Looking at some of the laser designator-capable platforms in the SAF...

A. Aircraft-based

Lantirn pods (18-26?)
Litening II pods (?)
Sniper pods (12?)

B. Helo-based

AH-64D (20) TADS

C. UAV-based

Hermes 450 (12?)
Searcher (40-42) - may or may not include designators.

D. Ground-based

LTM-91
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_...18nov07_fs.html

Laser designator by ST.
http://www.stelop.com/

Ah, I remember the designator I helped pack into a crate for Wallaby. Could have been the LTM-91, can't remember. Its designation wasn't on the manifest, but the instructions booklet wasn't in English.

I want to ask about how laser designators work. are these lasers digitally encoded with data or simply just a plain pulse of laser light? if there were two or more targets being lased and visible to an LGB seeker (for example) how does it (the LGB) choose which target to acquire?

lasers are coded.

kumxia ;)

you're welcome

Not really "coded" lar. It just blips in a certain sequence during the terminal phase. The GBU recognizes the sequence its supposed to go for.

That's the code. Lasers transmit information in binary after all. The seeker on the LGB kinda works like the supermarket barcode reader ;)

that means the designator on the ground has to somehow communicate his laser code to the airborne shooter? not something i've really heard of.

I supposed it would be co-ordinated beforehand...

No need to guess. Our friendly USian Military very helpfully publishes in the clear. :)

Have a read of JOINT PUB 3-09.1 - Joint Laser Designation Procedures. The link is for the 1991 document but an older version says it in a more succint manner ....

Which is why the 3G SAF's transformation into a more accurate strike force is taking time. It isn't easy to work out the TO&E, Doctrines and training to get the sensors and shooters to link up in a timely manner. Which is also why Ex. Forging Sabre and the STORM teams are such a big deal, despite the capability seeming so mundane.

Lightning warrior as well. IKC2 is very complex. Its much more than just lasers but literally coordination of all assets, ground vehicles, arty, logistics, air-sea.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publicati...s/feature7.html

So far mostly done in daylight. When it goes to night ops co-ordination, that's where the fun begins (and the greatest potential for force multiplier).

Designators like SOFLAM have NV-capability with attached night vision devices.

Too bad copperhead shells are too exp. Otherwise arty would join in the fun of precision targeting. That's a lot of logistics saved as less shells needed.

Pushing these down to coy/plt level if possible would be a significant improvement (without that much cost).

NG's offering (LLDR)
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/lldr/
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solution...assets/LLDR.pdf

Elbit's PLDR (used by USMC)
http://www.el-op.com/files/PDF/Lasers/UN_PLDR.pdf

Lightning warrior as well. IKC2 is very complex. Its much more than just lasers but literally coordination of all assets, ground vehicles, arty, logistics, air-sea.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publicati...s/feature7.html

So far mostly done in daylight. When it goes to night ops co-ordination, that's where the fun begins (and the greatest potential for force multiplier).

Designators like SOFLAM have NV-capability with attached night vision devices.

Too bad copperhead shells are too exp. Otherwise arty would join in the fun of precision targeting. That's a lot of logistics saved as less shells needed.

Pushing these down to coy/plt level if possible would be a significant improvement (without that much cost).

NG's offering (LLDR)
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/lldr/
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solution...assets/LLDR.pdf

Elbit's PLDR (used by USMC)
http://www.el-op.com/files/PDF/Lasers/UN_PLDR.pdf

Interesting to note too that LTMs don't need beam riding. Just coded pulses reflected off the target that states "hit me".

Well ... on the laser guided side, PGMM is around the corner and is pitched at $15k per shell (remains to be seen). India paid $40k per Krasponol. Copperhead was about $45k then or $95k in today's dollars.

Moving over to INS/GPS ... Excalibur is as expensive as Copperhead but PGK is coming soon and is pitched at $5k per shell but CEP is nowhere near as good.

So still some PG fun to be had for the arty boys

M1156 PGK still not that precise (50m CEP or less) but agreed will have an impact on logistics as well. It has not entered US service as far as I understand and will take even more time b4 it can be considered by SAF.

A good read:
http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/2007/JAN_FE...PAGES_31_33.pdf

Same thing with service entry of Excalibur into SAF. Sweden manufactures ~11% of components and will get its rounds only in 2010. Canada, Australia ordered v small quantities. SG, even if interested despite the US$85k (and probably higher since that's for US and its economies of scale) per round price tag, will have to wait.

I can imagine the stressed FO trying to get the co-ords right so that dun waste S$100+k round.

At that price, RSAF will probably get priority to procure JDAMs, cheaper paveways and laser-guided rockets <-- I'm a huge fan) first. Rocket vs arty shell weight isn't that much diff and one Apache can carry 76. 76 laser guided rockets w CEP 1.5m or 9 excalibur w CEP 10m. Like copperhead, I doubt if Excalibur will enter SAF service.

I swear one of my posts on the Laser codes went missing. Any moderation involved?

Managed to confirm that SAF bought a fairly large number of AN/PVS-13s night vision sights a few years back (value ~US$4k+ each). The AN/PVS-13 provides night vision sighting for the SOFLAM target designators and operates on 2 AA size batts. Looks like LTMs have night designation capabilities and judging by the number of scopes purchased, we can expect quite a number of LTMs as well....

F-5 two seater has a laser designator. But it's mounted in the cockpit and shoot out from there too - sideways. Forget the equipment designation.


UAVs in RSAF used the M.O.S.P E/O turret. I believe it has laser designation capabilities.

Should be AN/AVQ-27. Do you have a source or pic that shows RSAF F-5s with the designator?

Also noted that my earlier post should be Litening III (not II) pod for the blk 52+s.

Taman's MOSP is used for the searcher. But I have not been able to confirm from public sources that the RSAF searcher IIs are capable of laser designation (though very likely).

Mindef, as usual, only credits the Hermes with laser designating capability.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_we...aft/Others.html

Hermes 450 uses the Compass.
http://www.kollsman.com/downloads/compass-datasheet.pdf

Yes, it's the AN/AVQ-27. I can only recall reading it on paper and IIRC it's a Jane's yearbook(Must be before 1989). Which one I cannot recall. Sorry.

As for Hermes 450 with Compass? Don't know about that.

It used to be the payload comes together with the platform. Reason is they all ride on the same datalink modem on a proprietary word frame.

But I believe this should not be the case going forward. Operators may want more flexibility deciding which payloads to use.

So my guess is either there's a generic interface probably a 1553 databus of one variation or another(with programmable datalink frame formats) to the control processor or the payload has it's own modem.

If not wrong, I have seen 450s carrying dual E/O payloads.

After giving much thought, I would be most surprised if the AN/AVQ-27 is still operational!!! :lol:

Though it's standalone and would have no problem fitting into the upgraded cockpit. But I doubt it's in use now.

The source I have for the Kollman is a mag called Air Power International Issue 24.

The Hermes' also equipped with the EL/M-2055 SAR/GMTI.

http://www.iai.co.il/33778-34548-en/ELTA.aspx

Just to clarify the word frame refers to the uplink from ground control station to the uav.

There's some vendors now touting the Universal Ground Control Station concept. It allows the same GCS to control various UAVs.

So there is a move to more open standards or programmable datalink frames.

Hope this moves to the uav platform architecture too.

Payload video downlink is mostly a separate tx.

Edit:
As for the SAR/GMTI, some mention of problem penetrating dense foilage around here. I think YF mention FOPEN as a possible answer.

Agree to FOPEN. News about FOPEN have been posted on this forum before.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/features/fopen/

DSTA has been providing funds to local researchers for to study low frequency FOPEN early in this decade. NTU has looked at concepts such as boomSAR for FOPEN tech.

"Our scientists and engineers have pioneered work in underground ammunition storage, foliage penetrating radar and human sciences."

http://www.dsta.gov.sg/index.php?option=co...3182&Itemid=401

Boeing also has the A160T hummingbird rotocraft operating a Forestor FOPEN antenna:

http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/programs/forester/forester.asp

Ericsson's Carabas...
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jav/jav_0517.html

Quite an interesting field...

Hmm looked at the LM's FOPEN website before, but I don't really understand how low frequency can be used to achieve high resolution, since low frequency usually means lower resolution.

From my layman limited understanding, certain frequencies have the ability to penetrate certain densities better eg TV and radio signals can be received inside a room despite walls. Hence, unlike traditional SARs where the frequencies bounce back when striking an object, the lower frequencies enable the waves to pass through materials eg leaf that we don't want to see. I am given to understand FOPEN SAR frequencies actually operate in the same frequencies as TV and radio.

Apparently that is also developed in tandem with computer software where algorithms are able to process the information and better distinguish the picture. That's so much so that FOPEN is now being integrated with GMTI to detect moving objects below foliage.

Click Radar, FOPEN SAR...
http://www.tsc.com/2.0_Adv%20Sensors.htm

There are techniques where you can modulate the RF energy from the radar. One method of many called 'pulse compression' increases range resolution.

Referred as radar waveforms.

Allows the radar to see airplanes in very tight formation for example.

Some waveforms can deal with clutter rejection etc.

Interesting thanks! The part about the same frequencies as TV and radio make me wonder about interference-- I've read that some US military frequency bands actually overlap with civilian frequencies from cellphone towers, tv, radio etc from other countries! It would be funny if the response to an air attack was to get the TV stations to start broadcasting at higher power to generate interference :P

Jamming signals are easily detectable which can be expected to attract a fairly quick response. That's why and how ELINT management eg CAEW capability comes into play.

In any case, TV/Radio broadcast aren't normally expected to be set in the jungle/wooded areas so such efforts would be pretty obvious as well.

Interference from TV, radio stations maybe a slight problem.

I'm not so sure it will impact the operation of these Synthetic Aperture Radar as these are pulsed emissions of specific signature(because of the waveforms I mentioned earlier) and the receiver would be 'tuned' to these.

Edit: Antenna used are directional and some are airborne so it's possible to position to minimise reception of these interference.

By the way, off topic.:ph43r: YF pointed out this to me first.

Use of a couple of radio station transmission as reference signals to passive radar is another new(at least to me) thing. There's one from Thales - Raytheon. Others from BAE and Lockheed Martin.

Surprisingly 'simple' and low power systems.

Good primer in wiki if you look for passive radar.

Homeland Alerter HA100

But we are increasingly operating in urban areas-- could potentially mess up CAS bombstrikes? Ahh well it's just a theoretical.

About the passive radar thing-- some years back a B-2 was detected in England because it apparently flew though a cellphone network, so it is potentially useful. IIRC the opinion was that detection is fine but the signal would not be strong or accurate enough to shoot it down.

Nice pic of the LTM-91 in cmdo hands (2007). Note the M-16 with scope.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/etc/medialib/imin...ge.gif?direct=1

actually jamming signals to satellites are not easy to detect. the satellite fleet operators in US expends a lot of energy tracking down errand jammers (usually due to equipment malfunction) by sending helicopters flying over the general area with a horn receiver in order to locate the actual antenna.

I think you're talking about signal interference rather than jamming (which is a different issue cos that's localised rather than targeted at the sat). Sat jammers don't normally end up lying around nor are they widely distributed articles....having said that, its the same principle as radio. Hold on the receiver button and one jams up the frequency.

Interference isn't difficult to detect either. Locating the interference is another issue but it may not be necessary in some instances eg changing the frequency can eliminate some instances of interference.

usually its due to bad modem or BUC causing the centre frequency to drift and thus "jam" other carriers. in either case it is easy to detect, but hard to find the source.

Noted. But that's a minor issue in the context of ECCM and there are already SOP defensive measures/practices which I would not go into due to OPSec.

But as mentioned, its not difficult to detect when a network is being jammed.

LM gets contract for Lantirn depot maintenance.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_r...inReceives.html

At the same time markets the LANTIRN-ER which upgrades existing pods...

LANTIRN ER website
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/LANTIRN/index.html

LANTIRN ER brochure
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/...roduct_Card.pdf

Interesting to note defenseindustrydaily's comments regarding the economics of upgrading though...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/buildi...ing-pods-02801/

IAI introduced the Minipop-D EO system in mid-August.

News release
http://www.iai.co.il/32981-39792-en/MediaRoom_News.aspx

Brochure
http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/files/8/36998.pdf

Primary benefits are

(i) it can be mounted on a variety of platforms including USV, UGV, ground vehicles as well as the usual UAVs.

(ii) it provides target designation for hellfires, LGBs and other laser guided munitions and range finding which the original mini-pop couldn't do previously.

A price of $220k was published by IAI for its mini-pop system.

Just wanted to highlight that the pic of the UAV in the minipop-D brochure looks almost identical to ST aero/DSO collaboration's skyblade IV except for the location of the propellor.

http://www.staero.aero/downloads/uploadedf...ybladeIV_A4.pdf

The skyblade IV, which was unveiled at Singapore airshow 2008, has a 12kg payload which is sufficient to carry the 7.7kg minipop-D. If used, that will expand the number of laser designators used by the SAF even further.

This coincides with a service entry date mentioned as part of Singapore airshow 2008 reports. The size of the Skyblade IV is 3 times smaller than the searcher II which makes it a harder target to spot whilst operating at altitudes beyond the range of handheld SAMs such as the FN-6 and anza mk II.

According to the brochure, the UAV is intended for SAF battalion commanders which will complement the searcher/hermes UAVs that operate under the RSAF UAV command.

Have confirmed that the pic is that of the I-View and not skyblade.

2004 issue of AF newsletter with MOSP demo for foreign VIP on page 4

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_we....tmp/aug_04.pdf

MOSP brochure with laser designator capability

http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/7/35677.pdf

Searcher UAV factsheet (inaugurated 3 Mar 1998)

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_...03mar98_fs.html