I drank too much coffee this morning
P.S., I have all the respect in the world for the military protecting our freedom, I just think the dumbass electrical engineers are cooking us all a bit with all those high power, high gain pulsed radars and are not completely aware of it. I have a good friend who is an x-military pilot and he said you hire the air force when you want to “break something” from the air….
GUEST VIEW: Newport towers pale compared to other transmitters
We have followed closely the Observer-Dispatch’s reporting on the Newport Antenna Measurement Facility. Following your initial Feb. 26 news story, we were surprised your reporter didn’t ask us a single question about the site. So we reached out to her to ensure she knew how to contact us and to let her know we were more than willing to discuss the work there.
There was no response.
Then, we read the March 5 editorial, “Push for answers on radar.” We can only assume your paper’s search for answers was less than exhaustive because we still haven’t been asked about the site.
Nonetheless, we are happy to provide answers to you and your readers.
Let us start with what the site is not. We do incredibly important work at Newport, but it isn’t “military-grade radar” and it doesn’t “emit various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation testing the latest electronic warfare technology.” It would be unsafe to conduct such research near populated areas. In addition, security would mandate such highly classified testing on electronic warfare be conducted far from prying eyes.
The Newport site actually consists of a series of small-power radios that transmit at a maximum power of 1 watt. These radios transmit signals to aircraft shells mounted on positioning towers that enable us to mimic different aspects of flight. This allows us to measure how well the aircraft antennas receive low power signals. We found late in the Vietnam War that an F-4 fighter loaded with bombs could lose radio contact when it banked at certain angles. The Newport facility ensures we don’t have similar issues with modern aircraft.
For the purposes of comparison, our 1-watt transmitters deliver a fraction of the power of a 50,000 watt television transmitter in the area that beams around the clock. A typical cell phone next to one’s ear is almost 6 million times stronger than the Tanner Hill transmitter. Likewise, power density from a nearby WI-FI access point (home router) transmitting at 50 mw (typical) would be over a million times stronger at a distance of 1 meter.
We sympathize deeply with the families who are suffering. And we agree they deserve a full investigation. They deserve answers. To this end, we sent an unsolicited letter offering assistance to the New York State Department of Health. We invited them to visit the site if they feel that would be beneficial to their study.
We would be happy to extend the same invitation to the authors of this editorial.
The Information Directorate at Rome Research Site plays a vital role in delivering a superior technical advantage for our Air Force in the information domain. We want our Airmen to be “smarter” than our adversary at every juncture. The Newport site plays a vital role in helping us understand how to best deliver information to our pilots in the aircraft. That knowledge is crucial, especially on the modern battlefield.
Page 2 of 2 – Col. David P. Blanks is commander of the Rome Research Site and Deputy Director of the Information Directorate.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The O-D reporter was contacted after the Feb. 26 story by an Air Force official from Ohio who said he oversees the Newport towers.
He told the reporter that the Newport system only puts out signals at about 1 watt. She then went back to her source, who provided documentation showing that in 2005 – at least – there was electronic warfare testing in Newport and it was at about 30,000 watts.
The O-D editorial board, meanwhile, was contacted by a representative of the CNY Defense Alliance concerning the Feb. 26 report and was told that the Air Force Research Lab Public Affairs office would forward contact information since personnel at Rome Lab are not authorized to talk with the media. That contact information was not provided.
Further, a request asking for attribution of an email discussing RF (radio frequency) power density at the Newport site was never acknowledged.
The Gentlemen implies they only tested the F-35 AESA antennas as receivers, receiving only 1 watt of power. This article mentions they also tested the F-35’s multiple antennas for antenna to antenna isolation, to see if one antenna will “drown out” or “overwhelm” the other antenna(s) In order to do that you have to place the AESA radar antennas in transmit mode. The AN/APG-81 radar can pulse up to 30,000 watts of power @ approx gain of 45, possibly higher
The F-35 model will also be used to measure antenna-to-antenna isolation measurements to support F-35 radio frequency (RF) compatibility verification. The model weighs 8,500 pounds and was produced over a 44-week period. With interchangeable wing and tail components, it has the capability to simulate all three F-35 variants.
The issue – transmitting antennas drown each other out
Whenever two antennas are physically close together, radio frequency isolation decreases between those antennas and the antennas can “hear” each other better. The problem occurs when one of those antennas is transmitting, while the other antenna is receiving or transmitting. In situations where, the antennas are both receiving only, there is usually no problem. The challenge is if one antenna or more is a transmitter. In this scenario, the transmitter(s) degrade receiver performance, and can interfere with other radio systems and/or cause certification problems such as radiated spurious emissions (RSE).
TV Antenna EIRP Watts: 50,000
F-35 AESA AN/APG-81 Radar EIRP Watts: 948,682,741
The insult to everyone’s intelligence that reads this article is that the military is implying their latest F-35 fighter with electronic warfare capabilities that was tested at Newport, NY starting in 2005, only uses one watt of power to disable and jam enemy radars from miles away…
That is laughable
From: ChemE Stewart [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 11:14 AM
To: MAYER, DARYL W GS-13 USAF AFMC 88 ABW/PA
Subject: Re: Requests for information on Newport Antenna Test Facility
As you know I am one of the professionals helping the Mothers in Newport, NY collect information on potential environmental triggers for the recognized cancer/disease cluster in children & adults in/around Newport, NY. This will include sources of ionizing radiation as well as non-ionizing radiation such as that emitted from the Newport antenna radiation test site. To be more specific , we are looking for any sources of public information over the past 30-40 years regarding:
1. Antenna Radiation Test Dates/Durations
2. Antenna Radiation Patterns
3. Antenna Power
4. Antenna Gain
5. Antenna EIRP (effective isotropic radiated power)
6. Antenna Duty Cycle, including Pulse Repetition factor (PRF), Pulse Duration, etc.
7. Antenna targets and distances (on the hilltops and in the air)
8. Directional antenna beamwidths and beam directions
9. Antenna Make/Model/Phased Array/Parabolic
10. Radiation power levels detected at Newport Rd (approx. 2000 feet below) and the surrounding area. Radiation levels should not just include average power but peak pulsed power.
11. Radiation levels detected at/around the RF fencing below the test sites.
“For the purposes of comparison, our 1-watt transmitters deliver a fraction of the power of a 50,000 watt television transmitter in the area that beams around the clock.” THEY FORGOT TO MENTION THE 30,000 watt F-35 AESA RADAR PACKAGE TESTED ABOUT 2005. [A TV ANTENNA IS AN ISOTROPIC RADIATOR, NOT EVEN A CLOSE COMPARISON- IT RADIATES IN ALL DIRECTIONS. AN F-35 AESA RADAR IS A HIGH GAIN, HIGHLY FOCUSED MILITARY RADAR]
November 12, 2004 (by Lieven Dewitte) – Multi-phase Mission Systems aperture testing is under way on a full-scale model of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at the Air Force Research Laboratories’ Newport, N.Y., test facility.
The model, manufactured by Advanced Technologies, Inc., of Newport News, Va., is being used to measure installed antenna pattern, gain and phase measurements for the F-35’s Communication, Navigation & Identification (CNI) and Electronic Warfare (EW) systems.
The aperture test program, a major Mission Systems development milestone, began on Oct. 1 with testing of the CNI system’s upper L-Band antennas from Ball Aerospace. Early test results show the pre-production apertures meet or exceed pattern and gain requirements while installed in the F-35 model. Additional tests are evaluating the performance of the CNI system’s Satellite Communications, Global Positioning System and UHF/VHF communications apertures. EW aperture testing will begin in 2005.
F-35 EW AESA Radar Antenna: 30,000 Peak Pulsed Watts
GAIN (est.): 45 dBi
Effective Isotropic Radiatiated Power (EIRP): 94,8682,741 WATTS
THAT IS 95 MILLION WATTS EQUIVALENT OF FOCUSED POWER. THAT IS 1900 TIMES MORE POWERFUL. THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVE IS MAKING YOUR CHILDREN SICK. NOW DID THEY TEST IT LIKE THE ARTICLE SAYS OR NOT?
@ Sorry, put my comma in the wrong place
EIRP: 948,682,741 Watts !!!!
That is 19,000 times higher equivalent isotropic power than his isotropic TV antenna example.
Check my math:
Click here to see EIRP of some other military/weather radars, most are in the Gigawatts:
“He told the reporter that the Newport system only puts out signals at about 1 watt” THAT IS NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT
They are actually telling you an average power from 1996 which averages in the time the radar is turned off in between pulses. That is like telling you your Ferrari only puts out 10 HP because you average in the time it is turned off sitting in the garage.
Both low power (<25 watts) and high power pulsed TWT’s have been discussed for use in
future experiments. The low power transmitter is used primarily with a fixed antenna for receiver
calibration and equalization. The 1 kW (peak)[1000 watts] pulsed TWT uses a steerable 10 foot dish to
provide signals for local experiments.
The 10 foot dish antenna will further boost the signal due to the gain of the parabolic dish
“Then, we read the March 5 editorial, “Push for answers on radar.” We can only assume your paper’s search for answers was less than exhaustive because we still haven’t been asked about the site.” THIS IS NOT A TRUE STATEMENT
Do you know where online I can find the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Newport, NY antenna/radar test facility. Usually there is one filed with the State/Federal Government
Your email is listed online as the contact for the Rome Air Force and Newport, NY antenna radiation test facility. I am helping some mothers with an environmental study in Newport, NY. Do you know if there was ever an environmental impact assessment done/filed for the Newport Test Facility? It may not have required one but I would like to verify.
From: MAYER, DARYL W GS-13 USAF AFMC 88 ABW/PA <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:40 PM
Subject: Requests for information on Newport Antenna Test Facility
To: “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I’m told you’ve been looking for information on the Newport Antenna Test
Facility. I’m in the Public Affairs Office at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
which is where Air Force Research Laboratory is headquartered. We have the
responsibility for supporting AFRL and the Rome Research Site in your area
Dr. Hawking, Do You Have a Clue?