I suspect I know who this guy is.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Wow, a 4chan thread linked to SDF. What a ride.
Anyway, that simulator is rather infamous for its bastardization of specs for most PLA equipment -- although in this case, it seemed they had to acknowledge J-20's IRST.
Having finished reading that thread (which seems to be dead now) and looking at the other scenarios, especially that involving the J-10B vs the F-15Es, it really appears that China's biggest problem to date is actually their BVR-missiles. I know that the PL-12D and PL-21 are projects... But do they still exist? We havent heard anything of them, and that chart where all the missiles were listed said that even the PL-21 should have been completed by 2012.
In all of these engagements, the J-10B/J-20 always could get the first shot on their adversaries due to their stealth and their IRST, despite the US fighter planes outranging them by a large margin with their AIM-120C7 and Ds. But once they were shot back against, the US missiles could count on large energy reserves because they were launched at their larger No Escape Zones compared to the PL-12s, which had to be launched at maximum slant range and could thus be easily evaded by enemies who knew that they were inbound.
In all of these scenarios, especially the one where the J-10Bs lost against the F-15E despite having the first shot, and the later one where two J-20s lost against a single F-35, the relative inferiority of the missiles were the main cause, not the fighter jet itself.
If the Chinese fighters had missiles in the 75 nmi range like the AIM-120D, and launched their missiles at 50nmi upon detection of the F-22/F-35 etc, the greatly expanded NEZ of the Chinese missiles would have downed them more easily. And in that scenario where the F-15E shot down all the J-10B, after losing two of its wingmen, one can see that the first volley of the six PL-12s were easily evaded by the F-15Es, because they had to be launched at maximum range. The return fire that killed the J-10B was at 40 or so nmi, with AIM-120C7s that are modeled to have 60nmi max range, which means that their energy remained sufficiently high for making it very hard for the J-10Bs to evade. The second PL-12 volley of 2 missiles launched after the first was defeated by evasive maneuvering and ECM/decoys, scored 100% hits against two of three F-15E, because of the exactly same reason...
So, the main priority of the PLAAF is to get their long range missiles into line service ASAP.
And maybe equip them with AESA active seekers, like the Japanese AAM-4B would also be very good (even though I dont believe that the PL-12B or whatever the current PL-12 version is still retains the old R-77 seeker, which too was a reason why they were successfully spoofed in the simulation by the ECM of the F-15E and F-35)...
Missile range is also a difficult subject to touch, and for AAMs especially -- because the effective range really depends on the energy and profile of both the launch platform and the would be target. The ranges listed by manufacturers are numbers to be taken with salt, because we don't know what kind of altitude, speed the missile would have been launched at and we don't know what kind of target it was launched against.
I wouldn't put too much stock into the Command Air/Naval with regards to Chinese scenarios, because the entire mechanics of that simulator depends on correct specs and pK -- which obviously the developers were not aware of. So they basically end up shoehorning some numbers that they believe sound right to their ears. there have been a few members over on CDF who bought and tried this game out, and all the Chinese weapon systems seem woefully underestimated. 052C's radar I think is given the specs of a medium range rather than long range radar, and entire subsystems are missing from some ship classes. PLA missiles are often given incorrect ranges and flight profiles, and some weapons have ridiculously low pK rates. In that sense, even US missiles may not be entirely representative of real life in areas such as range, because the numbers used by Command Air/Naval are not always fully clear as to what kind of flight profile and target the missile was used against.
As for PLA AAM development, they are being very secretive and quiet on this front. We know they have a ramjet Meteor style AAM in advanced development, and I wouldn't be surprised if they have improved PL-12 variants with better seekers and propellant and what not. We just don't know what the present state of development and in service application is, and all the information we did have are probably five years old already (for instance, the mentioning of R-77 seeker on PL-12).
So all in all, yes, AAM development is obviously a priority and something that we have little info on. But also understand that the Command Air/Naval simulator is hardly anywhere near a definitive or realistic output -- at least for scenarios involving the PLA.
Another interesting thread was created:
This one talks, among other things, about the J-20 carrying YJ-91s attacking a Burke IIA equipped with SM-6, as well as a H-6G strike with YJ-12 against a Burke-IIA supported by E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes.
It really looks like the J-20 could potentially be used as anti-shipping asset, despite the fact that it has to carry the Kryptons externally. It really only needs to fly low and beyond radar horizon of the SPY-1D, and even the Seahawk pickets or the E-2D wont spot them at extended ranges until they can unleash their Kryptons at 60nmi. These anti-radar Kryptons, though, fly a high arc and get detected fairly easily and most of them shot down by SM-6, but some get through and destroy one or two radar panels, which seems to be a small tactical victory here.
In that H-6G scenario, the E-2D's long range L-band radars couldnt get an accurate track on these large birds flying low, despite being able to detect them. The YJ-12' cruising as low as 30 ft also werent accurately detected at any range and couldnt be engaged with SM-6 at any range beyond 20 nmi radar horizon, and sunk the Burke in the end.
Both scenarios pretty much could indicate into the direction that the PLANAF truly needs a large stealthy fighter bombers like that prospective Shenyang project or a "JH-20" derivate, able to carry at least two YJ-12 internally. What this simulation game does good is radar mechanics and RCS calculation vs different radar platforms. If there is any truth in it, it shows that a stealthy Tu-22M is very useful for China as a dedicated Aegis killer, even if really advanced AEWC is present.
This one talks, among other things, about the J-20 carrying YJ-91s attacking a Burke IIA equipped with SM-6, as well as a H-6G strike with YJ-12 against a Burke-IIA supported by E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes.
It really looks like the J-20 could potentially be used as anti-shipping asset, despite the fact that it has to carry the Kryptons externally. It really only needs to fly low and beyond radar horizon of the SPY-1D, and even the Seahawk pickets or the E-2D wont spot them at extended ranges until they can unleash their Kryptons at 60nmi. These anti-radar Kryptons, though, fly a high arc and get detected fairly easily and most of them shot down by SM-6, but some get through and destroy one or two radar panels, which seems to be a small tactical victory here.
In that H-6G scenario, the E-2D's long range L-band radars couldnt get an accurate track on these large birds flying low, despite being able to detect them. The YJ-12' cruising as low as 30 ft also werent accurately detected at any range and couldnt be engaged with SM-6 at any range beyond 20 nmi radar horizon, and sunk the Burke in the end.
Both scenarios pretty much could indicate into the direction that the PLANAF truly needs a large stealthy fighter bombers like that prospective Shenyang project or a "JH-20" derivate, able to carry at least two YJ-12 internally. What this simulation game does good is radar mechanics and RCS calculation vs different radar platforms. If there is any truth in it, it shows that a stealthy Tu-22M is very useful for China as a dedicated Aegis killer, even if really advanced AEWC is present.
Thanks for sharing. It looks like a interesting battle. But still, what's the point of such simulation? Nowadays, any serious battle simulation will need multiple super computers running 24/7 to get a theoretical result. You need to consider hundreds of thousands of variables and parameters, and millions line of code. This is why both China and USA are investing so much in super computing
This obsession with using the J-20 with anti ship missiles is beyond silly. It is not the ideal platform. The J-20 flying low is an absurd scenario because at low altitudes it can't impart the same kinematic potential for a missile as it would at higher altitudes, and its aerodynamic design may not even permit it to fly well at low altitudes. There are other designs that can run the same kind of mission and be more optimized for it (cough JH-7s).
Anyways, I wouldn't draw anything from this simulation. It doesn't really employ reliable information to build its scenarios and it probably doesn't take into account the dynamic situations involved in actual combat.
MastanKhan
Junior Member
HI,
There is no surprise over here regarding the BVR missile that has higher kill ratio over a longer distance. It is simple electronics / physics.
I have written either on this forum or another forum a couple of years ago( something similar ) china---in stealth fighter technology---they cannot compete with the U S---. Their other option is to invest in a better / bigger BVR missile and radar systems.
Another way to compete would be thru a heavy aircraft like a B52 bomber type----that can carry a massive AESA radar---it also has BVR missiles twice the size of fighter aircraft missiles---specially purpose built for this aircraft and can carry a load of like 25 - 30 BVR missiles.
The US is investing something similar in a B 52 BOMBER----all the B52's were only using dumb bombs---so for their missions in Iraq etc---they did not load up the cargo bays---because the electronics coul not match upto the smart weapons or missiles---.
The new enemy would have a surprise to see what the upcoming B52's can due with the upgrades----.
J20 is a great design from china---but if ds not have an aggressive BVR missile and potent radar---china has a problem.
There is no surprise over here regarding the BVR missile that has higher kill ratio over a longer distance. It is simple electronics / physics.
I have written either on this forum or another forum a couple of years ago( something similar ) china---in stealth fighter technology---they cannot compete with the U S---. Their other option is to invest in a better / bigger BVR missile and radar systems.
Another way to compete would be thru a heavy aircraft like a B52 bomber type----that can carry a massive AESA radar---it also has BVR missiles twice the size of fighter aircraft missiles---specially purpose built for this aircraft and can carry a load of like 25 - 30 BVR missiles.
The US is investing something similar in a B 52 BOMBER----all the B52's were only using dumb bombs---so for their missions in Iraq etc---they did not load up the cargo bays---because the electronics coul not match upto the smart weapons or missiles---.
The new enemy would have a surprise to see what the upcoming B52's can due with the upgrades----.
J20 is a great design from china---but if ds not have an aggressive BVR missile and potent radar---china has a problem.
How are you going to guide those missiles against maneuvering targets? Besides, something the size of a B-52/B-1 makes a large/slow/tempting target for interceptors.
I would be surprised if J-20 did not have a competitive BVR missile and radar.
The idea of configuring bombers for a BVR A2A role is creative but impractical imo. It's not like it hasn't been looked at before and never taken up.
- Status