J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Air Force Brat]

The Russians have said their IRST can track fighters from over 50km for some years now

So you're going on record as believing whatever the Russians claim??? not trying to be snarky?? well maybe a little bit, but they made lots of claims about the SU-57, before they decided to cap their own order at 12???

So I would say range is highly dependent on the target,, aircraft with a low RCS and active exhaust cooling are very difficult to pick up and near impossible to "lock"..

 

[Air Force Brat]

I don't want to sound too obvious, but presumably by getting some signal. Passive or return - we don't know.
Stealth tech isn't some sort of magic carpet.

Actually the F-22 has proven itself to be some sort of magic carpet, and the F-35 will "take down" those SAM sights with relative impugnity??

 

[Air Force Brat]

From the previous description it seemed like the scenario was one where a war between the PLA and ROC forces had already begun. I.e.: trigger fingers are already active, weapons are actively being shot at each other, and the two active sides are actively killing each other.

In such a scenario if the USAF were to send F-22s to what would effectively be an active high intensity warzone in a context where US geopolitical and military intentions to the PLA and PRC would be under great suspicion, would it make sense to deploy them with luneberg lenses? I would suspect not. Why even deploy F-22s in that case if they're going to put luneberg lenses on them, why not just send non-stealthy 4th gen fighters instead?
Or similarly, have USAF F-22 missions over Syria (which is a much more benign air combat environment) regularly flown with luneberg lenses?

I can assure you that any F-22's entering ANY hot combat zone will NOT be wearing Luneberg lense's, NO, the fact that the J-20's approach into WVR means they are not the "aggressors", if they were they would have taken out the AWAC's and the Fighter's BVR...

So this little exercise is more of a confidance building exercise for the 4 gen force....

Anyway, it makes great sense to use the J-20's as aggressor's, though I wouldn't have anticipated that 5 years ago when the J-20 was in development??

One final provocative thought is that while the J-20 is mimicking the F-22, it is highly problematic to assume the J-20's RCS is in the same ballpark as the F-22?? I mean, it very well may be, but I have my very sincere doubts??

One of the reason's I continue to have the doubts, is that the most common quality fail on the F-35 by LockMart? is failure to meet the RCS target, in other words because of anomalies in the F-35 construction, the RCS is considerably greater than the "target RCS" numbers?

 

[Air Force Brat]

Given the scenario would've been planned to result in combat I feel like giving the orange force luneberg lenses would've been a bit silly.


I'm also not sure if the scenario described would've caused orange force to merely be loaded out as a "show of force patrol" so much as a "monitor an active combat scenario where there is a high risk of accidental escalation leading to potential air to air combat" so giving the potential opfor an advantage like a luneberg lens would not be very sensible

So no doubt when the PLAAF sends the J-20 to Zhuhai, it will be wearing the Luneberg Lens to mask its actual RCS....

 

[Blitzo]

So no doubt when the PLAAF sends the J-20 to Zhuhai, it will be wearing the Luneberg Lens to mask its actual RCS....

J-20s went to Zhuhai in 2016 as well and yes both were equipped with luneberg lenses

 

[Gloire_bb]

Actually the F-22 has proven itself to be some sort of magic carpet, and the F-35 will "take down" those SAM sights with relative impugnity??

I don't remember relevant combat experience under f-22. Only stuff like 144:1, with very little substance under it. We know, though, what 1970S Soviet SAM site gets enough radar return from 1980s american Stealth to shoot. Why 2010s chinese radar shouldn't be able to track 2010s chinese stealth, given the conditions are right?

Btw, unlike f-22, non-stealthy f-15 has proven exactly that(being unmached in near-peer real shooting conditions), relying on good old skill, c/c, kinematics and EW. Don't dismiss it.

 

[SDWatcher]

Pirate IRST claims to give the Eurofighter a range of more than 74 km.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Hyperwarp]

I don't remember relevant combat experience under f-22. Only stuff like 144:1, with very little substance under it. We know, though, what 1970S Soviet SAM site gets enough radar return from 1980s american Stealth to shoot. Why 2010s chinese radar shouldn't be able to track 2010s chinese stealth, given the conditions are right?

Btw, unlike f-22, non-stealthy f-15 has proven exactly that(being unmached in near-peer real shooting conditions), relying on good old skill, c/c, kinematics and EW. Don't dismiss it.

That is well known. The old long wave radars can see todays Stealth aircrafts. F-117, F-22, F-35 are opimized for X-Band radars. I think the B-2 has some added optimization. So they are certainly visible. Problem is shooting them down especially using the smaller radars and seekers of fighters and missiles. If there is very good ground based support, then they in could guide a HQ-9 type missile to a stealthy target.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I don't remember relevant combat experience under f-22. Only stuff like 144:1, with very little substance unde

Multiple deployments to Syria doesn't count huh?

We know, though, what 1970S Soviet SAM site gets enough radar return from 1980s american Stealth to shoot

Yeah it did after the F117 basically buzzed it. NATO mission planners sat on there complacency and kept flying identical mission ingress and egress routes. Someone figured it out and staked out a SAM site on the route it was just a waiting game then.

Glorie if, I knew where you worked and where you lived and wanted to smack you up side the head. A surefire way to arrange a meeting would be to figure the shortest route you would likely take bettween your home and work and stake it out eventually there would be a meeting.

People over emphasize that incident, because yes it happened but it was not a product of Stealth technology failure. It was one of military mind set failure, any aircraft that flew that route could have been nailed by that missile site.
OT
I remember an interview with a retired Marine officer who served in Vietnam. He took a new posting to a firebase along the North South line and was planing a patrol with his NCOs. He starts outlining his plan and the guys know it by heart... He he looked to his troops and asked them how often they ran it. Everyday. How often they were attacked. Everyday same route same time by there former officers. He tossed out the plan instantly and started a new route earlier time. He took the troops out on this new route and laid an Ambush. Sure enough here came the NVA to set up their Ambush.
And the tables turned.

Why 2010s chinese radar shouldn't be able to track 2010s chinese stealth, given the conditions are right?

If those are your conditions no reason at all. Stealth is not invisible it's camouflage. Camouflage is technically and strategy. Get close enough and any radar will see a stealth aircraft.

Btw, unlike f-22, non-stealthy f-15 has proven exactly that(being unmached in near-peer real shooting conditions), relying on good old skill, c/c, kinematics and EW. Don't dismiss it.

And F22 is designed to take that to the next level. Most Fifth gens can still turn and burn with the best of them.

 

[AndrewS]

So you're going on record as believing whatever the Russians claim??? not trying to be snarky?? well maybe a little bit, but they made lots of claims about the SU-57, before they decided to cap their own order at 12???

So I would say range is highly dependent on the target,, aircraft with a low RCS and active exhaust cooling are very difficult to pick up and near impossible to "lock"..

The 50km claim is probably understated given modern technology now.

Here is what RAND said in 2008 on Russian IRST

• All Flankers carry an Infra-Red Search and Track
System (IRSTS) – existing US fighters do not
– Latest version is OLS-35
– Capable of tracking typical fighter target
head-on at 50 km (27 nm) tail on at 90 km (50
nm)