Sure...
First...We find the active transmitters.
Then...We destroy them.
Even if each station is dual purpose, meaning it can be both transmitter and receiver when convenient, the disruption in the radar net will be enough for our 'stealth' fighters to slip thru.
Subs can take care of them.
You forget that in a distributed AESA system, there will be many transmitter and receivers working as one, with graceful degradation capability, like the T/R transmitters in the current AESA.
So your tactic of destroy them one by one, doesn't work. Your stealth plane will be seen as they are not stealthy at all.
Plus, there are anti-stealth radars that are completely passive, using only the radio waves that are already out there. Why there is a complete blackout on such anti-stealth radars in western MSM?
Because it is frightening to the Military-Industrial Complex.
If they hype up these anti-stealth radar threat, they can't seriously claim radar stealth works as they advertised. No one will buy their B.S. anymore.
Plus, there are Quantum Radar, just reveal by the Chinese, which Locked Martin actually are already researched. It went black, probably DARPA think they will work, so they are just working on it quietly.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/06/usa.science
US defence contractor looks for quantum leap in radar research
And patented by the European.
European patent number EP1750145 describes "radar systems and methods using entangled quantum particles".
It says such a device could "visualise useful target details through background and/or camouflaging clutter, through plasma shrouds around hypersonic air vehicles, through the layers of concealment hiding underground facilities, [and find] IEDs [improvised explosive devices], mines and other threats - all while operating from an airborne platform". It could also be mounted on a satellite.
"First...We find the active transmitters."
How do you get close to the many transmitters, without being seen by the distributed AESA?
What make you think none of the transmitters and receivers will not be protected by SAMs and fighters anyway?
Your tactic might work against Saddam Hussein, but not against a capable peer competitor.
Your typical American arrogance has lead to a massive investments into F-35, after an easy victory over Iraqi's air-defense system, a third rated power, at best.
Thank you very much for this Trillion dollars mistake, Pentagon.
Keep digging deeper into this bottomless money pit, please.
That's okay, considering its size at that range. Even the IL-78's refueling capacity is much lower at max radius. At 2500Km, it is 30 tons. Notice they don't mention the on station time.
Stick two 2k L tanks on a Flanker and you add 800Km. The Chinese don't need anymore than that. The US has to fly twice the distance China has to if there's a war over Taiwan from the closest American air base. Twice the distance = 4x the flying time, 4x the fuel consumption.
Let the Americans worry about refueling.
In the event of a war over Taiwan, all the Japanese air bases will receive blanket coverage from China's Rocket Force. There is no reason to assume Guam will not receive the same treatment either. There is no reason to assume, those American bases will still operational after receiving multiple barrages of assaults.
So, where could the US airplanes fly from?
Alaska and Hawaii.
How far are they from China?
How many times of refueling will be required?
Several of those refueling will be close to China.
How could the Americans protect their fleet of slow moving, big and obvious, fat and juice, oil tankers from the menacing J-20.
"The US has to fly twice the distance China has to if there's a war over Taiwan from the closest American air base. Twice the distance = 4x the flying time, 4x the fuel consumption."
Any talk of air-refueling near China's coast is lunatic, when the J-20s is lurking around, defending China's airspace.
The J-20 is not a Game Changer for the American Hubris.
It's
Game Over.
However I would be careful, to see it only black and white since some of his concerns are correct and some of Your assumptions are plain wrong or not valid; at least not yet.
Fact is, there are only three Il-78 available and only these are able to refuel the Su-30MKK and as such - given its immense load of fuel - the J-20 too. A HU-6 has simply not enough fuel to transfer; that's a fact.
And until a dedicated Y-20 becomes available .... surely not earlier than in a few years. So in consequence he's not completely wrong.
Deino
"And until a dedicated Y-20 becomes available .... surely not earlier than in a few years. So in consequence he's not completely wrong."
The first Y-20 just delivered to PLAAF in June, 2016, after just 3 years of testing. Do you really think it will take at least "a few years" to produce a dedicated Y-20 oil tankers?
Amazing!
You don't enlarge the size of your aircraft design due to a current lack of sufficient air-fueling tanker. That is a strategic mistake that could prove fatal if those said lack of capability becomes more available. Why can't the simple assumption be our PLAAF want a longer range stealth and so the designer is force to enlarge the plane? It is that simple.
Gambit's thinking is typical American Hubris's (Lack of) Logic.
May be the American haven't realized that relying on air-refueling, near hostile territory, when facing capable peer enemy, is dangerous and foolish.
It is true that 3D printed Titanium parts could save a lot of weight, by creating an internal honeycomb structure, inside the part, thus save a lot of weight.
This is not possible using the traditional molding and machining techniques.
Would this techniques and other techniques enable J-20 to have the same weight as F-22 , despite its body is at least 3m longer (I measured 4m)?
I don't know. We will have to wait and see. I am not that optimistic.
As you have mentioned, it depends on the situation at hand. The Flankers, and obviously its replacements, have been designed to fight at lower fuel loads as well. For example, due to the proximity of the border, MKIs need to be refueled only up to 50% of their fuel load after take off.
Another point is, a fighter can refuel another fighter very close to the front line. A tanker is hundreds of kilometers away from the front line. So you can have a flight of 4 Flankers refueling a flight of 4 J-20s over the East China Sea. But your jets are going to have to do the same all the way behind the First Island Chain. And most of your pilots are going to spend most of their flying time shuttling to and from tankers. If necessary, the buddy refuelers can also join the fight if they are Flankers.
The Chinese are going to have over 500 J-20s, and they are going to have more than 500 J-11+cousins. All these J-11s can be used for refueling and all these aircraft can refuel J-20s in tactically advantageous conditions. Let's not forget that these J-11s are going to be useless in most other roles once the F-35 comes in.
It's funny how you categorize anything you don't agree with as 'Indian' or 'Chinese' physics. When you speak to naval aviators, do you also mention 'American' physics when they bring up the advantages they have with the probe and drogue system?
When buddy refueling, the J-20 doesn't need a top up. It is very rare situation that they need one.
A Su-35's loaded weight is with 70% fuel. That gives it far more range than the F-15 with full load of fuel while giving it a significant increase in T/W ratio. So buddy refueling is designed to give an aircraft a fuel to performance advantage when it enters the fight. When it returns, it can be refueled again if necessary.
Your tankers are so far away that by the time the fighter comes back to join the battle, it would have finished a considerably large amount of fuel during transit. That means, you will need a larger fuel load transferred, so you don't become useless the minute you enter the battle.
More importantly, the J-20 or the Flankers don't need refueling, only the USAF and USN do. The Chinese need refueling only for particular missions, but your jets need refueling for practically every mission. That's not an advantage for you. Switch the jets of both sides, still nothing will change.
Can you imagine a Flanker with external tanks?
Stick these drop tanks on a Flanker, and you have your fuel.
Ah, yes. This is exactly how the British Generals looked at Churchill when he asked them about the possibility of war after Hitler entered Sudetenland.
Experts go wrong too, especially when they have to speculate, like you are doing right now. How dumb your entire aviation community must have looked when they speculated incorrectly about the Mig-25.
That doesn't sound right. The HU-6 carries about 40 tons of fuel IIRC. It can easily top up two MKKs with a significantly long on station time.
Thanks for letting him (Gambit) have it. .. . .
don't believe in false analysis,
J-23 and J-25?
their no J-23 and J-25 except in a few fanboys minds
