Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: "Identify-Friend-or-Foe" questions
Message-ID: <12597@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 27 Dec 89 03:40:38 GMT
References: <12566@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <12566@cbnews.ATT.COM> denbeste@BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) writes:
>
>
>I would appreciate it if someone would post a description of how the "IFF"
>system works. Every way I can think of that it could work provides a way for an
>enemy to abuse the system. For instance, in a jet with such
>a system:
>
>2. IFF answers with its signature whenever someone else broadcasts a query.
>	A missile could be equipped with a query-broadcaster and then
>	home in on the answer.
>
This is the method used by current systems.  You are right about an
enemy interrogating the IFF to determine your position.  You hear
about an "unofficial" policy that all IFF will be turned off in a
shooting war for just this reason.  At least the operators sincerely
wish that the IFF will be turned off.  I believe that in operations
over Vietnam, the US aircraft turned their IFF off.  In some studies
of pilot workload, it seems that pilots ignore IFF anyway because they
already have too much information to process.  Considering all of
this, the question is why spend all that money on something that
people don't want to use?

-- 
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogi.edu