Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
A question: J-36's EW and radar/sensor capabilities have been widely discussed and emphasized. But wouldn't these make any plane very detectable and contradict its stealth capabilities?
depending on radar sensitivity, you can use the J-36 radar in multistatic mode, using an off-board RF source. This approach has even been shown to work with signals as weak as passively reflected satellite navigation.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

it can save its own radar emitters for fire control.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I believe what you're referring to is the anti jamming of frequency hopping (spread spectrum) through the rapid and randomized frequency emitted. LPI characteristic comes from the fact that these frequencies are emitted low energy over wideband, rather than high energy over a narrow frequency range. Your emission would just blend into background noise.

Modern stealth fighters limit their AESA radar in scanning. They rely on passive or offboard sensors to scan the area, then transmit a narrow beam from their radar for tracking or jamming, limiting their emission from being picked up (vs spreading in every direction for scanning and advertising their location).

This is why the infographics pages back of j-36 flying in front of j-20 and use their side radars for scan and search are just plain wrong, lacking in any fundamental understanding of modern combats. You don't use your stealthiest and most prized platform to bleed RF signals all over the place for dozens if not hundred of modern geolocating capable RWR's in the area to pick up. And you certain do not intentionally fly your aircraft perpenticular to enemy's sensors, exposing your more IR signature vulnerable side.

And the whole extended supercruising for a flanking maneuver to intercept AWACS and tankers...... I don't even.... oh lord....

Yes, you can achieve LPI if you spread your energy over Wideband, but I don't believe that's the only technique. Given that radar power continues to go up exponentially, your emissions spread over a Wideband will also have quite a bit of energy when it's turned on. I'm not sure if your emission can just blend into background noise in the future of air combat.

You can also use passive or off board sensors to scan the area as I said, but that was not the question.

I think the question is when you have a very high powered RF system turned to active mode, how does it avoid having the enemy figure out where you are.

Essentially, how do you win the electromagnetic spectrum.

See what Lt Gen Hinote said
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Today, as a result, China can send pulses from their radars “that are different every time,” Hinote said. “Yes—that’s happening right now.”

The Chinese became so good at electromagnetic spectrum warfare in the interim that today “they absolutely believe that [EMS] superiority is a prerequisite for victory,” Hinote said, suggesting that denying China use of the spectrum could be enough to deter it from fighting. “Maybe it’s enough that we deny the use of the electromagnetic spectrum to China,” he said, by filling “the airwaves with electromagnetic energy to the point where you could walk on it. … To make it so difficult to operate in the electromagnetic spectrum that it’s mutually denied space.”
too much RF makes it difficult to operate for any military aircraft.

And also see the part about F-15EX's EPAWSS
Traditionally, such systems have either jammed enemy radars with so much energy that they can’t see targets in the cloud of electrons; or they send an inverse wave to fool the enemy radar that it isn’t there; or it manipulates the return signal to fool the enemy radar into thinking the jet is somewhere else.
Broadly, it’s an internal system—not a pod—that rapidly senses and collects “hits” of electromagnetic energy, even from low probability of intercept radars, creating a wraparound view of threats for the pilot. EPAWSS is integrated with the F-15’s chaff and flare dispensers, and is “interoperable” with the F-15’s active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, BAE said, meaning it can jam enemy radar without interfering with the jet’s own radar or radar warning receivers.
My understanding is that you can "jam" and spoof enemy radar that operates in "LPI" mode.


This part talks more about just radar itself achieving LPI characteristics.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
To reduce the risk of radar signals being intercepted and win the initiative of the battlefield, the RF Stealth technology has been recently developed. The stealth aims to keep the enemy in an environment of constant speculation, making it difficult to interpret their active feature information or submerging their information in a noisy environment. They cannot effectively accumulate for a long time. The method of active feature reduction is referred to as the Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) technology. In order to improve the LPI performance of the radar, the primary methods at this stage are the complex radar waveform design technology and the radar cognitive frequency transmission and power allocation technology [1].
In the joint cognitive frequency selection and power allocation process, the active radar transmits a set of broadband multi-frequency pulses. In the subsequent process, the transmitting power and frequency are continuously transmitted through the processing information of the passive radar. Consequenly, the RF signal characteristics of the active radar are reduced so that the interceptor is in the stage of signal processing for a long time, which cannot efficiently accumulate the signal and improve the LPI performance of the radar.

Note that using complex radar waveform, changing frequencies & power allocation tech are all techniques to avoid getting picked up. You want to transmit a set of broadband multi-frequency pulses. each of these pulses may have different waveform, frequencies & power. All of which are designed to confuse the RF receiver.

Now if we think about electronic attack in the case of J-36 and drones and apply what Gen Hinote said.

How can you mess up the spectrum so much that the defense can't react to it and detect incoming missiles. How do you overwhelm the radar system on the other side? Can you saturate EM spectrum for the defensive systems? I don't know, it would require modern radar and processing system on the other side to get through this type of electronic attack.
 

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
Modern stealth fighters limit their AESA radar in scanning. They rely on passive or offboard sensors to scan the area, then transmit a narrow beam from their radar for tracking or jamming, limiting their emission from being picked up (vs spreading in every direction for scanning and advertising their location).
What are you talking about? Stealth fighters absolutely do use their radar for both scanning and tracking. The ability of the AESA APG-81 to rapidly scan a large airspace was a major selling point for the F-35, and for a long time the USAF thought they don't need a new AWACS because of that. Yes, if offboard sensors are available, they will greatly aid in situational awareness. But they are not always available.
This is why the infographics pages back of j-36 flying in front of j-20 and use their side radars for scan and search are just plain wrong, lacking in any fundamental understanding of modern combats. You don't use your stealthiest and most prized platform to bleed RF signals all over the place for dozens if not hundred of modern geolocating capable RWR's in the area to pick up.
Then you must have missed the intent of infographics and the design philosophy of the J-36. The whole point is that the J-36 do not solely rely on stealth for survivability. It also has the kinematics to physically deny a weapon solution by flying high and fast. This ability allows it to perform high risk force multiplying tasks like active radar use and EW. Btw, next gen EW capability is explicitly confirmed by the Chengdu chief designer as one of the key distinguishing capabilities for 6th gen vs. current 5th gen.

Also historically, the "stealthiest and most prized platform" are very much put in positions of greatest danger. In Desert Storm, the F-117 was sent to bomb Baghdad on day 1.
And you certain do not intentionally fly your aircraft perpenticular to enemy's sensors, exposing your more IR signature vulnerable side.
1736731896700.png
Clearly, the designers of Chengdu thought of this which is why the J-36 (and the J-20 too) engine nozzles are not visible from the side. In fact, the side IR signatures are likely less than the frontal signature given lesser heating of the side compared to the leading edges.
And the whole extended supercruising for a flanking maneuver to intercept AWACS and tankers...... I don't even.... oh lord....
What exactly?
 

donnnage99

New Member
Registered Member
What are you talking about? Stealth fighters absolutely do use their radar for both scanning and tracking.
What part of "limit" in my original statement don't you understand?

The ability of the AESA APG-81 to rapidly scan a large airspace was a major selling point for the F-35, and for a long time the USAF thought they don't need a new AWACS because of that. Yes, if offboard sensors are available, they will greatly aid in situational awareness. But they are not always available.

Cooperative engagement. In a group of several f-35's, the scanner stays in the back, not staying in front as the infographics suggest. The idea is even if the f-35's RF signal is intercepted, the enemy doesn't know that other non emitting f-35s acting as weapon launch platforms are already in position of their weapons' no escape zone.

The j-36's tactics should follow this trend but on steroid given all those enormous electro optical apertures.

And I did not say that it will rely on offboard sensors alone. Using passive sensors as "scanning" while using active tight narrow beam from radar to track is a well known standard. Of course, at times you will have to rely on radar traditional scanning but this isn't your first go-to if you can help it. USAF ran alot of mock fights to explore 5th gen tactics in the early days.

"A "Red Team" headed by Dr. Paul Kaminski was charged with looking for weaknesses and vulnerabilities in stealth technology. One of the Red Team's Most important conclusions was that a stealth aircraft could not survive by low radar cross-section (RCS) alone, but by stealth and tactics...... At the same time, the fighter's classic tool for situational awareness -- a powerful search radar -- can render its stealth characteristics moot. Low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) techniques are not very compatible with continuous searches over a large volume...... The solution to this problem on the F-22 is sensor fusion. The principal sensors are the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar and the Sanders ALR-94 passive receiver system.

...... Sensor fusion and emission control are closely linked. The more the datalinks and ALR-94 can be used to build and update the tactical picture, the less the system needs to use the radar. The IFDL provides another layer of protection against tracking, because any one F-22 in a flight can provide radar data to the others." Bill Sweetman


Also historically, the "stealthiest and most prized platform" are very much put in positions of greatest danger. In Desert Storm, the F-117 was sent to bomb Baghdad on day 1.
F-117 wasn't emitting RF. As first gen stealth, it didn't have any radar precisely because the designers didn't know how to install a radar that wouldn't compromise its stealthiness. As a modern multirole fighter, not having radar is unacceptable. Thus specific combat doctrine utilizing advancement in passive sensing through RWR, IR, AESA multi tracking narrow beaming was developed.

Clearly, the designers of Chengdu thought of this which is why the J-36 (and the J-20 too) engine nozzles are not visible from the side. In fact, the side IR signatures are likely less than the frontal signature given lesser heating of the side compared to the leading edges.

Measures to shield the exhaust does not automatically equate to side aspect having lower IR emission than frontal aspect.
 
Last edited:

Stealthflanker

Senior Member
Registered Member
A question: J-36's EW and radar/sensor capabilities have been widely discussed and emphasized. But wouldn't these make any plane very detectable and contradict its stealth capabilities?

Not really. Strategies are available to ensure the emmission security. Mainly on power and time management, just to ensure that you emit just enough power and time for your job. On the hardware levels, the antenna are made as such to reduce sidelobes through manufactufing standard of each radiating elements and from aperture weighting where each elements emission are carefully controlled through some "weighting laws" e.g Taylor -40 dB to attain sidelobe reduction.

The tradeoff for weighting is beam broadening where your beamwidth got broader and subsequent reduction of antenna efficiency and gain (Taylor -40 dB weighting reduces your antenna efficiency to 76%) But you gain harder to detect emission sidelobe and even lower amount of clutter entering your processing from the antenna sidelobe.

The concern is when other low RCS target is involved as this would need some more amount of power or time. This increased the emmission vulnerability to detection.

Thus why external designation and preferrably lower band search radar like say S,L or VHF band are needed to help the smaller X-band one to keep itself covert.
 

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
What part of "limit" in my original statement don't you understand?
You said "They rely on passive or offboard sensors to scan the area." This is not true and also completely different from emission control.
Cooperative engagement. In a group of several f-35's, the scanner stays in the back, not staying in front as the infographics suggest. The idea is even if the f-35's RF signal is intercepted, the enemy doesn't know that other non emitting f-35s acting as weapon launch platforms are already in position of their weapons' no escape zone.
Great strategy against enemies with only 4th gens. Against adversary 5th gens, your F-35 staying in the back gets no contact and the F-35s flying in front are flying blind.
The j-36's tactics should follow this trend but on steroid given all those enormous electro optical apertures.
This is likely also a J-36 tactics in some situations (depicted in the OCA infographics) but do not account for J-36's kinematics and side facing sensors.
And I did not say that it will rely on offboard sensors alone. Using passive sensors as "scanning" while using active tight narrow beam from radar to track is a well known standard. Of course, at times you will have to rely on radar traditional scanning but this isn't your first go-to if you can help it. USAF ran alot of mock fights to explore 5th gen tactics in the early days.

"A "Red Team" headed by Dr. Paul Kaminski was charged with looking for weaknesses and vulnerabilities in stealth technology. One of the Red Team's Most important conclusions was that a stealth aircraft could not survive by low radar cross-section (RCS) alone, but by stealth and tactics...... At the same time, the fighter's classic tool for situational awareness -- a powerful search radar -- can render its stealth characteristics moot. Low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) techniques are not very compatible with continuous searches over a large volume...... The solution to this problem on the F-22 is sensor fusion. The principal sensors are the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar and the Sanders ALR-94 passive receiver system.

...... Sensor fusion and emission control are closely linked. The more the datalinks and ALR-94 can be used to build and update the tactical picture, the less the system needs to use the radar. The IFDL provides another layer of protection against tracking, because any one F-22 in a flight can provide radar data to the others." Bill Sweetman
USAF "5th gen tactics" = how to wipe out enemy 4th gens without taking a single loss
PLAAF 5th gen tactics = beating F-22 and F-35 in a high end fight

Unless you are giving up on the RF domain, someone will have to emit and take on the associated risks. Staying in the back means vastly degraded detection against enemy VLO platforms. Staying in the front is high risk. So you address this risk via kinematics and aspect. That's how you get the J-36.
Measures to shield the exhaust does not automatically equate to side aspect having lower IR emission than frontal aspect.
If there is no emission from the engine nozzle, there is no reason to believe the side aspect will more vulnerable to IR as you originally suggested.
 

kurutoga

Junior Member
Registered Member
Does anyone know why every CCA that is known (or rendered) so far all have V tails instead of tailless? If they are detected, wouldn't they be a sign that another more stealthy main jet is somewhere behind?
 

donnnage99

New Member
Registered Member
You said "They rely on passive or offboard sensors to scan the area." This is not true and also completely different from emission control.
You're selectively quoting my statement to strawman here.
Great strategy against enemies with only 4th gens. Against adversary 5th gens, your F-35 staying in the back gets no contact and the F-35s flying in front are flying blind.
Again, this wasn't the point. You know it.

Unless you are giving up on the RF domain, someone will have to emit and take on the associated risks. Staying in the back means vastly degraded detection against enemy VLO platforms. Staying in the front is high risk. So you address this risk via kinematics and aspect. That's how you get the J-36.
Define "vastly". Unless you have quantitative numbers you cannot prove that this tactic is operationally outdated.

If there is no emission from the engine nozzle, there is no reason to believe the side aspect will more vulnerable to IR as you originally suggested.

And how the hell would you know hiding the exhaust is enough to reduce to "no emission" level at operationally relevant range?
 

no_name

Colonel
Does anyone know why every CCA that is known (or rendered) so far all have V tails instead of tailless? If they are detected, wouldn't they be a sign that another more stealthy main jet is somewhere behind?
CCA probably needs to be more cost effective than manned fighters while maintaining maneuverability. They probably think v tails are simply more cost effective than thrust vectoring while being 'good' enough to do the job.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
F-117 wasn't emitting RF. As first gen stealth, it didn't have any radar precisely because the designers didn't know how to install a radar that wouldn't compromise its stealthiness. As a modern multirole fighter, not having radar is unacceptable. Thus specific combat doctrine utilizing advancement in passive sensing through RWR, IR, AESA multi tracking narrow beaming was developed.
They did know how to do it, there is no magic involved. As a narrow purpose strike plane it wasn't specified to carry it.
Proposed fighter developments of F-117 had radars.

Cooperative engagement. In a group of several f-35's, the scanner stays in the back, not staying in front as the infographics suggest. The idea is even if the f-35's RF signal is intercepted, the enemy doesn't know that other non emitting f-35s acting as weapon launch platforms are already in position of their weapons' no escape zone.
It's normal cautious fighter tactics everywhere.
The problem it only works when you can see from the rear and/or silent fighters can in fact get into the WEZ.
 
Top