Talk:Identification friend or foe

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / World War II / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Misc

Sorry if I am going about this the wrong way. This is my first wikipedia edit. The IFF interrogator is not really a radar system per-se. The gate and eyebrows appear onscreen with the radar image but the antenna and transciever are independent.

Also changing Mode 3 to be Mode 3/A. Civilian aircraft call Mode 3, Mode A. The interrogators listed as 3/A as well.

emergency codes: 7500, 7600, 7700 and 4X.

Maybe lingo parrot, squawk and whatnot.

Doesn't seem to need cleanup

I'm going to take the flag off - seems fine to me. Mrmaroon25

I think its too much information in one place without sections or reorganization. I'm going to revert back to the flag, but if you still disagree, change it again and we'll leave it clear of the cleanup flag. St.isaac 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain Modes.

Too much mixup with SIF

IFF doesn't have multiple modes. SIF (SSR) has multiple modes. IFF has only one mode (Mode 4). There is a new Mode 5, but this isn't the IFF we are talking about here. Mode 5 is really a crypto Mode S and ADS-B. I would get rid of all the references to SIF (selective identification feature).

OK, did that, hope it works for you.
Note: IFF is Mode 4 and 5, there are no other operational modes.

Jaylynik 18:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC) See my question below. All military definitions I've seen (including the online DoD Dictionary of Military Terms that this article references) treat SIF as an extra feature and/or subset of IFF, not to mention every piece of training and technical documentation about IFF I've ever seen.[reply]

SIF is Not IFF?

Excuse me, but what's the basis of the claim that SIF modes are not IFF modes? By whose definition?

k5okc 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC) SIF is selective identification feature. By selective, it uses a position coded pulse interrogation. The common pulse spacing of 3, 5, and 8 usec, or the 21us of Mode C. These "select" which mode the transponder should reply with. Mode S and IFF have no pulse position selective identification features. IFF (US, NATO, etc), like Mode S, is a complete data uplink system. Mode 5 can be thought of as a Mode S with cryptography of the uplink/downlink.[reply]

IFF is a separate system that can be multiplexed with SIF and Mode S. It can also operate on its own, as can SIF and Mode S. They are distinct modes, not one mode. To save space, IFF is usually incorporated into military and national interrogation systems, but is not part of civilian transponders. Without a crypto key there can be no IFF. The fact that you interrogate someone with a Mode-3 after they fail to respond to an IFF interrogation, does not mean Mode-3 is part of IFF, or IFF is part of Mode-3.

I have purposely not read any commercial books on this subject to avoid copyright or plagerism. What I write is from training guides and 20 years of working on military radars (ground and airborne surveillance) during the 70's and 80's.

Jaylynik 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC) All right. Looking at the situation here, I think part of the problem is that we both have sources that we can't bring online, and in both cases, the sources are probably perfectly valid. IFF is a military term, and while I know that it's exceedingly rare for the military to contradict itself or to use inconsistant terminology, ( ;) ) I suspect that may be the case here. Your experience certainly sounds extensive, but it also sounds more generalized than mine. Everyone in the little cluster of buildings where I work makes their living off of IFF and nothing but (or, by your definition, SIF *and* IFF). Some of them have been doing so for over 30 years continuously. Sounds like we've both got perfectly valid source material that (A) we can't bring to the table for assorted reasons, and (B) contradicts each other.[reply]

My suggestion: we look at the sources that the article sites, the dictionary of military terminology and the Federal standards. We go by those definitions. We trim ALL of the extra stuff. Maybe put in an 'examples of IFF systems' and include the US system, or whatever else, without too many details. (Or I'll do it, I'm not saying you have to or anything.) That way, there's no information here that isn't supported by outside sources, and the US bias is mitigated somewhat.

Jaylynik 21:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Alright. Further edit. Right now I'm looking at the IFF page of the NAVAIR EW and Radar Handbook ( https://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/iff.htm ) which may explain the contradiction. It says, and I quote, "The system was initially intended to distinguish between enemy and friend but has evolved such that the term 'IFF' commonly refers to all modes of operation, including civil and foreign aircraft use." If you've been in the Defense industry for a long time, and it sounds like you have, it could be that when you originally picked up the term, it was very specific. However, like the page says, the term "IFF" has since evolved to something mean something much more generic, and so a younger tech like me would only know the newer, broader usage. Just what are they teaching kids in schools these days, eh? ;)[reply]

Contradicts Sources/Contains Information Without Cites

Jaylynik 19:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)This article contains a lot of information that's not supported in any of it's cited sources, and what is more, it contradicts what cited sources it has. Civilian SSR is an outgrowth of IFF. They are interoperable and overlapping, sharing the SIF modes with each other. They are NOT mutually exclusive. I intend to edit this later once I've dug up a few more sources, preferably some that are a bit clearer and more in-depth than basic Military and Telecommunication dictionaries, but for now anyone viewing this article should be aware that the accuracy of some of the claims made here are questionable at best. Also, this article is extreamly U.S-centric. Several other countries have versions of IFF in use. However, I won't be able to verify who has what until I get my hands on a Janes, and considering how expensive they are, it may be awhile before I can do that.[reply]

k5okc 20:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC) I don't know what other countries have. All my experience has been in US, NATO systems. Someone from those countries will have to write about it. I am aware of the cross-band interrogation mode, because Egypt had to modify their F-16's so they would work with both Soviet and NATO IFF systems. I suspect that Egypt has now decommisioned its CBI transponders, as they should have modern avionics upgrades by now, both in the air and on the ground.[reply]

I guess I don't understand what you mean by IFF "sharing the SIF modes?" Do you mean IFF can somehow process SIF replies? Why would it do that? IFF is a separate interrogation system. It requires cryptography to operate. How does this cryptography enhance Mode-A or Mode-C? The fact that it may use a common modulator or receiver to transmit/receive pulses doesn't make IFF a SIF system, or SIF an IFF system. Using that logic, an AM and FM radio using a common audio amplifier, means you can call the AM side FM, or the FM side AM.

I guess I don't see the reason for all the hand waving, if you haven't even found your sources yet. Check the university library for Janes.

Jaylynik 16:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) IFF is not a seperate interrogation system, and it works just fine without a KIT or a KIR. You don't need Crytpo for IFF as a whole, only for the secure mode, mode 4. Modes 1, 2, 3/A and C are all considered modes of IFF. It just so happens that 3/A and C are also Civilian/SSR modes. Removing them just leaves it unable to process the secure modes. One of the sources currently sited by this article includes SIF modes as IFF modes, and the other source currently sited by this article lists SSR as an *outgrowth* of IFF. Any information that is not included in those two sources is not verified (for example, the references to Mode 4 and Mode 5; what's your basis for saying it's being deployed, anyway?), and I was asking for what the basis of your claim that SIF modes are not IFF modes, as it's not supported in any of the article's external references.[reply]

As for me not having 'even found [my] sources yet,' I was referring to online sources that can be linked. Sitting on and in my desk, I have at least three military technical manuals that refer to the SIF modes as IFF modes. Give me ten minutes to search my office, and I could probably find a dozen more. Give me a day to search the site, I could double or triple that number (although it would be easier if they hadn't recently dispersed the Program library). But, while I'm inclined to count a technical manual about an IFF interrogator or transponder as a fairly reliable source of information about IFF, they aren't on the internet. I'm talking about taking time to dig up internet sources that I can link. As for the reason for setting the flag: the article is inaccurate. I'm setting the flags to warn people that it is until I have time to correct things. That's what the flags are for, right?

Heck, personally, I'm of the opinion that you can take all but the most vague references to 'modes' out, including (and especially) mode 4 and mode 5, and instead just go with a quick definition of what it is, what it does, that it includes both secure and unsecure methods of operation, and when it was developed/a brief history. No frequencies, no KIT and KIR, nothing like that. This would make the article both accurate and applicable to every nation that uses IFF.

k5okc 16:30 27 June 2006 (UTC) If what you say is true (IFF is synonamous with SIF,SSR,ATCRBS, etc, etc), then there is no need for an IFF section in Wikipedia. Just made a pointer to SSR and its done. I don't really care one way or the other.

Several other countries have versions of IFF in use

Actually, IFF was invented for use with the Chain Home early warning radar system in the late 1930s. That's also where the term 'IFF' (Identification Friend or Foe) comes from, the RAF were using it during the Battle of Britain and before. The idea was conceived by Robert Watson-Watt as a means for the Chain Home system to distinguish 'friendly' RAF aircraft from possibly-'foe' other aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.8 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that IFF resulted from the Battle of Barking Creek which took place on the 6th September 1939, three days after the war started. Aircraft were detected by radar and fighters were sent to intercept and shot some down only to find that they were on our own side. The first IFF detected the primary radar transmiussion and enhanced the echo so that the ground radar could see that they were friendly. These were IFF Mk I and Mk II. However with different types of radar being developed, particularly those transmitting on a higher frequency, it became impractical match each airborne IFF equipment to each ground radar and IFF Mk III was developed which responded to a separate signal in the 157-187 MHz band. I think that I read this in either Swords, S. S. Technical History of the Beginnings of Radar, Peter Peregrinus, Stevenage, 1986 or in Lord Bowden of Chesterfield. The story of IFF, Proc. Inst. Electr. Eng. Part A,132(6), 435-437, 1986. But I do not now have access to either to check.80.229.227.134 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably incomplete paragraph about "IFF Modes"

To the article author, a gentle question.

In one paragraph it's stated: "There are two military modes of operation designated for use by Allied forces:". However only one mode follows it. Can it be assumed that the section is incomplete, as you're still going through your references? Or perhaps due to a typographic error?

Many thanks. DPdH 02:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please include details of your references

To the article author, can you please include as "References" the details of the manuals (if possible) that you mention as sources in this talk page?.

Maybe including title and publication code (I don't think they have an ISBN!) would suffice (unless they're classified) to make the contents verifiable. Just a kind idea.

Many thanks. DPdH 02:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jargon unhelpful to non-experts

I can identify ambiguous statements, but haven't the knowledge of IFF to re-write the passages to eliminate the ambiguity. In the third paragraph, what do "bad crypto" and "wrong crypto" mean? Would "crypto" mean "encryption" or "cryptography?" How does either apply here? There is a reference to IFF being less useful for low-flying aircraft because IFF uses microwaves. This problem may exist here-and-now if all modern IFF is microwave-based, but was it a problem with early radio-based IFF equipment? If the statement does not pertain to all IFF units throughout history, it should not be in the introduction. Also, note that the mention of "Soviet-era" IFF implies the existence of IFF from 1917 until the 1980s, which I suspect is not true. 172.162.106.247 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)RKH[reply]

Vague references to cryptos should probably be removed unless there are sources for that information that are available to the public. Also, why is there the implication that IFF isn't inclusive of civilian SIF modes? This simply isn't true. IFF is NOT a military-only concept, and certainly includes civilian modes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.6.132 (talk) 15:00, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Needs Cleanup

Yes this page is semi comprehensible with quite a few missing bits. Needs real cleanup. BillO'Slatter 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of the IFF Acronym

We should standardize Capitalization of the IFF Acronym and title (I did so, in a few areas just now) Bwebb00 (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea as iff is mathematical nomenclature for if and only if. Peizo (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of KIT and KIR jargon.

I think we should delete (or better integrate) the KIT and KIR mention. They are excessive in a Wiki article. Besides, a lot of the current and upgrade IFF systems have eliminated the KIT and KIR computers by integrating them into the Transponder. Bwebb00 (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You're right, I was a Navy IFF tech in the early 2000's and the crypto was integrated. KIR/KIT doesn't apply and its use was excessive. 67.172.42.133 (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! Just because it isn't typical of recent transponders doesn't mean that it should be deleted. The KIT/KIR is history behind the KIV and final integration into the transponder, and important theory behind the workings of Mode4. Thin it down, clean it up, but don't delete all of it. Off topic: this article needs a lot of work and mountains of references need to be added to it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point-of-view

From the bottom of the article: "here are two military modes of operation designated for use by Allied forces" Who are "Allied"? Is this WWII? This is either extremely point of view, or "allied" shouldn't be capitalized. 193.157.228.182 (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence deleted from history

I am moving this sentence from the end of the history section, after having added well documented alternatives.

Position with IFF is determined by comparing antenna dish angle and the delay from the interrogator (1,030 MHz) pulse to the received IFF pulses on (1,090 MHz).^{[citation needed]}

I have found in the patent literature about how early US IFF systems worked is not supported by this sentence. If someone can document it, perhaps it can be restored. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modes

"Mode 5 – provides a cryptographically secured version of Mode S and ADS-B GPS position. (military only)" As this is the only appearance of the term on the page, it is unclear what is meant by "Mode S". --Khajidha (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

This RfC was closed because consensus was readily apparent and in-line with our Manual of Style. 67.165.69.4 (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{rfc|sci}} I really think the page should be moved to Identification Friend or Foe as this is the proper capitalization for an acronym. WP:ACRO is mute on the subject. It is capitalized in other, generally reliable sources, such as The title of the Encyclopædia Britannica entry, and is capitalized as the working entry for US Military articles as well. Is there anyone that disagrees with this? I had attempted to speedy the capitalization but the admin that got to it - User:RHaworth - disagreed with the speedy tag. As such, to determine a proper consensus, I'm adding an RFC here on the issue. 67.165.69.4 (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identification friend or foe is capitalised in the titles of the two sources that you cite because that is their house style, you will notice that in the Britanica article it is not capitalised in the text. This tells us that it is not something that always has capitals (like a proper noun for example) The WP style is not to capitalise in titles, see WP:TITLEFORMAT. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has grown up. We do not need to follow the styles of others, we lay down styles and let others follow. Wikipedia style is no capitals. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was unaware of WP:TITLEFORMAT, despite my efforts to find something in the manual of style about it. I guess one can never stop learning about things here on Wikipedia. Thank you both for your comments and the education. I'm withdrawing my RfC at this time. 67.165.69.4 (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.