J-20 goes operational again

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 899
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post15 Oct 2021, 16:47

wrightwing wrote:Exactly. Each of the 4 SSGNs can fire 154 TLAMs (616 missiles if all 4 subs used). Seawolf SSNs can launch 50 TLAMs (150 missiles if all 3 subs used). Virginia SSNs can currently carry 37 TLAMs, and with the Block V upgrade, will carry 65 TLAMs. Los Angeles SSNs can carry 12 TLAMs in their VLS tubes, and additional missiles from their torpedo tubes. That's a lot of missiles in theory, without even counting the ones on ships, or the JASSM-ER/XR on bombers and fighters.

And when that is all launched then what? How many salvo's like this can be done in a short, medium and long-term?

I recall many scenario's from the past where the USA bases in the pacific would be bombarded just like that, The general consensus was that rebuilding would be relatively fast and that a lot of the munitions would not reach their target at all, it would hurt a lot but would not destroy overal capability. With just the munitions stated here you will not defeat China.

China has no lack of manpower and resources available, and for them it will be relative close to home. Logistics is in their favor, and wars are mostly won by the one that has the best logistics.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

tphuang

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 02:42

Unread post15 Oct 2021, 17:29

So now that we have established that J-20 would be involved in a large combat scenario with tankers and special missions aircraft on the opposing side, the question is whether or not it can do the role of taking out large aircraft very well.

It does seem to me that if a couple of J-20 is tasked with using stealth to fly close enough to fire off medium to long AAMs against vulnerable targets, having the ability to cruise without using afterburner would be a major plus in escaping afterward. Not sure if that's possible with the current engine options. At lower weigh after using up good chunk of fuel and launched large missiles, it might be possible.

Other question is how stealthy is it? I'd imagine in most cases, it's showing frontal or side profiles. If its not showing rear profile, can it keep itself from getting tracked assuming there are a bunch of other Chinese aircraft and drones around it? No idea on this one.

Is its passive sensors, networking capabilities and data fusion abilities good enough to allow it to track targets without exposing itself? This to me seems to be something that they can make incremental improvements to even if the current sensors, computing power and software are not up to par.

Long term, it seems to me that whatever J-35 turns out to be might provide similar air combat performance to J-20 (aside from range/payload), but have significantly lower production/maintenance costs and better build quality as they learn from the mistakes they made with J-20 development. That would lead to more orders for the smaller aircraft. Not too different from what USAF faces with F-22/35.
Offline

jessmo112

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post15 Oct 2021, 22:20

botsing wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Exactly. Each of the 4 SSGNs can fire 154 TLAMs (616 missiles if all 4 subs used). Seawolf SSNs can launch 50 TLAMs (150 missiles if all 3 subs used). Virginia SSNs can currently carry 37 TLAMs, and with the Block V upgrade, will carry 65 TLAMs. Los Angeles SSNs can carry 12 TLAMs in their VLS tubes, and additional missiles from their torpedo tubes. That's a lot of missiles in theory, without even counting the ones on ships, or the JASSM-ER/XR on bombers and fighters.

And when that is all launched then what? How many salvo's like this can be done in a short, medium and long-term?

I recall many scenario's from the past where the USA bases in the pacific would be bombarded just like that, The general consensus was that rebuilding would be relatively fast and that a lot of the munitions would not reach their target at all, it would hurt a lot but would not destroy overal capability. With just the munitions stated here you will not defeat China.

China has no lack of manpower and resources available, and for them it will be relative close to home. Logistics is in their favor, and wars are mostly won by the one that has the best logistics.


So China has better Logistics than all of the combined U.S. forces? They only recently learned how to replenish at sea, and have limited tanker and airlift support, but better Logistics?! Are your assumptions based on facts or are they better simply because they are Chinese?
Do the Chinese even have more smart weapons than the U S ? How many Jdam kits do they have?
Anyway it's not just 1 force or 1 aspect.
The Chinese will be hit with ground based missiles, tactical fighters. Sub forces 5+ carrier groups, bomber forces and possibly what ever weapon the U S. Is waiting to reveal in space. I will cash app you $50 if the Chinese navy lasts more than a week. The war will be fast and ugly.. While China does have the advantage of fighting off of the coast, they are at a disadvantage because they lack allies its likely that they will fight the U S. Japan, Australia, The UK Taiwan, SK, and maybe even India.
This can only be described as a tactical and political blunder.

Back to the J-20. Here are a few weaknesses and questions concerning its capacity.

1. How good are the Chinese at electronic management?
Have they mastered LPI radar? Will the esm be good enough to tangle with the F-35/F-22‽ How do they achieve firing solution? Let's not forget that the F-35s Apg-81 is able to detect even the F-22s radar.

2. 2 Thermal management. The F-35 is scheduled to receive the meteor missile. What makes you think that it could not be fast Tracked in a conflict. If J-20s are picked off trying to egress how long do you think that will last?
What makes you think that high value assets like tankers
Won't be protected by F-35s or F-22s?
Even F-15s with the new IR pods would do a good job..why not use loyal wingman or Malds as escorts for high value assets? I would smash a mald into the incoming missiles in a heart beat if it meant keeping my tanker bridge open.

3. If the tanker has F-35s as escort how do you know the missiles can't be jammed or countermeasures?

I'll tell you what's going to happen. The Americans are going to choose an airspace high above the pacific, and plant tankers their. If the Chinese want to get rid of the tankers then they have to prosecute a large pitched air battle to kill them. They need to fly in and shoot down all of the escorts, destroy all of the escorts and infrastructure. And totally annihilate the U S air task force protecting them. They won't get to take random pop shots at the tankers and run away. I just realized that thier are to many counter measures, and means to defeat that
Offline

jessmo112

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post15 Oct 2021, 22:27

This Idea makes so much sense.
I would explore the possibility of putting hard points on tankers for mald, and Mald jammer.
In the event that the tanker is engaged the tanker
Bank evade and drop a mald.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3924
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post15 Oct 2021, 22:43

botsing wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Exactly. Each of the 4 SSGNs can fire 154 TLAMs (616 missiles if all 4 subs used). Seawolf SSNs can launch 50 TLAMs (150 missiles if all 3 subs used). Virginia SSNs can currently carry 37 TLAMs, and with the Block V upgrade, will carry 65 TLAMs. Los Angeles SSNs can carry 12 TLAMs in their VLS tubes, and additional missiles from their torpedo tubes. That's a lot of missiles in theory, without even counting the ones on ships, or the JASSM-ER/XR on bombers and fighters.

And when that is all launched then what? How many salvo's like this can be done in a short, medium and long-term?

I recall many scenario's from the past where the USA bases in the pacific would be bombarded just like that, The general consensus was that rebuilding would be relatively fast and that a lot of the munitions would not reach their target at all, it would hurt a lot but would not destroy overal capability. With just the munitions stated here you will not defeat China.

China has no lack of manpower and resources available, and for them it will be relative close to home. Logistics is in their favor, and wars are mostly won by the one that has the best logistics.


Then ships/aircraft could operate much closer, as the A2AD bubble would've shrunk by quite a bit, and any hopes of easily taking Taiwan would be gone.
Offline

tphuang

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 02:42

Unread post17 Oct 2021, 17:45

jessmo112 wrote:Back to the J-20. Here are a few weaknesses and questions concerning its capacity.

1. How good are the Chinese at electronic management?
Have they mastered LPI radar? Will the esm be good enough to tangle with the F-35/F-22‽ How do they achieve firing solution? Let's not forget that the F-35s Apg-81 is able to detect even the F-22s radar.

2. 2 Thermal management. The F-35 is scheduled to receive the meteor missile. What makes you think that it could not be fast Tracked in a conflict. If J-20s are picked off trying to egress how long do you think that will last?
What makes you think that high value assets like tankers
Won't be protected by F-35s or F-22s?
Even F-15s with the new IR pods would do a good job..why not use loyal wingman or Malds as escorts for high value assets? I would smash a mald into the incoming missiles in a heart beat if it meant keeping my tanker bridge open.


3. If the tanker has F-35s as escort how do you know the missiles can't be jammed or countermeasures?

I'll tell you what's going to happen. The Americans are going to choose an airspace high above the pacific, and plant tankers their. If the Chinese want to get rid of the tankers then they have to prosecute a large pitched air battle to kill them. They need to fly in and shoot down all of the escorts, destroy all of the escorts and infrastructure. And totally annihilate the U S air task force protecting them. They won't get to take random pop shots at the tankers and run away. I just realized that thier are to many counter measures, and means to defeat that


This is a good question. I don't think it's just a matter of how good they are at electronic management, but what kind of tactics will they use?

Against competition with advanced EW suites, what tactics should a 5th gen fighter jet use? Can they get back with just passive sensors and data linking from other assets?

I'd imagine as the passive sensors, EW suite and computer software continue to improve, you'd want rely as little on your active radar as possible. There is a lot of potential here, but it would probably take a lot of training and war games for them to improve all of these areas. Maybe we will get to a point where 5th gen aircraft simply can't effectively track each other while there are a bunch of other aircraft, drones, ships and ground based radar around. What is the effective range of medium to long ranged radar guided AAMs against a LO aircraft?

Do you really want F-35s to aggressively jamming missiles if that will end up giving away its position?

How close can a J-20 get to a large force multiplier aircraft without getting tracked if there are a bunch of other fast-ish and stealthy flying objects (like high speed drones) around in the battle field. If it can get close enough, missiles with IIR seeker would be pretty deadly on a large aircraft even at 20 km range. If it cannot get close enough, it'd have to rely on active radar guided missile. Which is more jammable, but would probably be effective from 50 km out against a large tanker.

A J-20 would do well to not engage any F-35 on its way toward a large aircraft and on its way out. It seems to me that having the ability to do super cruise would be pretty important here if F-35 does not have the same capability.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1485
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post17 Oct 2021, 18:21

jessmo112 wrote:This Idea makes so much sense.
I would explore the possibility of putting hard points on tankers for mald, and Mald jammer.
In the event that the tanker is engaged the tanker
Bank evade and drop a mald.


Tankers are huge so you need lot of jamming power to be able to "hide" them. Much better option then MALD, would be Raven with latest tech but it was retired in late 1990s.

Or tanker with Raven like jammer.

In future maybe we see B-21 tanker variant of some big a$$ stealthy drone tanker.

But problem with future is Chinese growth, their military might growth exponentially with each decade and that was with dawns leading country, now hawks are taking over so we could except bigger % of gdp to go for military.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3924
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post17 Oct 2021, 21:12

tphuang wrote:

Do you really want F-35s to aggressively jamming missiles if that will end up giving away its position?

How close can a J-20 get to a large force multiplier aircraft without getting tracked if there are a bunch of other fast-ish and stealthy flying objects (like high speed drones) around in the battle field. If it can get close enough, missiles with IIR seeker would be pretty deadly on a large aircraft even at 20 km range. If it cannot get close enough, it'd have to rely on active radar guided missile. Which is more jammable, but would probably be effective from 50 km out against a large tanker.

A J-20 would do well to not engage any F-35 on its way toward a large aircraft and on its way out. It seems to me that having the ability to do super cruise would be pretty important here if F-35 does not have the same capability.

1) F-35s use very discreet jamming, which would make it very difficult to detect, and even more difficult to identify the origin.

2) J-20s don't currently have supercruise, and even if they do get it, it's not going to make very much difference. The F-35 isn't having to chase it down, from the rear aspect. Use of supercruise will increase the detection probability, especially when it does know where F-22/35/NGADs are.
Offline

tphuang

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 02:42

Unread post18 Oct 2021, 20:45

Things that are discreet and LPI today would be less so once there are better passive sensors and software to identify them.

If we believe that most 4th generation aircraft have very short effective tracking range against a 5th generation aircraft, then a missile with small active guided radar would have a real hard time ever locking onto 5th gen aircraft. Which means, the attacking aircraft would have to be locked onto the target aircraft the entire way. In a case where one aircraft is not trying to out turn the other but trying to fly faster, having the ability to super cruise seems to be pretty important.

Obviously, USAF would have a lot of data on this. In cases where a stealth aircraft did get shot down in war games, how did that happen? Are they able to do it with active seeker missiles or do they have to do it with something like AIM-9X?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3924
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post18 Oct 2021, 23:10

tphuang wrote:Things that are discreet and LPI today would be less so once there are better passive sensors and software to identify them.


They aren't just discreet because of waveforms/power levels. They're also discreet because they aren't Omni-directional, which makes it physically very hard to detect, not to mention the other LPI/LPD techniques. Remember, they're designed to deal with S400 and higher threats, not just tactical fighters.

If we believe that most 4th generation aircraft have very short effective tracking range against a 5th generation aircraft, then a missile with small active guided radar would have a real hard time ever locking onto 5th gen aircraft. Which means, the attacking aircraft would have to be locked onto the target aircraft the entire way. In a case where one aircraft is not trying to out turn the other but trying to fly faster, having the ability to super cruise seems to be pretty important.
There's a time and place where supercruise is beneficial. Flying towards unknown threats isn't one of them. F-22s will use them to give weapons greater kinematics, or to minimize an enemy's MEZ. They (as well as J-20, Su-57, etc....) will be flying subsonic the vast majority of the time, especially when they don't know where F-22/35 threats are.


Obviously, USAF would have a lot of data on this. In cases where a stealth aircraft did get shot down in war games, how did that happen? Are they able to do it with active seeker missiles or do they have to do it with something like AIM-9X?

All AAMs in the inventory have 2 way datalinks. They aren't relying solely on active seekers. They're not going to be going active until moments before impact, to minimize reaction time. They can fly completely passive profiles if need be, as well.
Offline

tphuang

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 02:42

Unread post19 Oct 2021, 13:46

They can have various properties that make them harder to detect. The techniques, data fusion and software processing of counter measures are also going to improve. Over time, there will always be ways to improve detection on even the most LPI/discreet techniques from today.

You seem to be agreeing with my notion that active radar guided missiles may have to rely on data linking the entire way when trying to strike a stealth target. If that's the case, then the attacking aircraft will need to be locked onto target aircraft for a long time. Once the target aircraft figure out its been locked on, I don't see why it would not try to outturn and/or out-run the attacking aircraft. Hunting for a stealth aircraft that keeps its active sensors off and can really turn + supercruise is hard. Especially when there are a whole lot of other aircraft around. Again, I'm sure USAF will be training against this scenario and will find the best way to handle it. It's not as straight forward as encountering a su-57 that's trying to actively engage F-35.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3924
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post19 Oct 2021, 19:13

tphuang wrote:They can have various properties that make them harder to detect. The techniques, data fusion and software processing of counter measures are also going to improve. Over time, there will always be ways to improve detection on even the most LPI/discreet techniques from today.

Both sides are improving, first of all. Secondly, you're missing my previous point. Software/filtering/signal processing improvements work on things that they can detect. What I was referring to, was the physical aspect of highly directional, narrow beams, radar sidelobes, etc... limiting the ability for RWRs to detect the signal.
You seem to be agreeing with my notion that active radar guided missiles may have to rely on data linking the entire way when trying to strike a stealth target. If that's the case, then the attacking aircraft will need to be locked onto target aircraft for a long time. Once the target aircraft figure out its been locked on, I don't see why it would not try to outturn and/or out-run the attacking aircraft. Hunting for a stealth aircraft that keeps its active sensors off and can really turn + supercruise is hard. Especially when there are a whole lot of other aircraft around. Again, I'm sure USAF will be training against this scenario and will find the best way to handle it. It's not as straight forward as encountering a su-57 that's trying to actively engage F-35.


The radar doesn't need to have continuous lock, to provide guidance updates. It doesn't even need to be the launch aircraft providing the updates. An AESA radar can sweep its entire field of view in under a second. The missile has INS/GPS as well as the 2 way datalinks, and a periodic radar sweep can keep the missile in the box, till it goes active. We're long past the days of MSA where the radar lock is detectable and distinct, from scanning
Offline

tphuang

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 02:42

Unread post20 Oct 2021, 01:02

wrightwing wrote:
tphuang wrote:They can have various properties that make them harder to detect. The techniques, data fusion and software processing of counter measures are also going to improve. Over time, there will always be ways to improve detection on even the most LPI/discreet techniques from today.

Both sides are improving, first of all. Secondly, you're missing my previous point. Software/filtering/signal processing improvements work on things that they can detect. What I was referring to, was the physical aspect of highly directional, narrow beams, radar sidelobes, etc... limiting the ability for RWRs to detect the signal.

That's where having a lot of aircraft in the combat theater gathering RF and sharing the data with each other is going to make the difference. Maybe sometimes, the RF will not reach any aircraft that can effectively identify the jamming direction/location. Other times, 1 or more aircraft might detect it.

You seem to be agreeing with my notion that active radar guided missiles may have to rely on data linking the entire way when trying to strike a stealth target. If that's the case, then the attacking aircraft will need to be locked onto target aircraft for a long time. Once the target aircraft figure out its been locked on, I don't see why it would not try to outturn and/or out-run the attacking aircraft. Hunting for a stealth aircraft that keeps its active sensors off and can really turn + supercruise is hard. Especially when there are a whole lot of other aircraft around. Again, I'm sure USAF will be training against this scenario and will find the best way to handle it. It's not as straight forward as encountering a su-57 that's trying to actively engage F-35.


The radar doesn't need to have continuous lock, to provide guidance updates. It doesn't even need to be the launch aircraft providing the updates. An AESA radar can sweep its entire field of view in under a second. The missile has INS/GPS as well as the 2 way datalinks, and a periodic radar sweep can keep the missile in the box, till it goes active. We're long past the days of MSA where the radar lock is detectable and distinct, from scanning


oh, I'm sure we are at the point where aircraft can share tracking data with each other and communicating that to the missile. But target aircraft still has to be tracked somehow and there will be a lot of other aircraft and drones in the general area. The attacking aircraft side will have to be dealing with all those aircraft and the emissions from them. If you lose tracking on a LO or VLO aircraft relying on purely passive sensors and picking it up again is not that easy. Especially since this aircraft is trying to not engage opposing fighter jet but is seeking to get close enough to launch missile against a tanker/AWACS and then fly really fast out of there. And it will not be only aircraft looking to do this.

I'd give the LO aircraft with advanced RWR a far better chance at knowing it got tracked and a general direction where that came from vs having to open up its own radar and tracking that attacking aircraft.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3924
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post20 Oct 2021, 05:01

tphuang wrote:

That's where having a lot of aircraft in the combat theater gathering RF and sharing the data with each other is going to make the difference. Maybe sometimes, the RF will not reach any aircraft that can effectively identify the jamming direction/location. Other times, 1 or more aircraft might detect it.


Which is why they're not using omni-directional transmissions that can be detected by dispersed aircraft, or even the aircraft that's being targeted, necessarily.



oh, I'm sure we are at the point where aircraft can share tracking data with each other and communicating that to the missile. But target aircraft still has to be tracked somehow and there will be a lot of other aircraft and drones in the general area. The attacking aircraft side will have to be dealing with all those aircraft and the emissions from them. If you lose tracking on a LO or VLO aircraft relying on purely passive sensors and picking it up again is not that easy. Especially since this aircraft is trying to not engage opposing fighter jet but is seeking to get close enough to launch missile against a tanker/AWACS and then fly really fast out of there. And it will not be only aircraft looking to do this.

I'd give the LO aircraft with advanced RWR a far better chance at knowing it got tracked and a general direction where that came from vs having to open up its own radar and tracking that attacking aircraft.

The target aircraft can be tracked without continuous radar emissions. If the target is trying to sneak up on a high value asset, there aren't going to be a lot of other aircraft/drones in the area, to tip their hand. F-35s are going to have huge advantages in situational awareness, signature management, and stealthiness. They're also going to have to get past SM-6 etc...before they ever have to worry about AIM-120/260.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2634
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post20 Oct 2021, 05:26

SM-6s would be much better if they can get the new DBF radars installed.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests