F-16.net

I remember reading a piece which said that a radar that was getting jammed needed time to work through the jamming it was receiving. Unfortunately, I don't have the source but it makes me wonder what working through the jamming would actually entail.

Presuming that both the jammer and jammee are using frequency agile transmitters, how would a jammee work through jamming?

Any idea on how much time that could take with equal technology levels?

Let's say I'm in an F-16, you're operating an S-300, you spot, identify and start locking on to me. I start jamming you both before and after the launch. What do you do?

Such discussions would normally involve classified information so don't expect much public details. That's 101 for those who serve or have served.

There are sites that provide basic information and that is itself just a fraction of what I know from experience 20 years ago. Nevertheless, can still be interesting.
http://www.radartutorial.eu/16.eccm/ja08.en.html
https://blog.bliley.com/eccm-techniques ... ic-warfare
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part11.htm

On time taken to handle jamming, it can be instantaneous to never, so pretty much useless to highlight. Troops can be (or are) trained to operate in high EW scenarios. Some units get more training than others so it also depends on the unit.

DARPA has an initiative on developing 'cognitive EW' capability.

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=28880&p=313910&hilit=Cognitive+ew#p313910

michaelemouse wrote:I remember reading a piece which said that a radar that was getting jammed needed time to work through the jamming it was receiving. Unfortunately, I don't have the source but it makes me wonder what working through the jamming would actually entail.

Presuming that both the jammer and jammee are using frequency agile transmitters, how would a jammee work through jamming?

Any idea on how much time that could take with equal technology levels?

Let's say I'm in an F-16, you're operating an S-300, you spot, identify and start locking on to me. I start jamming you both before and after the launch. What do you do?

It sounds like what you're describing is "burn-through range." Taking your example, the F-16's jamming will be more effective the further away the F-16 is from the S-300's radar. The reason why is that the signal strength of the actual radar returns is a function of the inverse fourth power of range, while the strength of the jamming is a function of the inverse square of range. This means that the signal strength grows faster than the jamming as range gets closer, and eventually the signal to noise ratio improves to the point where the jamming no longer fools the radar. So the radar "works through" the jamming in the sense that as the target gets closer, the jamming no longer works. I don't think that there's anything like adaptive signal processing that can use machine learning to figure out which signals are jamming and which are legitimate. At least, not yet, not that anyone is allowed to talk about.

The exact range at which this happens depends on the radar, how powerful it is, target radar cross section, the jammer, how powerful it is, and complex interactions between jamming techniques and radar signal processing, which are substantially classified.