J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

India is scheduled to receive Rafales on July 27th or thereabouts. They'll be equipped with Meteor, but the problem with Meteor is that it doesn't have an AESA seeker and can thus be jammed by Chinese AESA radars. I also did some research on relative capability of PL-15 vs Meteor; Meteor is rumored to have around 80-100 km of effective range, while the PL-15 should have between 67 to 100 km of effective range. And the PL-15 is purportedly AESA-equipped, so if the Rafales have AESA installed, the PL-15 should be able to survive their jamming.

ougoah said:

It's not at the moment because the Indians have totally backed off and surrendered parts of two disputed regions. If however the Indians come back for a fight, then it's uncertain. IAF doesn't have Rafales ready for fighting. It takes many years for pilots and ground crew and the commanding structure to get trained on new fighter and then develop tactics after all this. Plus they've only got 2 or 3 delivered into IAF so far I think.

The most capable fighters in IAF are the Su-30MKI and Mirage-2000. The Mig-29s are very old and the French fighters carry better weapons than even the MKI. Most of the western and newer Indian missiles are not yet integrated onto the MKI and even then the Astra has pretty poor range, no dual stage motor/s, no dual seekers, and India doesn't have much experience at all developing high end missile software and hardware components. Astra being their first attempt. Meanwhile Chinese ones have been learning from western missile tech and leading ones too since the Sino-Soviet split and built upon those lessons many generations already. PL-12s will suffice, no need for even PL-15s and PL-21, PL-xx unless they just want to fire some for live testing.

J-20 should be used in case of IAF vs PLAAF. It'll be a once in a lifetime opportunity to verify training, tactics, and lessons learned can be applied to modify them and implement in further training with PAF in future. If JF-17 and F-16 could absolutely devastate IAF, Indian air defences, blind and subdue communications and radars, then what would J-10C + J-16 + J-20 + hundreds of UAVs + dedicated early warning, AWACS, tankers, dedicated electronic warfare, and superior air defence achieve? Even if PLARF spares Indian airfields from ballistic missile attacks and PLA spares them from receiving hundreds of CJ-10. Could explain why the Indians totally gave up on their claims in Galwan and Pangong Tso in the span of a few weeks and officially announced it lol all without firing even a bullet.

Click to expand...

The only reason I don't see the PLAAF deploying J-20s in a Sino-Indian conflict is that China doesn't want data to be recorded and potentially shared with the world, namely the U.S. This is especially true given that a potential Sino-Indian conflict is expected to be short in duration and existing 4th gen PLAAF fighters are more than enough to handle the IAF.

Radar data on J-20s could be very valuable for the U.S. / NATO to develop countermeasures. IMO J-20s would be only used if the PLAAF expects to engage F-22s or F-35s in the pacific or Taiwan strait where the gloves come off.

The U.S. is extremely protective of the F-35 and is careful not to expose any details of it to countries like China or Russia. If you recall the Japanese F-35 crashing in the ocean, the U.S. literally threatened both China and Russia to not go looking for its debris in the ocean.

muddie said:

The only reason I don't see the PLAAF deploying J-20s in a Sino-Indian conflict is that China doesn't want data to be recorded and potentially shared with the world, namely the U.S. This is especially true given that a potential Sino-Indian conflict is expected to be short in duration and existing 4th gen PLAAF fighters are more than enough to handle the IAF.

Radar data on J-20s could be very valuable for the U.S. / NATO to develop countermeasures. IMO J-20s would be only used if the PLAAF expects to engage F-22s or F-35s in the pacific or Taiwan strait where the gloves come off.

The U.S. is extremely protective of the F-35 and is careful not to expose any details of it to countries like China or Russia. If you recall the Japanese F-35 crashing in the ocean, the U.S. literally threatened both China and Russia to not go looking for its debris in the ocean.

Click to expand...

The world isn't the USA and the USA isn't the world.

India doesn't have any serious SIGINT aircraft, ships, vehicles, satellites, or equipment. Even if they did eventually reveal some primitive SIGINT capabilities, they are so limited they won't be giving the Indians let alone the US any seriously compromising information. Could even be a good chance to feed some false data. Spectrum dominance means being able to control the wavelengths, refusing and feeding desired data, corrupting your enemy's understanding of the digital battlefield even further than they are able to realise.

The US has been using F-22s and F-35s all over the middle east. Israel has used the F-35. Most missions are limited but they've been used. India being able to gather any worthwhile information is a huge if. You can tune your RCS. It doesn't have to be minimal all the time.

Re-posting a lost image.

Inst said:

India is scheduled to receive Rafales on July 27th or thereabouts. They'll be equipped with Meteor, but the problem with Meteor is that it doesn't have an AESA seeker and can thus be jammed by Chinese AESA radars. I also did some research on relative capability of PL-15 vs Meteor; Meteor is rumored to have around 80-100 km of effective range, while the PL-15 should have between 67 to 100 km of effective range. And the PL-15 is purportedly AESA-equipped, so if the Rafales have AESA installed, the PL-15 should be able to survive their jamming.

Click to expand...

That's overly simplified.

The Meteor uses a seeker of the same family as the MICA and ASTER missiles and is a known and proven technology.
Also no aircraft is gonna fly straight into a missile while hoping it can jam it successfully - we will gonna see F-pole engagements which the ramjet will create a no-escape zone way larger than the Chinese PL-12 and PL-15 capacities.

Do we have a timeline or updates on the Ws-15 engine. Some report claimed a max production rate of 5-6 engine per year (way to limited).

Pmichael said:

That's overly simplified.

The Meteor uses a seeker of the same family as the MICA and ASTER missiles and is a known and proven technology.
Also no aircraft is gonna fly straight into a missile while hoping it can jam it successfully - we will gonna see F-pole engagements which the ramjet will create a no-escape zone way larger than the Chinese PL-12 and PL-15 capacities.

Click to expand...

And? It's still a slotted array or pre-PESA radar. Its ECCM advantage is that it has a two-way data-link that can keep it guided by the Rafael.

As for Meteor vs PL-12, that's a no-brainer, the PL-12 is roughly comparable to an AIM-120B. The PL-15, on the other hand, features an AESA seeker and a dual-pulse rocket motor, sufficient to scare the USAF into the LREW program.

We're uncertain, basically, as to what the exact capabilities of the PL-15 are. The comparable Russian system, the K-77M, has a stated 197 km aerodynamic range, but is roughly 0.5 meters shorter than the PL-15. The minimum expected aerodynamic range of the PL-15 would be 200 km, likewise, but the extended length could result in significantly increased ranges; the MICA missile, for instance, is extremely similar to the PL-10 ASR, but sports a 33% longer range (80km vs 60km implied aerodynamic range) because of only a 7 kg difference (PL-10E has a listed 105 kg weight, the MICA has a 112 kg weight) and a 5G max maneuverability difference (55G vs 50G).

A further factor is that the standard NEZ of an AAM is about 1/3rd the aerodynamic range. But since the PL-12 is a dual pulse rocket motor, it can fire off its rocket motor in stages and further extend its NEZ over a conventional AAM. At 200 km range with 50% aerodynamic range, you get 100 km. At 250 km range with 50% aerodynamic range, you get 125 km. At 300 km range with the standard 33% aerodynamic range, you get 100 km. The difference between standard AAMs, dual pulse AAMs, and ramjets is that with standard AAMs you get one shot, with dual pulse AAMs you get two shots, and ramjets can continuously vary their thrust as long as they're within ramjet speed.

The main defenses of the Rafale comes out, first, to the Rafale having a semi-modern IRST, being IOC-ed in 2009, with stated maximum detection / tracking at 100 km. This means that the J-20 can't approach the Rafale at high subsonic and has to do an F-35-style low-speed approach. Second, the Rafale is the only Western aircraft known to be capable of 11G emergency agility, which reduces the effective range of the PL-15.

When it comes to J-20 vs Rafale, the pure offensive competition is very close; the PL-15 likely outranges the Meteor in pure aerodynamic range, likely has greater effective range vs 9G based purely on its greater range, but is going to suffer some range reduction vs a 11G fighter. The J-20, likewise, is stealth and will always see the Rafale first given that it has a massive AESA vs the puny RBE2-AA (around 800 elements vs 1500 elements on Eurofighter and the F-18 or 2000 elements on the F-15E, F-22, or J-20). Defensively, given that the Meteor isn't going to get an AESA seeker until 2022 at the earliest, and that the J-20 is at least a -30 dBsm VLO fighter, that the AESA on the J-20 is jamming capable, the Rafale is going to have a touch time touching the J-20.

Re-posting for the record some rare genuine (censored) images of the IFR probe.

Highly recommend reading the papers published in the latest issue of the Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, many are related to J-20's R&D, including the once-hot topic, do canards affect the stealth capacity of J-20?

The abstract:
This paper studies the Radar Cross-Section (RCS) effect on canard configuration fighter of canard. First, the scattering mechanism of canard is analyzed. And then, the Multi-Level Fast Multipole Method (MLFMM) is used to compute the configuration’s RCS of the given fighter models. And by comparing the computational results of both the canard configuration and the conventional configuration, the RCS effect of canard is analyzed, focusing on the RCS effect on fighter after the canard is rotated. In addition, a full-size parts stealth test is conducted by researching the RCS effect on fighter of both edge scattering and gap scattering and respective inhibition measures. The test results show that, after the scattering of canard is inhibited, the RCS level of canard configuration can be applied to configuration design of stealth fighter. And its stealth capacity is comparable with that of the conventional configuration. Finally, the guiding principles of canard stealth design are postulated.

stormtroops said:

Highly recommend reading the papers published in the latest issue of the Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, many are related to J-20's R&D, including the once-hot topic, do canards affect the stealth capacity of J-20?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The abstract:
This paper studies the Radar Cross-Section (RCS) effect on canard configuration fighter of canard. First, the scattering mechanism of canard is analyzed. And then, the Multi-Level Fast Multipole Method (MLFMM) is used to compute the configuration’s RCS of the given fighter models. And by comparing the computational results of both the canard configuration and the conventional configuration, the RCS effect of canard is analyzed, focusing on the RCS effect on fighter after the canard is rotated. In addition, a full-size parts stealth test is conducted by researching the RCS effect on fighter of both edge scattering and gap scattering and respective inhibition measures. The test results show that, after the scattering of canard is inhibited, the RCS level of canard configuration can be applied to configuration design of stealth fighter. And its stealth capacity is comparable with that of the conventional configuration. Finally, the guiding principles of canard stealth design are postulated.

Click to expand...

Posted previously, but given that it's hard to search for, it's not a big deal. Note that the "fixed" J-20 canard set-up is far different from the canards implemented on the J-20.