Can a Jammer and Radar be Combined into One Device for Military Use?

[artis]

With this current war I'm thinking more about military electronics.
I noticed that a lot of drones are used lately in various military exercises/conflicts as well as missiles. Most missiles except those that are "dumb" use some sort of radio communication. So there is the use of jammers or electronic countermeasures to disrupt the drone-ground communication etc.

I was wondering about an issue. Say we have a jammer which is just a radioantenna fed by power RF signal and I assume directed towards the object of interest to be jammed.
But then again radar is also a radiotransmitter/receiver directed towards the object to be detected.

Now given we are talking about high power I guess we would need a radar that has the transmitter and receiver as separate parts but have there been attempts to combine an electronic jammer with a radar?

Like you would simply put out a very powerful signal such that it draws out any communication for incoming devices (drones etc) and at the same time you can see the reflected signal and use it as radar detection of the incoming object that you just jammed.

Is this done already?

 

[berkeman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception

 

[Klystron]

Is this done already?

Yes. Almost any EM radiating device that impinges on a target illuminates it.

Consider spotlights in visible light spectrum aimed at aircraft flying overhead. Passive observers can detect and track the aircraft using the reflected light provided by the searchlights.

Radar functions analogously though at longer wavelengths in the EM continuous spectrum. Objects subject to EMR emit/reflect that radiation depending on many factors including geometry, object configuration, surface coatings and materials.

For example, wooden aircraft poorly 'reflect' RF but metal guidewires, fasteners and engines provide weak returns. Paper missiles provide poor returns in radio frequencies but hot engines broadcast infrared while active. Detection involves 'listening' at different frequencies.

 

[artis]

thanks for the responses, I did re read that wikipedia page although I think I once had.
I asked this because as far as I know ordinary radar doesn't jam any communications, it just produces radiation that upon reflection can be received.
The jammer is usually associated with some other device located away from the radar with the intention to send pulses back to the radar receiver to either overwhelm it or confuse it.

I was thinking more in line with having a radar that can both detect it's own created reflections so function as a radar does and at the same time be able to overwhelm or confuse all other radars to within a certain distance away from it.
I assume this ability would directly relate to the output power of the transmitter (if transmitter is separate)
All Em waves drop in strength with distance as radius squared so I assume any jammer stops overwhelming a receiver at some point and just can confuse it.

In the simplest case I imagine a vertical dipole antenna radiating very powerful RF in all directions, in theory there should be a certain radius around such an antenna where other RF communications would be disturbed or blocked due to either receiver confusion our outright damage.
I did not take into account various frequencies etc.

 

[berkeman]

In the simplest case I imagine a vertical dipole antenna radiating very powerful RF in all directions, in theory there should be a certain radius around such an antenna where other RF communications would be disturbed or blocked due to either receiver confusion our outright damage.

You need to be a bit careful just blasting out radar interference...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile

 

[Klystron]

thanks for the responses, I did re read that wikipedia page although I think I once had.

Hi, Artis. I did not reference wiki but I understand.

I asked this because as far as I know ordinary radar doesn't jam any communications, it just produces radiation that upon reflection can be received.
The jammer is usually associated with some other device located away from the radar with the intention to send pulses back to the radar receiver to either overwhelm it or confuse it.

According to popular unclassified electronic publications, Soviets, read Russians, experimented and developed powerful thyratrons and related devices operating in shorter wavelengths than typical radar operating in, say, India band.

Speculating, one might track an object using relatively benign low frequency pulsed I-band, slave your thyratron to the tracker and zap the target at close range with high frequency short duration pulses. One article in Popular 'Something' from late 1970's speculated this could damage on board electronics in the target including nap-of-earth navigation.

I was thinking more in line with having a radar that can both detect it's own created reflections so function as a radar does and at the same time be able to overwhelm or confuse all other radars to within a certain distance away from it.

No problem. Study declassified specs of intruder aircraft onboard radar devices.

I assume this ability would directly relate to the output power of the transmitter (if transmitter is separate)

Typically, radar transmitters TX and receivers RX are separate devices but may share antennas, power supplies, vans, etc.

Power output involves several factors including pulse formation, width, timing, wavelength, etc.

All Em waves drop in strength with distance as radius squared so I assume any jammer stops overwhelming a receiver at some point and just can confuse it.

"For every cat, a fine rat." For every electronic warfare method, invent a countermeasure.

EW experts prefer terms such as spoofing.

In the simplest case I imagine a vertical dipole antenna radiating very powerful RF in all directions, in theory there should be a certain radius around such an antenna where other RF communications would be disturbed or blocked due to either receiver confusion our outright damage.
I did not take into account various frequencies etc.

Perhaps. I prefer directed pulsed systems with more 'oomph'.

 

[anorlunda]

Don't forget that modern devices use much more than just radar. For example, those anti-tank missiles that target the top hatches of tanks. I suspect that they use photo recognition to spot the tops.

Terrain following missiles can use feature recognition and of course GPS. The Russians have been playing with GPS jamming.

Doppler techniques help locate moving objects. Synthetic Aperture Radar also contributes.

So-called lingering weapons can wait around in the sky until they spot any EM transmission, then home in on that.

JSTARS was used with great success in the Gulf War of the early 90s. The article says that JSTARS was highly jam resistant. That was more than 30 years ago, and technology marches on.

This video is about US Switchblade drones sent to Ukraine, use some of those features.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade
The Switchblade uses daytime and infrared cameras, as well as an "aided target tracker" to lock on to stationary and moving targets.

 

[Klystron]

Concur. EW depends on communications and effective command and control. Information comes from multiple sources: visual, aural, thermal, EMR, mass trackers. Effective C&C means no one system must sense every signal, information is parceled and shared.

Training EW operators mostly involves telling them how NOT to radiate. Minimalism rules. Radiate only when strictly necessary, for the briefest duration, at the lowest possible energy levels. Another reason I prefer training women operators. Women generally communicate, cooperate and understand discretion better than typical 'cowboys'.

Modern systems deploy remotely with operators at a distance, but profligate transmissions still give away the show. Defense often involves letting opponents make mistakes.

 

[anorlunda]

It's easy to imagine that NATO AWAC planes with JSTAR could cover some or all(?) of Ukrainian territory while flying over Poland. They could forward target coordinates to Ukraine forces on the ground. If they are doing that, they surely won't want to talk about it in public.

 

[DaveE]

Excellent responses. I'll just echo what I think others have said.

Modern EW is really about information; collection, analysis, spoofing, etc. Modern military EW systems have gone way beyond the simple concepts, things like overpowering radios.

This has been an active R&D activity for at least 70 years, with especially great advances after the era of ICs and computers. I've worked with some of those guys at DoD contractors in the 1980's, they aren't dumb, and they don't waste as much money as people think (at least in R&D). For 1st world militaries, it's an extremely sophisticated game of cat and mouse.

 

[DaveE]

It's easy to imagine that NATO AWAC planes with JSTAR could cover some or all(?) of Ukrainian territory while flying over Poland. They could forward target coordinates to Ukraine forces on the ground. If they are doing that, they surely won't want to talk about it in public.

They are doing that, and, in general, it's not a secret. Ukraine is getting lots of timely, specific, intelligence from friends.

 

[Klystron]

AWACs would have been my next assignment after organizing Range Group radar school but...

Apropos training EW techs and operators for Ukraine and other defense,

• Teach operators as much technical information about their weapon systems as they can learn in classroom and field. Always be learning. The best operators understand system internals equal to technicians. Techs make good operators.
• Teach appropriate mathematics skills to officers, techs and ops. Map and terrain reading. Practical use of transcendental functions to transfer position data into target acquisition. Naive set theory to capture unknowns. Algebra and calculus rule.
• Cross-train everyone who can acquire adjacent skills. The mechanic servicing generators or vehicles might help fix a stuck antenna positioning system or trundle fire control units to safer positions.
• Always be moving. A stationary emitter becomes a target. Forget 'Star' deployment and blend with background. Cover ground cables with local dirt. Separate hot objects such as generators and vehicles from electronics where feasible.
• Look from above, fire from below. Track from below, attack from above. Integrated warfare works. Loitering also effective but stay unpredictable.

Apropos women in EW, generally

• Women detect color (frequency) and tiny differences in position better than men. [citation needed]
• Women operate controls with superior dexterity and feedback. As in tennis, strength figures less than smooth movement. [ditto]
• Cooperation and communication, not competition, key to success.

 

[berkeman]

Training EW operators mostly involves telling them how NOT to radiate. Minimalism rules. Radiate only when strictly necessary, for the briefest duration, at the lowest possible energy levels.

This. I once had the privilage of working with a firefighter paramedic (FF/P) on planning and training for an upcoming Emergency Operation Center exercise (this was in earthquake country, so these training exercises and preparation were no joke). He was a reserve officer in the US Special Forces, with several tours in places that he could not talk about.

He mentioned to me that in the field, the brevity and low TX power of comms were super important. He said something like "If you transmit more than a few words, you will be targeted". The stoic look on his face made it pretty clear to me that he had direct experience with situations that were dicey involving comms.

The good news is that he's now a Fire Captain, and maybe even a Fire Chief (I've lost track), and well deserved. Amazing individual -- I would not want to be on the other side of the front lines against him...

 

[Baluncore]

I teach the three fundamental rules of EW surveillance.
1. Never transmit.
2. Never ever transmit.
3. Never ever ever transmit.

 

[DaveE]

I teach the three fundamental rules of EW surveillance.
1. Never transmit.
2. Never ever transmit.
3. Never ever ever transmit.

Yes, LOL. As opposed to defense or evasion. When the missile is a mile away and heading towards you, you'll smash every ECM button you've got because they already know where you are.

 

[artis]

It's easy to imagine that NATO AWAC planes with JSTAR could cover some or all(?) of Ukrainian territory while flying over Poland. They could forward target coordinates to Ukraine forces on the ground. If they are doing that, they surely won't want to talk about it in public.

If wiki data is true then the radar on that Boeing can hit about 250km on each side of the plane as it's tilted in 120 degrees. Assuming the plane never enters Ukrainian airspace but goes in circles from Poland , that barely scratches the surface there. It only picks up the western most part of Ukraine where the least fighting is taking place, at the inner most part of Ukrainian-Polish border the radar would make it less than half way to Kyiv.
I made a linear measurement in google maps. I mean Ukraine is a vast country, it's roughly the size of Texas

JSTAR could cover some or all(?)

So definitely not all, not even half and I can't calculate but maybe 1/5 in the west.

I assume this Boeing is not meant to fly alone into dangerous airspace as it seems it's big and beefy with all it's instrumentation on board and stands no chance to evade a launched SAM.

 

[artis]

Ok I see, so trying to "French fry" your opponents radioelectronics is not the main idea anymore. And one can use certain countermeasures to that.
But I suppose certain tactical nuclear weapons are still in inventory that were made solely for the purpose of an EMP blast to take out enemy radio coverage. For those I suppose there are close to zero countermeasures one can take.

 

[Baluncore]

For those I suppose there are close to zero countermeasures one can take.

You can line your hat with tin foil, or put a white paper bag over your head if it makes you feel better.

Assuming the plane never enters Ukrainian airspace but goes in circles from Poland , that barely scratches the surface there.

Now is not the time to discuss the range of the surveillance systems being used in eastern Europe. The discussion will be poorly informed because anyone who knows what is really happening there will be keeping quiet, in support of the Ukraine civilians.

Watch the "most tracked flights" on https://www.flightradar24.com
Each KC135, or A330 tanker will be supporting several untracked fighters.

In the last 12 hours, a USAAF B52 without a callsign, was tracked from Brize Norton, UK, over the Alps to an unspecified destination. It must have wanted to be seen, strategically repositioning. You can watch those things, then read between the lines.

 

[DaveE]

But I suppose certain tactical nuclear weapons are still in inventory that were made solely for the purpose of an EMP blast to take out enemy radio coverage. For those I suppose there are close to zero countermeasures one can take.

ECM won't stop WWIII. Once the ballistic missiles launch we're all toast.

 

[Borek]

There were attempts to use cell phone signal reflections to detect incoming planes (passive radar).

There were attempts to detect planes with disturbances of WSPR signals.

 

[Rive]

Ok I see, so trying to "French fry" your opponents radioelectronics is not the main idea anymore. And one can use certain countermeasures to that.

For small (disposable//cheap) drones, it's still an option. And, since this method is not exactly military grade stuff, this has some civilian use too.

I suppose certain tactical nuclear weapons are still in inventory that were made solely for the purpose of an EMP blast to take out enemy radio coverage. For those I suppose there are close to zero countermeasures one can take.

It's not really hard, just tedious (costly) work to prepare electronics for extreme EMP. As far as I know most (not disposable) military electronics has some kind of EMP tolerance requirements, so such weapons would do only limited (military) damage.

 

[Borek]

There are

But I suppose certain tactical nuclear weapons are still in inventory

You don't need nuke for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power_Microwave_Advanced_Missile_Project

 

[Baluncore]

But I suppose certain tactical nuclear weapons are still in inventory that were made solely for the purpose of an EMP blast to take out enemy radio coverage.

There is no advantage to be gained by discussing the tactical use of nuclear weapons of any type. Discussion would simply normalise and encourage their use.

There is no problem that can be solved by a nuclear solution. It simply escalates the losses on all sides in the conflict. We need to discuss how to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. The only use for nuclear weapons is MAD.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I teach the three fundamental rules of EW surveillance.
1. Never transmit.
2. Never ever transmit.
3. Never ever ever transmit.

Funny, those are the same rules for sonar.

 

[Klystron]

One hardly requires nuclear weapons to create electromagnetic pulses (EMP). That has been the gist of this thread from the beginning, pardon my diversion into training EW operators. Majority of that explosive energy gets dissipated in blast and useless frequencies.

Energy from common diesel generator charges a pulse forming network (PFN). PFN discharges via high voltage diodes into an oscillator tuned to selected wavelengths. Waveguide directs output to feedhorn coupled to lens and/or antennae. Blam! E M P.

While not quite this simple in application, the principles apply. Store energy, create desired wavelengths, amplify, direct at targets. Masers and lasers and more esoteric devices refine the process as do exotic materials.