Didn't suggest anything of the sort. We actually don't know what EW capabilities Divine Eagle will be equipped with (but it probably won't be limited to L band radars). What we *do* know is that the PLAAF wouldn't have developed a VLRAAM if they didn't have a way of acquiring a lock from very long distance.
Operational use of LR-AAMs in aerial combat - Interceptor role
- Thread starter Air Force Brat
- Start date
@latenlazy: Ummm, early warning receivers? Likewise, if an incoming interceptor gets pinged by the F-35 / E-2D combo, it'll be tracked, and a fast-moving high-speed projectile launched by the interceptor will be tracked as well.
The "future" Chinese capabilities we are discussing are actually deep into testing. We have physical evidence of their existence. These "future" US capabilities we're currently discussing aren't even past conceptual development. We don't even know how far this project will get. This is like trying to discuss what a 6th generation Chinese or American fighter will be like when nothing has actually been prototyped yet.
Again, detection range=/=tracking range. Even putting that aside though, how quickly can you get a lock from detection of missile launch? At what distance does intercept become impossible for your antimissile missile? Would there even be time to fire a second antimissile missile if the first one failed to intercept? That's the lead time problem.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
And bringing it back to J20 there is a Fact I think that kills VLRAAM in it the box. J20 like all 5th Gens carries it's main weapons in internal weapons bays. The VLRAAM The Chinese have shown is between 17-19 feet long that's roughly the size of a Pac 3. That is not fitting in the box. That means either External carriage like on the Flanker that it was seen on, or Uses of a modified external fuel tank as a external weapons bay. either way It's visible to radar.
We're talking about the maturity of Chinese aircraft, vs the maturity of American subsystems. One is a lot faster to develop than the other, and considering that the DoD received 4 proposals for the MSDM missile, and that noises about CUDA have been made for years, it's safe to assume that anti-missile capabilities, at least for large missiles, are real.
The other thing I do note is that you're placing a lot of confidence on the Chinese ability to defeat American jammers, when we know that the US is, or at least was, ahead in the EW game. If we accept that Chinese missiles can target AEW&C past jamming, we should also be able to accept that American anti-missiles have a high probability of working.
The other thing I do note is that you're placing a lot of confidence on the Chinese ability to defeat American jammers, when we know that the US is, or at least was, ahead in the EW game. If we accept that Chinese missiles can target AEW&C past jamming, we should also be able to accept that American anti-missiles have a high probability of working.
latenlazy: my point is that the J-20 gets detected by the AEW&C, then tracked by the F-35 EODAS. It's the F-35's EODAS that's supposed to pick up the missile, not the AEW&C. Think networks; the AEW&C knows the approximate location of the J-20, the F-35 EODAS is ordered to scan a narrow area to obtain a track.
@ Terran_Empire: You are correct, the interceptor missile the Chinese have been displaying can't be mounted onto the J-20. However, it's likely that a derivative, possibly the PL-12D, will be mounted onto the J-20.
@ Terran_Empire: You are correct, the interceptor missile the Chinese have been displaying can't be mounted onto the J-20. However, it's likely that a derivative, possibly the PL-12D, will be mounted onto the J-20.
You're not wrong here, and how reasonable it is to assume certain projects may reach certain levels of success or progress is due to a whole heap of different factors, some of which are programme unique and some of which are broader and dependent on systematic factors such as the US being much more open about their defence programmes meaning many high profile ones whose progress we can track from initial ideas to prototypes and to operational units may often not reach the goal, whereas with the Chinese military they are much less open so we only see the few high profile ones through their development and/or the end results of projects which were already successful whose development we were not able to track.
We will shift the assumptions as new information and developments come to light. For example, if J-20 numbers are limited and do not enter combat service for the next five years or something then that would obviously cause a significant shift in our calculations as those five years pass.
And while that is of course a possibility in the minds of many people here, it is not currently assumed to be the likely course that the programme will take.
OTOH, there are other programmes whose position in the development cycle is so early that trying to project its course/pathway into the future is not yet practical at this time.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it will fail, but I do think it is a bit early to assume that it will be fielded successfully in the way you envision it to.
Maybe in a few years time once the programme moves forward along a bit more then we can talk about it more, but at this stage I think talking about it as if it's some kind of done deal is like if we were in 2009 talking about the Chinese Air Force of the future definitely having a stealth fighter in operationally useful numbers, years before even the first J-20 has made its maiden flight.
Then that would apply even more so for UHF radar like used by E-2D as well.... But advances in processing/computing I think means radar operating in bands like UHF and L band to have greater ability to track and provide guidance, which is why E-2D is able to use its UHF band AESA to conduct tracking and midcourse guidance tasks.
Of course, this doesn't mean stealth is obsolete or anything, and this applies for all AEW&C on all sides, as well as all stealth fighters on all sides.
I don't think anyone has suggested that the PL-X will be mounted on the J-20.
In fact, a big argument for why the J-20 won't be a traditional interceptor against force multipliers is because the PL-X is far too big for J-20 and will instead be used on 4th generation fighters at very long range instead, while J-20 fulfills support, air superiority and potentially some traditional interceptor roles depending on the situation.