China Flanker Thread II

[The Observer]

Yes I am ...

View attachment 77410

huh... I suppose I'm just late to the party

 

[The Observer]

Sorry I am a bit confused. I have a hard time trying to distinguish between the newest WS-10 versions (no longer short and bulky like early versions) and the AL-31F series.

I thought it's pretty easy? just look at the color. The one that keeps metallic grey is WS-10, while the one that changes color like steel that gets heated by a torch is AL-31F series

 

[Maikeru]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[daifo]

How many "D" version are expected for China to full fill her needs?

 

[Blitzo]

Its not counter intuitive to the plane's role, as the plane requires some self defense for itself. Note that aircraft you posted above still carries AIM-120Cs.

Simply said, cross eye jamming is the best EW defense against a missile which has a monopulse seeker, and which by the way are extremely difficult to jam, hence why this is the tracking system used by missiles.

If you look at the Su-34, which is a tactical aircraft, or any aircraft that is equipped with the Khibiny wingtip pod, these aircraft use these pods for threat signal directional finding, so they can send their Kh-31 ARM missiles at these sites. If these aircraft are equipped with jamming pods, the directional finding from the pods would tell the jammers where to jam and at what frequency. Yet these wingtip pods are also capable of jamming, including range gating, and their layout would suggest cross eye jamming.

These aircraft would also be attacked by SAMs, once again, monopulse seekers, which may not be easily jammed even with the jamming pods, unless you got ECM specifically tailored against missiles --- spoofing, range gating, velocity gating, and cross eye jamming.

I would think the J-16D would use the KG-300, KG-600/700/800 series of pods for directional finding and jamming.

I don't know why you would think that a jammer integrated to the airframe would be limited (EF-111). The jammer itself should be removed and replaced, the electronics upgraded if there is a will and money for it. In fact, as jamming pods evolve, sooner or later the plane's own internal electronics would require a major upgrade to handle these pods. ECM installed on the body of an aircraft is meant for its self defense, while ECM pods hung beneath the wings, are intended to be used offensively.

Problem of jammers in the body, is that it cannot implement cross eye jamming, which is the best electronic counter to monopulse seekers. Neither will a pod in the center body or close to the axis of the aircraft. The farther apart the two cross eye jammers working simultaneously, the greater the angular errors they exert.

The tips of the pods are slanted with flat straight faces, which point to a phase array. Now that's an active, directional beam making component. ESM antennas on the other hand, tend to be omni-directional.

Reason for removing IRST and the gun from the J-16D is simple enough, to leave more room for the electronics.

The J-16D is a tactical jammer, not an fighter aircraft equipped with a self defense jamming capability.
Possessing a BVR capability is a normal fit out for a contemporary tactical jammer, but being equipped with small self defense jamming pods for the jamming role is very much abnormal when the point of these aircraft types is to do jamming with proper, big jamming pods that tactical jammer aircraft can take the most advantage of.


Your argument about its role only makes sense if you are suggesting the J-16D doesn't follow the same role as the EA-18G, which would be quite a strange position to take, given how you do seem to understand the extent of the airframe modifications the J-16D has, compared to the standard J-16.


As for aircraft that posses and integrated jamming capability with the airframe, naturally anything is possible with money and will. However, the norm for the last couple of decades for tactical jammer aircraft is to have an integrated high end ESM/ELINT capability within the aircraft, while the jamming loadout can change based on each mission, and can be upgraded simply by changing pods as they are developed, rather than an expensive process requiring you to send the entire aircraft into the shop.


As for the shape of J-16Ds wingtip pods, I am not sure why you think its shape is somehow indicative of a dual passive and active role. Everything you described for it is also relevant for ALQ-218 on the EA-18G, and that system as I've repeatedly said is a wholly passive ELINT/ESM one.

 

[Blitzo]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That overall website is not very good and should be actively avoided.

 

[Schwerter_]

That overall website is not very good and should be actively avoided.

Hey Blitizo, this may be off-topic, but what do you think are the chances of us getting news on new anti-radiation missile now that J-16D is out in the public? I've seen some claim that there should be replacements for the anti-radiation YJ-91 (too large, too heavy, can't carry that many, etc) but personally I dont think I have enough knowlodge to either agree or disagree...

 

[BoraTas]

Hey Blitizo, this may be off-topic, but what do you think are the chances of us getting news on new anti-radiation missile now that J-16D is out in the public? I've seen some claim that there should be replacements for the anti-radiation YJ-91 (too large, too heavy, can't carry that many, etc) but personally I dont think I have enough knowlodge to either agree or disagree...

Does China need to put as much emphasis on anti-rad missiles as the USA? The number one factor that fueled American anti-rad missile development was the Soviet/Russian air defense network which had more than 9000 launchers and thousands of radars at its peak. China does not face such a force so less emphasis on such missiles may save some money.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Does China need to put as much emphasis on anti-rad missiles as the USA? The number one factor that fueled American anti-rad missile development was the Soviet/Russian air defense network which had more than 9000 launchers and thousands of radars at its peak. China does not face such a force so less emphasis on such missiles may save some money.

Of course China needs anti-radiation missiles. The PLAAF will have to destroy enemy IADS; it's not just Russia that has air defense systems.

 

[Blitzo]

Hey Blitizo, this may be off-topic, but what do you think are the chances of us getting news on new anti-radiation missile now that J-16D is out in the public? I've seen some claim that there should be replacements for the anti-radiation YJ-91 (too large, too heavy, can't carry that many, etc) but personally I dont think I have enough knowlodge to either agree or disagree...

Official news? Unlikely.

But the grapevine might let something slip in relation given J-16Ds public unveiling.

I do believe there's enough noise to say there's little a new ARM in the works.