What's new

China Space Military:Recon, Satcom, Navi, ASAT/BMD, Orbital Vehicle, SLV, etc.

The problem with engaging an F-22 is that the radars on Fighters do not even find an object infront of them even if the Jet is visible to the eye. This was stated by an F-16 fighter pilot who shot down the F-22, in mock combat, using guns as the jet was not visible on his radar even though he could see it.

Depends on the configuration of F-22 I guess, maximum stealth v/s artificial RCS via external pods etc.
 
.
You could find some more details in my thread about this with pictures.

China ability to track air-sea-land targets by their satellites, radars, sonars... | Page 6

The flight is planned and legal. So it should be declared in advance and in the status of discoverable to air traffic controllers. Then all 4 mounted with RCS enhancers ( or Luneberg lens ).
The same procedures applied to any stealth airplane ( B-2, F-35, F-22, F-117 ) to be a legal and planned flight to another country/ally.

In brief, China radars could detect what North Korea, South Korea, Japan radars could detect, aircrafts in discoverable mode.

It's similar to someone claimed he/she could see a ninja at a show. like this. In this case, Everyone could see those ninja just like him/her.

4351_04.jpg
 
Last edited:
. . .
King of the Air Superiority fighter ~ Top Notch God given Design for the American F-22 is no longer Stealthy.
American shall attack Lockheed Martin the F-22 maker from lying and manipulating American taxpayers again and again by shorting its shares ( last price = 214 usd ) until it become a penny stock.

I guess it is confirmed then ... ... the F-22 obliteration by German Euro Typhoon and French Rafale were totally true as well.

Those American neocons and Republicans ... ...please do blame Pres Obama ( just because he is a non-white president ) for the over hyped, fakey, and unstealthy F-22.


:hitwall: :yahoo:

Lockheed Martin Stinky Skunkwork
 
Last edited:
.
Since, the aircraft shaping is fixed.
The Battle of Stealth is the battle of ( Stealth Coating + Radar )

It seems the newly developed LockMart stealth coating applied to these F-22 who just flew to Japan is useless against PLA radar.
The LockMart previous Stealth coating used by the F-22 on the January 2015 on Chinese Lunar New Year were useless against PLA radar as well.
It means USAF F-22 vs PLAAF Radar = 0 vs 2
:D :omghaha:


Btw IIRC, the PLAAF was sending a few old J-10A to intercept F-22 in China ECS ADIZ.
Talk about no respect from PLAAF.

@Jh??g??y -- after all the facts on the ground, are you still claiming that these non stealthy F-22 were not flying from Japan or South Korea ?
or maybe you are too busy crawling under the warm rock sat by the Stinky Skunk.
 
Last edited:
.
1) Of course, PLAAF tracked and intercepted USAF F-22 when they were probing ECS ADIZ in ( January 2015 ) just after Chinese Lunar New Year.

2) Again, these time PLAAF tracked and intercepted USAF F-22 when they were probing ECS ADIZ in ( 10 February 2016 ) just after Chinese Lunar New Year.

Interesting, could you describe more details on those incidents ?

As I read, China didn't tell those are F-22 but they detected signal ( may caused by Luneberg lens reflectors and drop tanks )
later, Western media and Chinese military specialists guess that's F-22

Several fighters from East China Sea Fleet patrolled around the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea after receiving orders that unidentified tracking occurred near the ADIZ on the morning of Feb. 10, according to a report on PLA Daily on Feb. 11.

The report said that helicopters from a carrier-based helicopter brigade along with the carrier patrolled around the area and missiles were set on fighters on duty at nearby military airports which were prepared to take off for combat. However the report did not disclose which country the objects belong to or other relevant information.

Some Western media guessed that the unidentified objects might be the U.S. F-22 stealth fighter jets.
 
Last edited:
.
Since, the aircraft shaping is fixed.
The Battle of Stealth is the battle of ( Stealth Coating + Radar )

It seems the newly developed LockMart stealth coating applied to these F-22 who just flew to Japan is useless against PLA radar.
The LockMart previous Stealth coating used by the F-22 on the January 2015 on Chinese Lunar New Year were useless against PLA radar as well.
It means USAF F-22 vs PLAAF Radar = 0 vs 2
:D :omghaha:


Btw IIRC, the PLAAF was sending a few old J-10A to intercept F-22 in China ECS ADIZ.
Talk about no respect from PLAAF.

@Jh??g??y -- after all the facts on the ground, are you still claiming that these non stealthy F-22 were not flying from Japan or South Korea ?
or maybe you are too busy crawling under the warm rock sat by the Stinky Skunk.

Did you read and see the picture of Those F-22 mounted RCS enhancers ?

That's similar to a surfaced submarine
I13-24-submarine.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
In fact, they could be MALD or anything ( like Luneberg lens )
 
.
China has our own stealth fighter, we at least know something about detecting it,...
Detection is not the same as IDENTIFICATION.

You know your mother, no ? Actually, you can only know her after you IDENTIFY her. An identity is a visual representation that is associated with something else.

In the near dark, you can detect -- with your eyes -- the outline of a human body, but how do you know that is your mother ? You do not. You can only IDENTIFY that human as your mother only after you associate her facial features with what you know of her in your memory.

So for China to declare that the PLA detected the F-22 is simply absurd. The radar scope cannot even display the outline of a body, let alone the body that is unique to the F-22.

The PLA detected 'something'. That 'something' is all there was. But of course that 'something' had to be exaggerated into the F-22.
 
.
That is because the fighters are currently acclimatizing and settling into the SK area. Which means flying with Luneberg lens reflectors.
not so sure about that. those f-22s just arrived in sk couple days go from japan

from article
Several fighters from East China Sea Fleet patrolled around the Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea after receiving orders that unidentified tracking occurred near the ADIZ on the morning of February 10, the People's Daily on Thursday quoted the PLA Daily as saying in a report.
 
.
Detecting a stealth fighter was never an issue, Serbia brought down one in 1999. Any longer wavelength radar can do that, but they lack the resolution to target one specifically. It will be news if China can do that.
 
.
not so sure about that. those f-22s just arrived in sk couple days go from japan

from article

Yeah the report of People Daily is on 11 and about 10 Feb incident.
The F-22 arrive Kadena 20 days before that and to Osan 7 days after that.

So the report about unidentified flight could be anything, maybe a couple of F-15J
 
.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-can-chinas-radars-track-americas-stealth-f-22-15261?page=2

Dave Majumdar


February 19, 2016

State-run Chinese media is claiming that the People’s Liberation Army has been able to track the U.S. Air Force’s Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor stealth fighters over the East China Sea. While the Chinese report might be easily dismissed as propaganda—it is not beyond the realm of possibility. In fact—it’s very possible that China can track the Raptor. Stealth is not a cloak of invisibility, after all. Stealth technology simply delays detection and tracking.

First off, if a Raptor is carrying external fuel tanks—as it often does during “ferry missions”—it is not in a stealth configuration. Moreover, the aircraft is often fitted with a Luneburg lens device on its ventral side during peacetime operations that enhances its cross section on radar.

That being said, even combat-configured F-22s are not invisible to enemy radar, contrary to popular belief. Neither is any other tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft with empennage surfaces such as tailfins—the F-35, PAK-FA, J-20 or J-31. That’s just basic physics.

The laws of physics essentially dictate that a tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft must be optimized to defeat higher-frequency bands such the C, X, Ku and the top part of the S bands. There is a “step change” in a Low Observable (LO) aircraft’s signature once the frequency wavelength exceeds a certain threshold and causes a resonant effect. Typically, that resonance occurs when a feature on an aircraft—such as a tail-fin — is less than eight times the size of a particular frequency wavelength. Effectively, small stealth aircraft that do not have the size or weight allowances for two feet or more of radar absorbent material coatings on every surface are forced to make trades as to which frequency bands they are optimized for.

Therefore, a radar operating at a lower-frequency band such as parts of the S or L band—like civilian air traffic control (ATC) radars—are almost certainly able to detect and track tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft. However, a larger stealth aircraft like the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit, which lacks many of the features that cause a resonance effect, is much more effective against low-frequency radars than, for example, an F-35 or F-22. Typically, however, those lower-frequency radars do not provide what Pentagon officials call a “weapons quality” track needed to guide a missile onto a target. “Even if you can see an LO [low observable] strike aircraft with ATC radar, you can’t kill it without a fire control system,” an Air Force official had told me.

That being said, Russia, China and others are developing advanced UHF and VHF band early warning radars that use even longer wavelengths in an effort to cue their other sensors and give their fighters some idea of where an adversary stealth aircraft might be coming from. But the problem with VHF and UHF band radars is that with long wavelengths come large radar resolution cells. That means that contacts are not tracked with the required level of fidelity to guide a weapon onto a target. As one U.S. Navy officer rhetorically asked, “Does the mission require a cloaking device or is it OK if the threat sees it but can’t do anything about it?”

Traditionally, guiding weapons with low frequency radars has been limited by two factors. One factor is the width of the radar beam, while the second is the width of the radar pulse—but both limitations can be overcome with signal processing. Phased array radars—particularly active electronically scanned arrays (AESA)—solve the problem of directional or azimuth resolution because they can steer their radar beams electronically. Moreover, AESA radars can generate multiple beams and can shape those beams for width, sweep rate and other characteristics. Indeed, some industry experts suggested that a combination of high-speed data-links and low-frequency phased-array radars could generate a weapons quality track.

The U.S. Navy and Lockheed may have already solved the problem. The service openly talks about the E-2D’s role as the central node of its NIFC-CA battle network to defeat enemy air and missile threats. Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, the Navy’s director of air warfare, described the concept in detail at the U.S. Naval Institute just before Christmas in 2013.

Under the NIFC-CA ‘From the Air’ (FTA) construct, the APY-9 radar would act as a sensor to cue Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles for Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets fighters via the Link-16 datalink. Moreover, the APY-9 would also act as a sensor to guide Raytheon Standard SM-6 missiles launched from Aegis cruisers and destroyers against targets located beyond the ships’ SPY-1 radars’ horizon via the Cooperative Engagement Capability datalink under the NIFC-CA ‘From the Sea’ (FTS) construct. In fact, the Navy has demonstrated live-fire NIFC-CA missile shots using the E-2D’s radar to guide SM-6 missiles against over-the-horizon shots—which by definition means the APY-9 is generating a weapons quality track.

That effectively means that stealthy tactical aircraft must operate alongside electronic attack platforms the like Boeing EA-18G Growler. It is also why the Pentagon has been shoring up American investments in electronic and cyber warfare. As one Air Force official explained, stealth and electronic attack always have a synergistic relationship because detection is about the signal-to-noise ratio. Low observables reduce the signal, while electronic attack increases the noise. “Any big picture plan, looking forward, to deal with emerging A2/AD threats will address both sides of that equation,” he said.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/U.S. Air Force.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom