China Flanker Thread II

[tphuang]

And yet this is precisely the scenario which the F-22 employs to its advantage.

How exactly does turning on a radar increase your RCS??? A radar's emission can be detected by enemy fighters, but this does not "increase" the fighter's RCS. And this poster is speaking from the perspective of weakness. Modern AESA's are LPI, meaning they can scan you and you have scant little chance of realizing they have just done so. He either does not know enough about AESA's or is (incorrectly) assuming that PLAAF fighters will be forever fighting with pulse doppler radars.

Let's get straight, he knows a lot more than you regarding PLAAF.
As for how does turning to radar increase RCS? The actual wording was more like increase the electronic signature of the aircraft, he was just referring to the idea that it is more likely to be picked up by passive sensors and such. Clearly, it's impossible translate the exact meaning, don't play with words.

First Look, first shoot, first kill. Have you heard of this? This may not be true every engagement or every missile launch, but the concept should be easy to grasp. This is the point of F-22's massively powered (and massively-ranged) AESA. And you are wrong about missile ranges. A faster and higher altitude J-11B firing the same PL-12 will have a much longer range than one fired by a lower, slower J-10. This is where situational awareness and longer-ranged radars come in.

yes, i'm not a moron, i've heard of a the 3 first. I'm trying my best to translate here. Maybe you should do it instead rather than playing the role of a smart ass.
First of all, J-10 flies faster and higher than J-11B, so your point doesn't apply. And secondly, his main point was to explain that first look, shoot, kill doesn't necessarily apply if you read what he wrote.

Certainly tactics, EW, and AEW all play into the success or failure of airborne engagements. Nobody is arguing for relying solely on figher radars. These are all force multipliers. On the other hand, you don't see anyone getting rid of fighter radars either, even in the age of ubiquitious AEW/C aircraft. Not only that, you see a trend towards the exact opposite direction, towards longer and longer ranged fighter radars. This is not debatable. It's happening now.

He didn't say it's not useful in any place. In fact, he stated that J-10 and J-11B has a huge advantage on previous flankers, which use older generation of avionics. He is talking about a slightly smaller aircraft with greater fighter performance and much lower signature can easily be overcome a larger aircraft with longer ranged radar.

I think what he said is very clear, there is nothing wrong with getting longer ranged radar, but you still need good tactics and flight performance. + First Look, first shoot, first kill is just a concept that people love to talk about, real world is never this simple.

 

[Wolverine]

And yet, the F-22 can only take advantage of such a linear tactic using BVR because of its stealth.

What makes you think this is the case? If the F-22 has absolutely no stealth but has a radar that can track you at 250km and you only have one that can track him at 150km, he can position himself to launch an exactly identical missile to the one you're carrying and still reach out and touch you much earlier than you could possibly do so to him.

Let's get straight, he knows a lot more than you regarding PLAAF. As for how does turning to radar increase RCS? The actual wording was more like increase the electronic signature of the aircraft, he was just referring to the idea that it is more likely to be picked up by passive sensors and such. Clearly, it's impossible translate the exact meaning, don't play with words.

You're the one playing with words and tried to finesse the translation into "RCS", something you didn't have to do at all, and something which subtly changes the nature of the argument. This is not lost on me at all. "Electronic signature" would have been more than adequate and more accurate, but YOU were the one who chose "RCS". But like I said before, the fact that AESAs are great at being LPI totally minimizes this argument to being next to irrelevant.

yes, i'm not a moron, i've heard of a the 3 first. I'm trying my best to translate here. Maybe you should do it instead rather than playing the role of a smart ass.

You know, for a moderator, you sure act like a schoolyard bully. I'm not talking about your translation of the argument (at least in this line). I'm talking about the argument itself. Try to learn how to distinguish the two. And you are not just translating. You are also promoting what he says, because clearly you are using another source in an attempt to bolster your own arguments, especially as you are trying to set him up as some kind of 'expert' who you would like to agree with you.

First of all, J-10 flies faster and higher than J-11B, so your point doesn't apply. And secondly, his main point was to explain that first look, shoot, kill doesn't necessarily apply if you read what he wrote.

Who says J-10 flies faster and higher than J-11B? Just because you say it does? Nice try, but you should try comparing the performance stats of the F-16 and the F-15, the closest analogy. And even if they were totally equal in performance, you have just totally missed the point. You make this ludicrous general statement like "J-10 flies faster and higher than J-11B, so your point doesn't apply" without even realizing that actual speed and altitude depend on the circumstances of the engagement. Circumstances which can be altered to your favor if you have the superior situational awareness.

He didn't say it's not useful in any place. In fact, he stated that J-10 and J-11B has a huge advantage on previous flankers, which use older generation of avionics. He is talking about a slightly smaller aircraft with greater fighter performance and much lower signature can easily be overcome a larger aircraft with longer ranged radar.

First of all the J-8, whether it's the F version or otherwise, doesn't have "greater fighter performance" than 4th generation fighters. Second, the J-8's RCS is a total unknown since that has not been published, so this poster or anybody else would have absolutely no clue whether it has lower RCS than a "4th generation" fighter, whatever he means by that. They do come in all shapes and sizes, dontcha know. Third, until very recently a J-8 would not have been able to use any of the other usual force multipliers that the West routinely enjoys, like tankers, AEW/C, and EW aircraft, and even now they are barely able to get some benefit from these types of aircraft. It's certainly the case that PLAAF fighters will not get coverage in every or even most engagements given the extremely limited numbers of these specialized aircraft in service.

I think what he said is very clear, there is nothing wrong with getting longer ranged radar, but you still need good tactics and flight performance. + First Look, first shoot, first kill is just a concept that people love to talk about, real world is never this simple.

I don't disagree with any of that. But you are using his argument to minimize the performance edge of a superior radar to the point of total ridiculousness, and this is not something your vaunted poster is arguing.

 

[tphuang]

You're the one playing with words and tried to finesse the translation into "RCS", something you didn't have to do at all, and something which subtly changes the nature of the argument. This is not lost on me at all. "Electronic signature" would have been more than adequate and more accurate, but YOU were the one who chose "RCS". But like I said before, the fact that AESAs are great at being LPI totally minimizes this argument to being next to irrelevant.

I was simply using a word that people can easily understand, maybe I will try harder to just please you next time.

You know, for a moderator, you sure act like a schoolyard bully. I'm not talking about your translation of the argument (at least in this line). I'm talking about the argument itself. Try to learn how to distinguish the two. And you are not just translating. You are also promoting what he says, because clearly you are using another source in an attempt to bolster your own arguments, especially as you are trying to set him up as some kind of 'expert' who you would like to agree with you.

You seem to be running into a lot of people who is "trying to bully you" from what I can see on this forum.

Who says J-10 flies faster and higher than J-11B? Just because you say it does? Nice try, but you should try comparing the performance stats of the F-16 and the F-15, the closest analogy. And even if they were totally equal in performance, you have just totally missed the point. You make this ludicrous general statement like "J-10 flies faster and higher than J-11B, so your point doesn't apply" without even realizing that actual speed and altitude depend on the circumstances of the engagement. Circumstances which can be altered to your favor if you have the superior situational awareness.

F-15 flies faster than F-16 because of the design (which is based on requirements at that time), not because of its size. It sorts of help F-15 that it has a variable intake allowing for greater high supersonic maneuver compared to the fixed intake of F-16. Similarly, flankers, EF and J-10 were all designed to have greater supersonic performance.

there was an article on this a while ago, if you look at the first J-10 thread, there was an article that said J-10 broke the speed record for PLAAF in 2004. If you ever looked at the original high speed requirements of J-9, which has heavy influence on the original design of J-10, you'd know about the expectations on the supersonic flight performance of J-10. Again, if you look at the original J-10 thread, I posted an article on the variable intake's affect on J-10 as speed goes over mach 1.8.

First of all the J-8, whether it's the F version or otherwise, doesn't have "greater fighter performance" than 4th generation fighters. Second, the J-8's RCS is a total unknown since that has not been published, so this poster or anybody else would have absolutely no clue whether it has lower RCS than a "4th generation" fighter, whatever he means by that. They do come in all shapes and sizes, dontcha know. Third, until very recently a J-8 would not have been able to use any of the other usual force multipliers that the West routinely enjoys, like tankers, AEW/C, and EW aircraft, and even now they are barely able to get some benefit from these types of aircraft. It's certainly the case that PLAAF fighters will not get coverage in every or even most engagements given the extremely limited numbers of these specialized aircraft in service.

the point of discussion is not to say that J-8F is any good, although I do think it has a lot of value against earlier 4th generation fighters if used properly. He didn't mention anything about J-8's RCS or how it's used exactly, but rather just stating it was a fantasy that J-8F automatically became capable of taking on all the Taiwanese 4th gen fighters just because it got upgraded with a more powerful radar + PL-12.

I don't disagree with any of that. But you are using his argument to minimize the performance edge of a superior radar to the point of total ridiculousness, and this is not something your vaunted poster is arguing.

I'm not arguing anything, I saw a good post from someone I respected a lot and tried to translate it the best that I could. Personal biases in translation is nothing unusual.

And I would never say that radar isn't one of the most important part of engagement, but there are a lot of other factors too which I already mentioned.

 

[tphuang]

六○一所专项竞赛促型号研制

2009-07-21 20:26:20 作者：李晓滨 来源：中国航空报


本报讯 六○一所针对重点型号研制项目开展“保节点”专项立功竞赛活动，鼓舞士气，确保全面、优质、高效完成以重点型号飞机研制项目为标志的各项工作任务，促进研究所又好又快发展。

竞赛设立“保节点先锋团队”奖和“创新超越”、“敢打敢拼”个人奖。凡是所内参加重点型号各项重要试验、机上地面试验以及相关技术保障的单位及人员均可参赛。竞赛采取上下互动形式，以工作项目为参赛单元开展活动。

研究所决定，在重点型号飞机研制完成各相关重要节点后举行表彰仪式，分别奖励和表彰评选出的先进团队与个人，研究所宣传媒体要大力宣传。重点型号飞机研制重大节点完成后，开展型号立功活动。

news from HKB

News from SAC, looks like the naval flanker project is still proceeding (or at least this seems like the only possibility left), it looks like it's going through different testing, mentions static testing and such. Point being, not ready to fly yet.

 

[latenlazy]

What makes you think this is the case? If the F-22 has absolutely no stealth but has a radar that can track you at 250km and you only have one that can track him at 150km, he can position himself to launch an exactly identical missile to the one you're carrying and still reach out and touch you much earlier than you could possibly do so to him.

When you're flying through enemy territory you're prone to passive detection. Interception isn't even necessary if you can be read by the radar of a modern A2A defence. Granted this argument isn't so much about a one plane vs another as much as it is one system vs another, but the original contention is about why such tactics may or may not be useful, and not simply whether one plane will be able to shoot down the other from a certain range.

Remember also, the PLAF isn't gearing all their tactics towards fighting the US which is an unlikely enemy at best. How they prepare their military doctrine should reflect a broader set of interests and a more probable set of conflicts. Thus it's more important that they have tactics that fit against, say, Taiwan, rather than the US, contingent upon their current abilities and what's feasible given their expenditures. Does it mean they wouldn't take a stronger radar or wouldn't aim at developing one? Heck no. They'd take it in a heartbeat. However, if they don't have that capability right now they're not suddenly going to be ineffective because of it, and if they don't find it useful reflective of their current abilities it doesn't mean they're wrong. They'll arrange their tactics and doctrine to serve what they need, and right now they don't need to compete against the F-22 and don't have all the necessary technology to achieve an effective BVR, noting that BVR is more than just a good radar and a good missile (not that they aren't trying to achieve it, but that they don't have to focus solely on it when it's not the only thing they need to do in the air)

 

[latenlazy]

news from HKB

News from SAC, looks like the naval flanker project is still proceeding (or at least this seems like the only possibility left), it looks like it's going through different testing, mentions static testing and such. Point being, not ready to fly yet.

Is the naval flanker the supposed j-13?

 

[Skywatcher]

Is the naval flanker the supposed j-13?

The J-13 is apparently the navalized version of SAC's JXX proposal.

 

[Roger604]

news from HKB

News from SAC, looks like the naval flanker project is still proceeding (or at least this seems like the only possibility left), it looks like it's going through different testing, mentions static testing and such. Point being, not ready to fly yet.

The article suggests the are patting themselves on the back already by giving out awards.

Maybe its reaching the stage of first flight.

 

[latenlazy]

You need to remember that the original point I brought up was the benefit of a longer ranged radar over a shorter ranged radar. I did not say that this was the sole determinant of success in air combat, but it certainly confers an advantage in combat. The fact that it so obviously does this makes me just amazed at how willing people are to dispute this for essentially no reason.

Of course, but you need to remember what the original contention was. According to Tphuang's source, the PLAF opted against focusing on BVR combat because it found that real world scenarios didn't reflect this combat theory, and modified their doctrine and tactics accordingly. You pointed out a counter example to demonstrate its usefulness, and I merely pointed out why your counter example might not apply to the PLAF's current conditions.

 

[tphuang]

Of course, but you need to remember what the original contention was. According to Tphuang's source, the PLAF opted against focusing on BVR combat because it found that real world scenarios didn't reflect this combat theory, and modified their doctrine and tactics accordingly. You pointed out a counter example to demonstrate its usefulness, and I merely pointed out why your counter example might not apply to the PLAF's current conditions.

plaaf is not against focusing on BVR, just that it finds BVR to be far more complicated then the 3 first.

And how much more than jack squat do you know? And what are F-16's designed to do? Allow their fighter pilots to grow bigger jocks? F-15's are made to dominate air combat through speed, power and climb rate? Apparently to make your silly little point you have to pretend F-15's can't dogfight as well. Which you then further try to dichotomize by insinuating that Flankers are nothing but ballet dancers with no "speed", "power" or "climb rate", and therefore the comparison is invalid. Nice try. No weed. The Flanker was designed as a direct competitor to the F-15, which means it was a pure air superiority fighter, like the F-15. This means the designers would not have agreed to your hair-brained idea to make the Flanker a nimble but limpdick fighter. Maybe you were confused that just because the Flanker can do a Cobra means somehow that it lacks in the other usual characteristics of air superiority fighters (like "speed", "power" and "climb rate").

The point was not to diss F-15 or F-16 or Flankers, but rather to explain that just because F-15 is faster and has more power than F-16, that doesn't mean any two-engine fighters would have this edge over a single-engined fighter. F-15 simply was designed right from the start to fly faster, higher, have greater climb rate than all existing soviet fighters at that time. F-16 wasn't, it was designed to be a cheap, agile, high maneuvering fighter right from the start. It didn't become used in BVR until much later. J-10 on the other hand was designed right from the start to have be fast and have great climb rate (you can see it from its youtube videos).