren3208 Excellent documentary series! I found them on Daily Motion, including the episode about the Battle of the Beams.
Excellent video, I’m going to see about sharing this with the DCS community since it should be easy to integrate this into flight sims.
I also wanted to mention that the National Electronics Museum near BWI Airport between Baltimore and Washington DC has several exhibits concerning electronic warfare. They have old radio and radar equipment from ground and air units, as well as various jammer pods and so forth, and an exhibit explaining the Battle of the Beams. I recommend it to your listeners if they're ever in that area.
I must visit that museum if I ever get near the BWI airport again!
@@spiritofattack Great informative video about Electronic Warfare and how it works. I've seen the jamming pods on aircraft but didn't know how they work. 👍
I‘m from Germany with education in informatics. I never had problems with exams and learning in university, but realy to get an idea of why & how, technology has developed how it has done nowadays - with content like that it would be much easier to imagine!
Great info. I knew a good bit of this info, piecemeal. This talk tied some things together for me. The thing that jolted me the most was the human eye being the right size to fit antenna for visible light. Well, duh... I feel kind of silly now for not realizing that before now. That was a real eye-opener. This guy is great for teaching the basics. Most instructors learn so much, over so many years, that they forget how to think and explain things on a basic level.
I really enjoyed this presentation. I have mentioned in another of your videos that I was a Navy Electrician's Mate Petty Officer 3rd Class, in the Navy ECM squadron VAQ-33, based at N.A.S. Norfolk, from 1971-75. Our mission was to help train the fleet ships and aircraft in ECM warfare. Supposedly, it was the only Navy squadron that did that. Did you ever hear of that squadron ? We had 4- ERA-3B Skywarriors ( A-3), 4- A-4 Skyhawks, 2-F-4 Phantoms, and 1 Super Constellation and they all had all kinds of ECM gear on them. I was a Plane Captain for the ERA-3B's and I loved taking care of "my" planes and in a real sense, taking care of the pilots and air crew that flew them. The ERA-3B's had a chaff dispenser in the tail and quite often the chaff boxes would leak and those little strips of foil would get all over the place..LOL..!! It was exciting and a very rewarding challenge for me to be so involved with our planes. Even though I was only there for 3 years ( the 1st year being Boot and then schools ), we were always so busy with exercises at different bases, that it seemed that I lived about 10 years worth of living and experiences. I loved it...I thrived...it has always been the most exciting few years that I have ever had. Mr. Gordon, I am happy to see you still alive & kicking..!! You are among the very few pilots that do anything like what you do here on Y.T. I thank you very much..!!
Marbleman52 - Thanks for the comments - it's good comments like that which motivate me to keep going! The Air Force and the Navy didn't work closely on ECM. While I was at the EW program office at Wright-Patterson, we had only one meeting with Navy people to discuss ECM techniques. At that meeting, I was mostly interested that the Navy was working on "hot chaff" which would do the work of both chaff and flares at the same time. The Air Force called our EW people "crows" and the Navy called the same people "ravens". Both were black birds -- black for secret, birds because they were aircraft. I understood that Navy ships had very little ECM, and their ability to change frequencies was nowhere near what we did with airplanes. I think that might change now that they are afraid of Chinese long range missiles targeting our ships. It seems that jamming the guidance of such missiles would be a lot better than missile defenses to hit them.
Glad to see you around . I started to worry.
He stays active on FB.
Your explanation of low observability breaking the "kill chain" (at around 12 minutes) is particularly good, Major Gordon.
Overall, an excellent presentation which I will forward to other people. You are an engaging speaker, sir!
Thank you! I have about 20 videos online under "Spirit of Attack" and also a book by that name. I'm 86 years old now and want my military lessons to be understood by people who will carry it on to the future. Too many people think that you buy an Electronic Warfare system and put it on your plane and it makes you safe. They need to know every time you develop a countermeasure, the other guy will develop a counter-countermeasure. That is electronic warfare by scientists! I found at Wright-Patterson AFB that our scientists were too fixated on one problem, and were not asking what the other guy was going to do to get past whatever they were doing. There's always another step.
Also, at 26:33 you identified the active dynamic that is present for anyone who would defend other people. Well said, sir.
This was an extremely informative (yet beginner-friendly) video.
That last sentence - we can therefore use high frequency radars and lasers in space - blows my mind. I hope to never see the widespread militarization of space, but it's fascinating that such design concepts can be predicted.
Radars and lasers are already being used in space, mostly for peaceful purposes. However, tests have already been done to shoot down satellites in space, and the use of space for surveillance and navigation of weapons is already a fact. The large number of satellite debris left from shoot-down tests threatens peaceful satellites and multiple shoot-downs in wars would have a severe impact on peaceful projects. Electronic Warfare against enemy satellites wouldn't have the same debris field in space. Militarization of space seems unavoidable -- but EW in space would not have such bad long-term consequences.
What an awesome video and host! 🎉
This was fascinating introduction to ECM/ECCM. Thank you so much for sharing this.
It is so interesting that some of these techniques exist in nature, particularly in the echolocatory arms race between bats and moths.
Still one of my favorite videos on this platform. Thanks for the information!
Thank you very much, Sir! Always a pleasure to watch your presentations! :) EW is a very interesting and increasingly important subject!
Love hearing your stories Bruce! I hope you have a few more. My favorite is when your four 106's went up against 20 MiGs!
Robert Littell Yes, that may have been the high point in my flying career- deliberately attacking 20 MIGs!
Another great moment was buzzing Russian warships off of North Korea in 1969. Have you seen my video “Something BIG “ ?
@@spiritofattack Yes, its crazy to think that you may have averted a crisis by trying to take a picture. I have a question about the F106, my favorite aircraft of the Cold War: when you flew the F106 to intercept B52s and other American planes for training, would the controllers fly the aircraft for you through the MA-1 system, or would you control it yourself?
Robert Littell The MA-1 system linked to SAGE and got target and steering information digitally. I usually could see a better attack than the ground radar gave me. I would follow the ground data until I was certain which target was mine (there might be several), then I would call “JUDY” and make the rest of the attack myself. In one case, the ground radar SAGE gave me good target information, then the SAGE system had a computer failure. The controller said to break off because he couldn’t see anything. I already had good target data and my F-106 internal MA-1 computer could calculate a good attack, so I called “JUDY” from more than 50 miles away and completed the attack without help from the ground. That was a great relief for the ground controller because he was helpless, but it was a feature of the MA-1 airborne computer in case the SAGE system was destroyed. It is a good example of using the F-106 airborne computer and our other planes of the day had nothing comparable.
Very interesting. It really does sound like the “Ultimate Interceptor.”
This is one of those low subscriber gem channels, good stuff here.
Fantastic. Thank You for sharing.
Thanks a lot. Information is very extensive for such a considerably short video.
Thanks for the comment. I first flew radar intercepts with the F-86L, F-102 and F-106 and got to see jamming from the attacker's point of view. Then I retired into Civil Service and worked in the Electronic Warfare System Program Office developing systems on the other side -- ECM to defend against incoming missiles or fighters. I was the only person in the EW SPO who had ever been jammed, and could tell them what an interceptor pilot would do if he encountered different kinds of jamming. Then I taught classes about ECM and ECCM techniques to people in the SPO who were developing our ECM equipment. My greatest success was in the concept that from Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) to ultraviolet (including the human eyeball) was one big electronic spectrum for jamming. As the wave lengths grew shorter, the antenna sizes became smaller but the energy output was reduced. Throw in absorption lines from different minerals (or atoms) and what was possible became clear.
Many people look at each ECM technique as a single solution -- I saw it as a broad spectrum of capabilities. I'm now 90 years old and still scan current articles on ECM show how the more that technology changes, the original physics remains the same.
I’m already an enthusiastic in warplanes and that topic is totally out of my background one of few prof military videos explained by military pilot experts and historian
I just learned more than I was taught at Nellis Weapon school or at Laurey Technical weapons school! Or perhaps I just forgot it all. USAF teach you how to drink from a fire hose!
We were using the ALQ-71 ECM pods on our F-4c in Vietnam. Sometimes they worked!!!
Were those the pods to jam SAMs?
Hi Bruce, The ECM was effective against SAM installations in tight formations (not effective in fighter sweeps) but effective when flying over an overcast sky. The Wild Weasels carried (required) them but left them turned off because it interfeared with their ECM.
The example of the German radar you used resembled the early instrument approaches in the US.
'Throw a nickel on the grass'
Regards
This lecture was wonderful and quite enlightening. Fascinating technology and history.
Revolutionary Deltas are from the age of Lube and Tube.
Hydraulic failure is one thing.
Vacuum tubes on board?
Failure modes in ops?
ECM (20:44) Time between pulses; should this be the Pulse Repetition Interval?
Yes, the Pulse Repetition Interval, PRI.
My favorite episode from the book was F-102 vs F-106 encounter "...and the battle was on!" If you ever have time, please do a video about it. Greetings from Croatia (we exchanged a couple of emails).
Glad you liked it! That was all there was to the encounter - the F-106 simply couldn't get behind the Deuce. The F-106 has a light wing loading - 42 lbs/sq ft. It uses almost the same wing as the F-102, but the F-102 is lighter, so the F-102 has a wing loading of 35 lbs/sq ft. I had lots more power, but I could not out-turn him. Compare the F-102's 35 lbs/sq foot with the F-100's 72.1 lbs/sq ft, the F-4E at 78 lbs/sq ft, the F-104 at 105 lbs/sq ft -- the F-102 could out turn any of them! Also the MiG-17 at 48 lbs/sq ft or the MiG-21 at 92 lbs/sq ft. We didn't know the F-102 was such a good fighter until very late in its service life. We kept getting pilot reports of the F-102 against the F-100, and the F-102 always won. Later I flew the F-100 myself and can personally report that the F-102 was a lot better maneuvering fighter than the F-100, and they both had the same engine. Greeting to you in Croatia!
@@spiritofattack Yeah, but what triggered the fight? Did you just looked him the wrong way, or did he aligned his aircraft the wrong way?
@@DonSolaris Don -- fighter pilots are always looking for a fight! It's all against the rules, but I've engaged F-84, F-102, F-4 and T-33s in unauthorized combat.
I love the story of the great General Billy Michell, who led the 1942 B-25 raid on Tokyo, and then led the US bombing campaign attacking Germany. After the war, he visited Williams AFB in Arizona, where they were teaching pilots to fly the new F-86 Sabre. He said he wanted to fly the Sabre. He hadn't had any training in it, but the Squadron Commander said Billy Mitchell could fly. There was no two-seat version of the F-86, so a crewchief started the engine for Billy. Billy flew #2 on the Squadron Commander's wing, and the two more joined to make a four-ship tactical flight. They took off and Billy Mitchell flew good formation, no problems. As they swung through the Arizona sky, suddenly they saw a flight of F-84 Thunderjets headed their way -- coming from nearby Luke AFB, where they were training in the Thunderjet. The F-84s turned toward the F-86s and swung in for the attack. The Squadron Commander knew it was against regulations to do unplanned air-to-air combat, and he had a General on his wing watching - what would he do? The F-86s continued straight as the F-84s swung to attack. After a minute or so of this, Doolittle's voice came on the radio: "You gonna let them do that to us, Colonel?" That was it! "Break!" called the Squadron Commander and the battle was on! Yes, fighter pilots enjoy a good fight when they can find one!
Excellent lecture. Well done Sir!🇺🇸
Thanks -- good comments like that make it work while to post more videos!
Very interesting presentation. The only fault I spotted was that the aircraft used by R V Jones during the Battle of the Beams wasn't a 2-seat Spitfire. There were no 2-seat Spitfires in 1940. They use an Avro Anson piloted by Flight Lieutenant H E Bufton and the detection equipment was operated by Corporal Mackie. They were told that they were looking for transmissions with the Lorenz characteristics, but not who was transmitting them.
Thanks for the correction.
Very informative!
Thank you!
I suppose they have automatic deploying chaff/flares now days
An excellent video on electronic warfare and no other channel is able to explain this simple. I have a question sir, is ground based electronic warfare system like turkey's koral effective against ground based radars?? Because what I think, the radiowaves travel in straight lines and the earth's curvature or the terrian could block jammer signal. They claim koral has a range of 150 km, maybe that's against high flying targets?? Because against ground based radars the jammer would have shorter range?? During turkey's operation against Syrian army in idlib they say koral was able to blind Syrian radars and therefore was unable to bring down Turkish drones namely Anka-s and bayraktar. I don't know if those old Syrian radars are capable of switching frequencies to avoid jamming........But in Libya, haftars army was able to shoot down 60+ drones. And my another question, why ground based EW systems can't jam AWACS??
Thank you for a good question. I don’t know Turkey’s Koral system. You are correct saying that jamming goes mostly in a straight line and the curvature of the earth limits the range of ground based jammers. Yes, ground based jammers could jam AWACS, but AWACS has ECCM so AWACS radars are hard to jam. Jamming would be complex and expensive, could not be done cheaply. The jammer could protect only the areas close to the jammer. The AWACS would quickly locate the jammer and it could be quickly targeted by fighters or drones. The AWACS could be attacked by fighters or air defense missiles. If an AWACS uses ECM to protect itself it will also tend to jam its own radar and defeat its main mission as a radar station. The USAF is going to phase out AWACS because it is vulnerable to the S-400 missile systems and also vulnerable to the new Chinese stealth fighters like the J-20. It looks like the F-35 is able to do the AWACS job and also destroy targets that it detects.
@@spiritofattack Thanks for reply, sir. Systems like Patriot and S-400 are capable of switching frequencies to avoid spot jamming, but how effective is barrage and sweep jamming against such systems? Is it possible to home on jam if the ground based Jammers are transmitting intermittent? And my other question, is DRFM effective against modern systems mainly Patriot and S400? I heard that mono pulse active radar seekers on modern antiship missiles are hard to jam, is that true??
This sort of stuff can be a bit damagng to those that don't know of, thanks
I am fascinated by ecm and radar systems. Sadly it is hard to find out much about older radar equipment. I want to know more about how they were actually used, what did the scope actually show? How does a 1960s attack radar discern between a boulder and a tank? Did a AA radar scope show an analog blip or did it generate a symbol showing a target? I have no idea.
Answers: A 1960's attack radar COULD NOT discern between a boulder and a tank. It showed an analog blip, not a symbol showing a target. That had some benefits because the pilot could see exactly what ECM the enemy was using, and not what a computer thought it was showing. However, it was all up to the pilot (or radar operator) to figure out what the radar blips meant. See my video on RUclips, "Radar Scopes": ruclips.net/video/45mzPH23f_s/видео.html&pp=ygUZcmFkYXIgc2NvcGVzIGJydWNlIGdvcmRvbg%3D%3D
26:28 "In nuclear war, we considered ourselves expendable, I would accelerate to supersonic speed and ram him. He would not get through"
Thanks Bruce very informative
Thanks for that content! 😊
Absolutely terrific information, I’ve always wanted to know how this works. My job was Field Artillery & it was much more nuts & bolts than this fancy stuff!
Field Artillery has become more technical every year, with HIMARS and ATACMS replacing aircraft for interdiction of supply routes. Drones are doing the artillery observation. I don't know how the drones can get the GPS coordinates of a target that they see. Drones are now being attacked by ECM, and GPS is now being jammed. Everything is getting involved with ECM and ECCM!
@@spiritofattack The drones getting the GPS coordinates is probably a simple matter of trigonometry- the drone knows its own altitude and coordinates, so by pointing the camera at the target and measuring the angle and bearing the location of the target can be estimated. There would be some error due to things like the ground not being perfectly level and so on, but probably good enough for a ranging shot by the artillery. Then the drone can observe where the shell lands and relay this to the gunners, who correct their aim and fire again.
@@nerd1000ify Right now, the Russians are jamming the GPS coodinates that drones use, so their targeting data is useless. Moreover, our guided weapons (artillery and MLRS, ATACMS, etc) coordinates are jammed. Our much acclaimed Excalibur artillery shell has been withdrawn from the battlefield because ECM has made it so inaccurate. We have no quick fix available -- this is bad news.
There are systems (inertial, solar position sensiing) but these are extremely expensive and nowhere nearly as accurate as GPS. Optical guidance is possible, but needs to know where it is before it can pinpoint a target. The situation is serioius.
@@spiritofattack presumably they can't jam everywhere, or the Ukrainians would have no drones flying. Nevertheless, a grave concern.
@@nerd1000ify You are correct - the jamming is limited in area. Ukraine is actively hunting the jammers. Russians could put the jammers in sensitive locations. I wonder why Ukraine isn't jamming the Russian glide bombs that are causing havoc. I expect that Ukraine uses GPS for so many things that using jammers in their own areas would do more harm than good. Maybe the Russians don't rely on GPS for their own weapons as Ukraine does.
So much information... Thank you kind sir 😊
Thanks at two 1904 port Arthur had radiotelescope so strong that no plane can survive (38 north 208 west
excellent video, I learn a lot
Hello. Can you please explain what was the issue with the ecm the B52's had "whilst turning" in Vietnam?
@gastarbieter I haven't heard of this issue specifically, but I can answer in a general way. Most of the ECM antennas on a B-52 are on the underside of the aircraft. When the aircraft turns, the antennas rotate toward the outside of the turn and the big wing comes down and blocks jamming to the inside of the turn. The entire pattern of jamming would change during a turn. In fighters, we sometimes flew in a "box" pattern which had a broad area of jamming so the SAMs would not see a specific aircraft. If an aircraft fell out of its position (possibly during a turn) the aircraft would slide out of the ECM coverage of the box and it could be targeted separately by the SAMs. Maybe the same thing happened to B-52s during a turn.
@@spiritofattack Many thanks for your reply. What you described makes a lot of sense. This problem is mentioned quite a number of times in this documentary. ruclips.net/video/ImD2O9gm1vA/видео.html
@@gastarbieter Very interesting video. Yes, they mention that the B-52s were using the same "box" idea that we used with fighters, and that the turns broke the coverage of the boxes. Our ECM was actually quite effective -- they fired about 70 SAM missiles for each B-52 hit. ECM jammed the guidance, so they often used the missiles like anti-aircraft guns -- tracking them manually and detonating them when they thought the missiles were near the bombers.
Great video. Thanks for posting.
Thanks. The basics of EW are still there, even after the equipment has been superseded with much smaller and faster systems.
@@spiritofattack, Do you believe modern pilots required to understand EW to the extent that you were required to understand it back then?
@@terjeoseberg990 No, I don't think modern pilots know as much about ECM as we did in the 1960's. In the 1960's we saw raw radar on the computer and could see the ECM actively working and could see the effect of our ECCM. Now the pilot doesn't see raw radar, but sees a computer display. The computer decides what ECCM to use. The pilot doesn't have to know the kinds of ECM; the computer does it for him.
We did a few informal tests in the 1970s which showed this. A pilot with no ECM experience in an F-15 was defeated by an ECM target -- he didn't realize that his computer was goofed up. A pilot with experience in ECM from interceptors quickly recognized the computer error, changed his attack profile, and got the target.
We did the same thing with F-4s. A regular F-4 crew with no ECM experience was defeated; an F-4 crew with interceptor ECM experience got the target. Seeing ECM on your scope, and interpreting it correctly, was important.
I'm sure the computers these days are much better with ECCM, but my point is that the pilots no longer see raw radar and therefore leave it up to the computer to decide what to do. The pilot doesn't have to know as much about ECM as we did in the 1960's or 1970's.
Very informative video, thanks
Bruce, where is the F-4 vs. F-106 video? It was one of the best ones on your channel.
Don Solaris - Yes, that was a very good video but I made an error and mis-stated the thrust of F-4 engines. I got so much grief about it (and admitted my error several times) so I finally deleted the video. I don't know how to correct just the words about the F-4 engine thrust, so I have to re-do the entire video. I'm an old man (85 years old) so making a video takes me about a week under ideal conditions. I hope to re-do the video completely in the next week or so and re-post it.
Wonderful presentation sir, thank you
Good presentation, Bruce. Was the B-58 really able to outrun an F-106? Both are amazing airplanes; I would think the F-106 is a design that would still do well today with avionics and other upgrades on new airframes.
Also, you should get in contact with the Fighter Pilot Podcast channel and see if they would like to have you on as a guest. It's a youtube channel run by a former Navy F-18 pilot and they always talk to combat air crew veterans, starting with Navy fighter pilots, but also covering helicopter pilots, attack plane air crews, and lately they had a French Navy pilot on. They'd love you, I bet they don't know many F-106 pilots who also flew F-100s in Viet Nam! Here's a link to their channel: ruclips.net/channel/UCI_mZTC4UmH2ICN5MBbrDrQ
Helium Road -- I didn't chase the B-58 very far -- we were headed toward populated areas and sonic booms were not appreciated by the civilians! If it had been war, I would have stayed with him because supersonic flight in afterburner consumes huge amounts of fuel and I could probably have run him out of fuel. A Russian would have come a long ways and not had the fuel to burn. I was close to my home base and I could have landed or parachuted anywhere -- for me, the natives would have been friendly! The B-58 and F-106 were both rated for Mach 2, so neither of us could outrun the other.
Thanks for the link the Fighter Pilot Podcast channel -- never heard of them - sounds interesting.
hi, can electronic warfare somehow influence the operation of ICBMs?
Not normally. The ICBM is a ballistic missile and does not rely on outside signals, so is immune to ECM. Some missiles now use GPS satellite signals to improve their accuracy -- but then they're no longer ballistic, and it opens them to ECM against the GPS signals. The improvement in accuracy by using GPS might be worth the added vulnerability to ECM.
@@spiritofattack thanks, i thought ICBM rely on outside signals from satellite to reach long distance accuracy, and EW/ECM can disrupt it
@@Husker513 No, ICBMs don't normally rely on outside signals.
Hypersonic missiles, drones were not mentioned.These new technologies do have some advantages that are still being worked out. See Ukraine v Russia.
Hypersonic missiles & drones did not exist when I wrote that piece. However, hypersonics have the same targeting problems as subsonic missiles, except that the defender's reaction time is less. Going faster has some downsides: the missile heats up rapidly, emitting a lot of IR radiation, making the nose cone thicker and less able to see the target, and increasing the radius of turn. To get the energy, the missiles have to be big and expensive. They're another variable, but are not a game changer.
Bruce, how are you doing so far? We met 3 years ago. Do you remember:Geese saved the Rome?
I remember that the geese saved Rome, but I don't remember meeting you. Where was it that we met? Tell me more.
@@spiritofattack we were discussing the video you recollected whiskey compass and how it helped you to return on right heading flying T33.
@@khatokhato9350 Ah, yes, I remember a discussion about the whiskey compass! It was very complex to use, especially in turns. We studied it for hours in classrooms -- but now it's seldom used.
@@spiritofattack I am glad we are having conversation again! I am just back from my friend. Back in 80s he was an employee on aircrafts manufacturing facility. They were manufacturing su25s. His objective was testing the electrical circuitry of the aircraft. He recollected the quality of assembly was so poor, that first plain when flown lost its wing and collapsed. After it was investigated that the fasteners were forcibly stuck with hammers into holes, because the wing and fuselage attachment holes did not coincide exactly. Once flown the joints cannot withstand the forces and broken off!
@@khatokhato9350 I heard that the first production SU-27 crashed on its delivery flight. Never heard why it crashed. In the USA, planes are test-flown at the factory before they are delivered. There are always likely to be some problems, but big problems should be fixed before the plane is delivered to the military.
May Allah bless you