Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[gambit]

yes i agree that maneuverability is inversely proportional to speed but brahmos is not completely non maneuverable, but THE LAND TARGETS ARE NOT MOBILE IN MOST OF THE CASES IN WHICH THE BRAHMOS WILL BE USED ----mostly important radars locations

There are serious considerations in designing a high speed moving body, mainly it is about the body itself. A tube, which is what a missile really is, will undergo longitudinal stress upon any deviation in flight, the higher the speed plus the higher the rate of deviation, the more severe the stress. Avionics will also be affected, especially for the missile's radar antenna if it is gimbaled. All of this add up to a heavier and expensive missile.

and for sea targets you have to consider the simple fact of relative motion as a ship moving at 30 knots will not pose much of a challenge

Yes it will...Granted a ship cannot move as fast on sea surface as an aircraft in flight or even a wheeled vehicle on land, its size and its movement require the missile to have %100 accuracy. Think about it for a moment...A building is relatively uniform in shape compared to a ship, which is always length dominant. If a bomb missed the building it will impact the ground and if the error distance is merely one meter, the explosion will do some severe damages to the building. A missile is no different, it will have a descending flight to the ground, a building just happened to be in the way.

Against a ship, however, the missile will dive into the water if it missed the ship, even by just one meter. If the missile is able to maneuver for another attempt, by now the ship will have its defensive measures in full deployment, such as chaff blooms and flares, the odds for a miss dramatically increases as the missile must discriminate the ship from among these distractions. Another miss, even by just one meter, and the ship won the fight. If the ship is already alerted of the missile's approach, in about three seconds it can launch several chaff blooms that will create an electronic cloud several thousands square meters, enough to blanket the missile's radar view, and the ship is still moving behind this cover. Again, even if the error distance is merely one meter, the ship won the fight.

This is why anti-ship attacks fare better with low altitude cruise missiles than other tactics simply because of the 'a-ha' surprise factor that drastically compress the response time from the ship. Not guaranteed , just better odds of success.

There are many attempts to increase the odds of success for an ASCM that remove the 'a-ha' factor from the equation. The above image is one such attempt. What the missile's radar could attempt to do is to take a 'fractal' radar image of a ship based upon its many segmented facets that a composite body has. A ship is a composite body with doors, stairs, windows, guns...etc...etc...That produces large variations of radar returns. But it is known that the largest facets are the ones near the center of the ship. Algorithms can be introduced into the avionics package to instruct the missile to home in on the greatest concentration of those large facets. Be warned...The above image is NOT how the radar 'sees' the ship. What the radar has are the equivalent of V spikes on a graph, linear or 3D depending on the level of sophistication of the electronics. The above image is only to give the readers a better visualization of what a ship look like under these algorithms.

Now imagine several chaff blooms that totally electronically blanket what the missile sees...

 

[Haanzo]

There are serious considerations in designing a high speed moving body, mainly it is about the body itself. A tube, which is what a missile really is, will undergo longitudinal stress upon any deviation in flight, the higher the speed plus the higher the rate of deviation, the more severe the stress. Avionics will also be affected, especially for the missile's radar antenna if it is gimbaled. All of this add up to a heavier and expensive missile.

Yes it will...Granted a ship cannot move as fast on sea surface as an aircraft in flight or even a wheeled vehicle on land, its size and its movement require the missile to have %100 accuracy. Think about it for a moment...A building is relatively uniform in shape compared to a ship, which is always length dominant. If a bomb missed the building it will impact the ground and if the error distance is merely one meter, the explosion will do some severe damages to the building. A missile is no different, it will have a descending flight to the ground, a building just happened to be in the way.

but brahmos is different it will not have a descending flight to the ground
Against a ship, however, the missile will dive into the water if it missed the ship, even by just one meter. If the missile is able to maneuver for another attempt, by now the ship will have its defensive measures in full deployment
i dont believe only one missile will be fired at a maneuverable target target
, such as chaff blooms and flares, the odds for a miss dramatically increases as the missile must discriminate the ship from among these distractions. Another miss, even by just one meter, and the ship won the fight. If the ship is already alerted of the missile's approach, in about three seconds it can launch several chaff blooms that will create an electronic cloud several thousands square meters, enough to blanket the missile's radar view, and the ship is still moving behind this cover. Again, even if the error distance is merely one meter, the ship won the fight.

This is why anti-ship attacks fare better with low altitude cruise missiles than other tactics simply because of the 'a-ha' surprise factor that drastically compress the response time from the ship. Not guaranteed , just better odds of success.

There are many attempts to increase the odds of success for an ASCM that remove the 'a-ha' factor from the equation. The above image is one such attempt. What the missile's radar could attempt to do is to take a 'fractal' radar image of a ship based upon its many segmented facets that a composite body has. A ship is a composite body with doors, stairs, windows, guns...etc...etc...That produces large variations of radar returns. But it is known that the largest facets are the ones near the center of the ship. Algorithms can be introduced into the avionics package to instruct the missile to home in on the greatest concentration of those large facets. Be warned...The above image is NOT how the radar 'sees' the ship. What the radar has are the equivalent of V spikes on a graph, linear or 3D depending on the level of sophistication of the electronics. The above image is only to give the readers a better visualization of what a ship look like under these algorithms.

Now imagine several chaff blooms that totally electronically blanket what the missile sees...
what iff the missile in this case the brahmos which impacts the target from the side is instructed not to go above a certain height in the terminal phase lets say 3-4 meters ---- hence vertically it might not miss the target ---which in turn means better chances of sucess

but it was a nice post thank you

 

[gambit]

but brahmos is different it will not have a descending flight to the ground

Yes it does...No matter how slight. Still...A miss at sea produces zero result while a miss on land can still produce some damages to the target. There is a chance the missile can acquire a different target on the other side of the first target.

i dont believe only one missile will be fired at a maneuverable target target

It would be beneficial to increase the odds of success with multiple missiles. However, the question will be -- Where are your launch directions? If you launch from the same direction, your missiles will have little angular differences on how each sees the target area and ultimately the target itself. The greater the angular differences, meaning the further the distances between your launch positions, the greater the odds of each missile seeing a different view of the target, assuming there is only one target, hence more difficult for the target to deploy defensive measures effectively. Also, you should not launch at the same time. Chaff blooms and flares have finite airborne time. If all your missiles arrive at the target area at the same time while the area is electronically blanketed, odds are good or better than good that all of them will miss. This is why attacking a moving ship at sea, even a capital ship like an aircraft carrier, is not as easy as most people think.

what iff the missile in this case the brahmos which impacts the target from the side is instructed not to go above a certain height in the terminal phase lets say 3-4 meters ---- hence vertically it might not miss the target ---which in turn means better chances of sucess

Three to four meters will place the missile within grasp of the sea...

Douglas Sea Scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the 'Wind Sea' chart for wave height. This is even more problematic than geography where land features are constant. Keep in mind that under combat conditions, ships are spread out and is on the move.

 

[Arsalan]

That's not correct, the maximum instrumental range of Erieye is over 400Km, but for fighters, or cruise missiles it is less. As you can see in the picture the detection range for cruise missiles is less than 200 Km.

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/7272/saab2000ig9.jpg

well here you go friend!!
in this same picture that you are using as your reference it is also stated that it have 360 degree coverage but you never seem to agree with thiss!!
now i am sorry to say this bro but donyt you think such actions speak out loud about your biasedness! i mean you take some of the points that can devalue the system while at the same time you keep on denying the credibility of the same source if it is claiming the PAF system to be a good!!
well dear i really am disappointed with such acts of yours,,

regards!

 

[Arsalan]

well Mr. Gambit it really was nice piece of information provided by you. great work but it will be better if we can get back to topic.
Mr. Hanzoo, you too kindly try to keep the brahmos out of this thread! you can find a better place to discuss it once it is realy operational..
this is not the right pace for this discussion!!

i hope you guys understand and agree!

regards!

 

[PakShaheen79]

OK!
back to J-10...here is some pics of J-10B


Now those are two ECM pods other than dummy missiles...
A cross breed of F-16 and J-10

The 01/1031 prototype of the new J-10B was unveiled in March 2009, 3 months after its maiden flight in December 2008. This much improved variant features a DSI/bump engine inlet which not only cuts weight but also reduces RCS, after a similar design was first tested onboard FC-1/JF-17. The aircraft also features a J-11B style IRST/LR and a wide-angle holographic HUD. IRST enables passive detection of enemy aircraft, making J-10B more stealthy in combat. Its nose appears flatter too, similar to that of American F-16, and radar is thought to be PESA which is still under development (of Russian origin?), the first of such type ever being developed for a Chinese fighter aircraft, giving J-10B a stronger multi-target engagement and ECCM capability. Two large ECM pods are attached under the wings. The tip of vertical tailfin was redesigned as well, featuring a large fairing containing communication and ECM antennas, which resembles that of French Mirage 2000. A rear facing MAWS sensor can be seen underneath the parachute boom. A similar system was tested onboard FC-1/JF-17 as well. All these improvements suggest that J-10B is equipped with a new generation of integrated electronic system, ranging from radar to EW system. The aircraft thus serves likely as a testbed for various advanced avionics onboard the 4th generation J-14 (see below). Its mission may be changed from air-superiority to multi-purpose, such as AG or EW. In addition, the aircarft is expected to be powered eventually by an indigenous WS-10A turbofan. Overall J-10B is thought to be comparable to American F-16E/Block 60
Chinese Military Aviation

It looks like J-10B is tailored for SEAD/DEAD missions.Any comments

 

[wild peace]

we also want few of these birds (dalta wing)
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac95/ISI_1990/Rafale/getData3.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac95/ISI_1990/Rafale/military01-800x600.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac95/ISI_1990/Rafale/6412_101010613245157_10000008655010.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac95/ISI_1990/Rafale/rafale1049.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac95/ISI_1990/Rafale/6412_101010036578548_10000008655010.jpg

 

[PakShaheen79]

we also want few of these birds (dalta wing)
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac95/ISI_1990/Rafale/getData3.jpg

These birds are busy currently in MMRCA of IAF. So keep your fingers cross after JF-17 and J-10B there is very few chances Pakistan will go for an Western fighter. To keep our operational cost down we need unified fighters not diversified.

 

[SBD-3]

we also want few of these birds (dalta wing)
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac95/ISI_1990/Rafale/getData3.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac95/ISI_1990/Rafale/military01-800x600.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac95/ISI_1990/Rafale/6412_101010613245157_10000008655010.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac95/ISI_1990/Rafale/rafale1049.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac95/ISI_1990/Rafale/6412_101010036578548_10000008655010.jpg

beautiful toy but i would rather prefer Girppen than Rafale

 

[Arsalan]

beautiful toy but i would rather prefer Girppen than Rafale

more more and more FC20,, thats what i prefer,,


regards!

 

[PakShaheen79]

more more and more FC20,, thats what i prefer,,


regards!

And I second that Pakistan lack that kind of cash which required to have Rafale otherwise who don't want that thing in PAF or PN.

 

[zavis2003]

but it was a nice post thank you

as what gambit told how RADAR sees A ship i want to share with u that its SAR and inverse SAR techniques through wigh we gets imagery of targets
A Sythetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is an airborne system which utilizes the flight path of the aircraft to simulate an extremely large antenna or aperture electronically. Over time, individual transmit/receive cycles (PRT's) are completed with the data from each cycle being stored electronically. After a given number of cycles, the stored data is recombined (taking into account the Doppler effects inherent in the different transmitter to target geometry in each succeeding cycle) to create a high resolution picture of the terrain being over flown.

Using such a technique, radar designers are able to achieve resolutions which would require real aperture antennas so large as to be impractical with arrays ranging in size up to 10 m.

An Synthetic Aperture Radar was used on board of an Space Shuttle during the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM).

SAR radar is partnered by what is termed Inverse SAR (abbreviated to ISAR) technology which in the broadest terms, utilizes the movement of the target rather than the emitter to create the synthetic aperture. ISAR radars have a significant role aboard maritime patrol aircraft to provide them with radar image of sufficient quality to allow it to be used for target recognition purposes.

 

[zavis2003]

There are serious considerations in designing a high speed moving body, mainly it is about the body itself. A tube, which is what a missile really is, will undergo longitudinal stress upon any deviation in flight, the higher the speed plus the higher the rate of deviation, the more severe the stress. Avionics will also be affected, especially for the missile's radar antenna if it is gimbaled. All of this add up to a heavier and expensive missile.

Yes it will...Granted a ship cannot move as fast on sea surface as an aircraft in flight or even a wheeled vehicle on land, its size and its movement require the missile to have %100 accuracy. Think about it for a moment...A building is relatively uniform in shape compared to a ship, which is always length dominant. If a bomb missed the building it will impact the ground and if the error distance is merely one meter, the explosion will do some severe damages to the building. A missile is no different, it will have a descending flight to the ground, a building just happened to be in the way.

Against a ship, however, the missile will dive into the water if it missed the ship, even by just one meter. If the missile is able to maneuver for another attempt, by now the ship will have its defensive measures in full deployment, such as chaff blooms and flares, the odds for a miss dramatically increases as the missile must discriminate the ship from among these distractions. Another miss, even by just one meter, and the ship won the fight. If the ship is already alerted of the missile's approach, in about three seconds it can launch several chaff blooms that will create an electronic cloud several thousands square meters, enough to blanket the missile's radar view, and the ship is still moving behind this cover. Again, even if the error distance is merely one meter, the ship won the fight.

This is why anti-ship attacks fare better with low altitude cruise missiles than other tactics simply because of the 'a-ha' surprise factor that drastically compress the response time from the ship. Not guaranteed , just better odds of success.

There are many attempts to increase the odds of success for an ASCM that remove the 'a-ha' factor from the equation. The above image is one such attempt. What the missile's radar could attempt to do is to take a 'fractal' radar image of a ship based upon its many segmented facets that a composite body has. A ship is a composite body with doors, stairs, windows, guns...etc...etc...That produces large variations of radar returns. But it is known that the largest facets are the ones near the center of the ship. Algorithms can be introduced into the avionics package to instruct the missile to home in on the greatest concentration of those large facets. Be warned...The above image is NOT how the radar 'sees' the ship. What the radar has are the equivalent of V spikes on a graph, linear or 3D depending on the level of sophistication of the electronics. The above image is only to give the readers a better visualization of what a ship look like under these algorithms.

Now imagine several chaff blooms that totally electronically blanket what the missile sees...

how radar makes the image of ship a totally technical approach




http://www.radartutorial.eu/20.airborne/pic/aperture.jpg

 

[zavis2003]

this is synthetic aperture radar

every complex thing is made by so many simple things

look at above ship imagery here guys PRT1 2 3 4 etc all adds on and every point has influence by previous valueand thats the theory to make SAR just that simple idea of imagery

i thin it woulld be a good knowledge for GAMBIT and ur disscussions about imagery of ships targeting with radars

 

[wild peace]

more more and more FC20,, thats what i prefer,,


regards!

It carries a lot more weight then JF ....having 14 hard points then JF's 7 at the momment may be near future it is 9. and so ......

....I said we want few for our indigenous infant industry..

other About JF17 and Fc20 InshaAllah They are ours and no body except God has a power to change this.....