Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

[ptldM3]

Transports have low observable requirements now?

Appearently so.

Maybe Russian mafia need to smuggle arms or drugs out of Russia?

Don't be silly the Russian mafia deals with the Columbians and now perhaps the Mexican in drug smuggling...

 

[Project 627]

Transports have low observable requirements now? Maybe Russian mafia need to smuggle arms or drugs out of Russia?

IMAGES: Lockheed's stealth C-130 successor revealed - The DEW Line

 

[marshall]

Then certainly you have no problems showing me a credible source that has a committee somewhere laying down the specs. This is just like the word 'stealth' where over 98% of the public uses that word but the few of us uses 'low radar observable'.

You should understand that when the experts write for the lay public, they will use popular terms in their explanations to give the people a reasonable frame of reference of the many complex issues they have to deal with. How often do you see an expert call the helicopter an 'aircraft' when technically it is? Or how many use the more casual 'helo' for that matter?

Stealth aircraft is not an international standard that you would set like something by the IEEE, ISO, etc. For this reason, most people generally use the standard bearer of the time to define what is that standard. The F-22A is today's standard bearer just as the F-117 was yesterday's, which is why the F-117 is STILL considered the first operational 5th gen fighter despite lacking today's latest 5th gen features (AESA, EODAS, supercruise, etc).

I am so glad for your generosity. Now all you have to do is show me the technical data.

There are many such professional aviation expert analysis on this very topic using "appearance" alone as their guideline. Much of what you ask for are rhetorical questions because as outsiders some details are classified. This does not preclude obvious visual cues that any layperson can see. Those visual "appearances" you find deceiving are what these forums are all about afterall. One of the better visual analysis I have read is here....

A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype

It includes computational spectral analysis of the shaping and probable RAM coating effectiveness at different wavelengths.

 

[gambit]

Stealth aircraft is not an international standard that you would set like something by the IEEE, ISO, etc. For this reason, most people generally use the standard bearer of the time to define what is that standard. The F-22A is today's standard bearer just as the F-117 was yesterday's, which is why the F-117 is STILL considered the first operational 5th gen fighter despite lacking today's latest 5th gen features (AESA, EODAS, supercruise, etc).

Good. Then we can conclude that the '5ht-gen' label is something that is casually used and is not really something that can be settled upon. Heck, there are arguments here that China call '5th-gen' as '6th-gen' or something like that. So if China can depart without consulting other major aviation powers, especially one that started the trend in 'low radar observable', what reason are there for us to place any value on these convenient labels?

There are many such professional aviation expert analysis on this very topic using "appearance" alone as their guideline. Much of what you ask for are rhetorical questions because as outsiders some details are classified. This does not preclude obvious visual cues that any layperson can see. Those visual "appearances" you find deceiving are what these forums are all about afterall. One of the better visual analysis I have read is here....

A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype

It includes computational spectral analysis of the shaping and probable RAM coating effectiveness at different wavelengths.

That APA nonsense again? They use physical optics only. As if that was not bad enough, they used estimated physical dimensions derived from photographs to plug into their PO algorithms. Ever heard of 'Garbage In. Garbage Out.'? Heck, the section 'What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate' is longer than the section 'What the Simulation Does Demonstrate'. TWICE as long. But here is the clincher that made what APA did a joke...

The PO computational algorithm performs most accurately at broadside or near normal angles of incidence, with decreasing accuracy at increasingly shallow angles of incidence, reflecting the limitions of PO modelling.

What this mean is that PO is good only if the radar is staring STRAIGHT at the surface. The moment there is any angular displacement, and we are talking about a dynamic target here, PO calculations breaks down. The greater the angular displacement, the worse it gets. Given the fact that this is common knowledge, APA cannot hide this limitation. Even Chinese engineers know NOT to use the PO method alone...

Now show me the data that has the J-20 below the unofficial 1 meter square at 150-200 km distance. If there are none, then what I said is valid: That the J-20's label as '5th-gen' is based solely upon appearance and fanboy-ism.

 

[marshall]

...As I said originally and will repeat "The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy". Look up L-Band radar and F-35. You will find that this is exactly what is happening for ground radar installations and will happen in the near future for some fighter radars.

What kind of aircraft would that be? Be careful before answering.

As I expected, you resort to nitpicking of wording and syntax rather than the meaning and context of the message. Re-read what I said in the context of the message and it's obvious I'm talking about aircraft not regarded as 5th gen stealth but having LO radar features...like the Eurofighter for example. How else to describe such aircraft that are not 5th gen but still relatively stealthy comparatively speaking to their generation. Get it? or maybe not. Now let's hear your take on the word LO and stealth, I mean acronym LO and stealth.

I will put my posts up against yours about this subject any day so it is hilarious that anyone here could 'advise' me to look up the L-band. Your highlighted comment is equally hilarious in that you specified no type of opponent. The fact that radar detection freqs ranges from the meters length to the millimetric mean that it is not possible with the current technology to deal with them all. So it is necessary to target the most problematic ones, which are the centimetric and low end millimetric. Now is that too difficult to grasp?

So how does the above quote relate to how this thread started? I said..."The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy", and followed up with the example of the F-35 being weak in the lower radar bands and thus vulnerable to L-Band radars. That's a public fact and it is also public fact that various design bureaus have developed wing mounted L-band radars for this very purpose.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter vs Russia's New Airborne Counter-Stealth Radars

 

[amalakas]

The Israeli Phalcon is L-band.

The US Navy's E-2C is UHF-band.

You are of course right, I forgot the Israeli phalcon.

 

[marshall]

LM is confident that the F-35 is effective against current and near future threats.
That is the point. L-Band radars for instance are not installed on currently used AiM missiles.
So even if a ground station tells you there is an F-35 flying towards you, how are you going to shoot it down? Your interceptors on X and K bands can't see it, using which missiles to lock on?

- remember I am not a fun of F-35, I am just stating what the point is-

True, but I see the F-35 being detected first a coup in itself. The L-Band AESA radars being developed do not have alot of power so detection probably wouldn't occur until within relatively close BVR range. I'm not sure how good of an idea it would be to have the fighter guide missiles to the F-35 since that might expose the J-20 itself but there would be decades to develop a safe and lethal solution given the projected life of the F-35. Might be feasible for the detecting fighter to establish datalink to space satellite to do the guidance instead. So the detecting fighter could send the instructions with the detected location to guide the missile, and from there a military satellite could guide the missile with SAR radar to the target.

 

[marshall]

The STOVL project is coupled with the amphibious assault ship, since China has no interest to build the aircraft carrier less than 80,000 tons.

Has this actually been confirmed or are you referring to experts on the Chinese BBSes? The "Snowy Owl" stories have never actually be confirmed as far as I'm aware. The pictures that have been released have always turned out to be PS'ed.

 

[marshall]

ur J20 may be requiring canards for supermaneuverabity as it is a special 5th gen fighter

,but all other 5th gen doesnt require canards for super-maneuverability as they are having thrust vectoring nozzles to achieve that,just see the chart

Well let's hope that the J-20 will eventually have vectored nozzles then. It would make it an even more superior supermaneuverable fighter than it will already be.

 

[gambit]

As I expected, you resort to nitpicking of wording and syntax rather than the meaning and context of the message. Re-read what I said in the context of the message and it's obvious I'm talking about aircraft not regarded as 5th gen stealth but having LO radar features...like the Eurofighter for example. How else to describe such aircraft that are not 5th gen but still relatively stealthy comparatively speaking to their generation. Get it? or maybe not. Now let's hear your take on the word LO and stealth, I mean acronym LO and stealth.



So how does the above quote relate to how this thread started? I said..."The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy", and followed up with the example of the F-35 being weak in the lower radar bands and thus vulnerable to L-Band radars. That's a public fact and it is also public fact that various design bureaus have developed wing mounted L-band radars for this very purpose.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter vs Russia's New Airborne Counter-Stealth Radars

This is silly. How can you be 'stealthy against your opponent' if you do not know what freq he is using? But if you DO KNOW what freq he is using, then you should shape (or target) against that freq, which was the point of my post. And here are some additional information and logic to support my arguments => http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-8.html#post2111905

Take your time and read if you want to learn the truth from real engineering.

What you said: ...be stealthy against your opponent... may give people the impression that you know what you are talking about but for those of us who have relevant experience know it is nonsense.

As for the supposedly L-band on the T-50...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft

The Dutch company Thales Nederland, formerly known as Holland Signaal, have developed a naval phased-array radar called SMART-L, which also is operated at L-Band and is claimed to offer counter stealth benefits. However, as with most claims of counter-stealth capability, these are unproven and untested.

Do you even stop to think for a bit? Assume that this freq will be used, why do you think the antenna arrays for the L-band are on the wings and not in the radome? Because the main antenna is for the X-band, which is the main freqs for vital targeting information, which is what I tried to explain to you but you dismissed it as drivel. The L-band is not as capable and for the T-50 it is limited to the front view. What if the 'stealth' enemy is behind or either sides?

 

[amalakas]

This is silly. How can you be 'stealthy against your opponent' if you do not know what freq he is using? But if you DO KNOW what freq he is using, then you should shape (or target) against that freq, which was the point of my post. And here are some additional information and logic to support my arguments => http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-8.html#post2111905

Take your time and read if you want to learn the truth from real engineering.

What you said: ...be stealthy against your opponent... may give people the impression that you know what you are talking about but for those of us who have relevant experience know it is nonsense.

As for the supposedly L-band on the T-50...

Stealth aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Do you even stop to think for a bit? Assume that this freq will be used, why do you think the antenna arrays for the L-band are on the wings and not in the radome? Because the main antenna is for the X-band, which is the main freqs for vital targeting information, which is what I tried to explain to you but you dismissed it as drivel. The L-band is not as capable and for the T-50 it is limited to the front view. What if the 'stealth' enemy is behind or either sides?

We debated on this long time ago. The point of the L-band extensions on the T-50 is to alert the pilot/system/formation that a VLO adversary is indeed in field and provide (for now a guess) minimalistic information on a vector.

With the current experience we have on L-band radars this is NOT enough to direct -current- missiles to the target (s).

My debate with Gambit at the time was that Russians have in their arsenal and can launch a mix of missiles with IR and active seeker heads which can expose the threat further or prevent whatever the adversary has in mind since it has to begin evasive actions.
An IR medium/long range missile can be launched with mimimal information provided by the L-band radar. Ofcourse the weapons release software needs to be modified to allow for that.

The other advantage of having this onboard is that it delays / denies the first shot

The L-band system will alert the flight, other sensors will be automatically alligned, possible early launch will force the opponent to lose the first shot opportunity since russians have longer range weapons. but even if a launch takes place (with current arsenal) the sensors will detect the launch flare and alert the pilot a salvo is coming .

this increases the odds tremendously since evasive actions can be taken "cranking".

as for the VLO adversary being in the rear of the T-50, well, then yes, currenty it has no ability it seems to actively see it..

on the other hand nor does the F-22 as far as I know. The passive system on the F22 doesn't offer true 360^ coverage .. or am I mistaken?

 

[gambit]

We debated on this long time ago. The point of the L-band extensions on the T-50 is to alert the pilot/system/formation that a VLO adversary is indeed in field and provide (for now a guess) minimalistic information on a vector.

With the current experience we have on L-band radars this is NOT enough to direct -current- missiles to the target (s).

My debate with Gambit at the time was that Russians have in their arsenal and can launch a mix of missiles with IR and active seeker heads which can expose the threat further or prevent whatever the adversary has in mind since it has to begin evasive actions.
An IR medium/long range missile can be launched with mimimal information provided by the L-band radar. Ofcourse the weapons release software needs to be modified to allow for that.

The other advantage of having this onboard is that it delays / denies the first shot

The L-band system will alert the flight, other sensors will be automatically alligned, possible early launch will force the opponent to lose the first shot opportunity since russians have longer range weapons. but even if a launch takes place (with current arsenal) the sensors will detect the launch flare and alert the pilot a salvo is coming .

this increases the odds tremendously since evasive actions can be taken "cranking".

In theory, yes...But in practice? Doubtful. Because the VLO adversary will be alerted to the presence of a seeker.

as for the VLO adversary being in the rear of the T-50, well, then yes, currenty it has no ability it seems to actively see it..

on the other hand nor does the F-22 as far as I know. The passive system on the F22 doesn't offer true 360^ coverage .. or am I mistaken?

Passive detection is usually 360 deg.

 

[amalakas]

In theory, yes...But in practice? Doubtful. Because the VLO adversary will be alerted to the presence of a seeker.


Passive detection is usually 360 deg.

You mean RWR ?

 

[gambit]

You mean RWR ?

The F-22's radar warning receiver set is good enough to provide its missiles with targeting information. So monitoring L-band emissions will not be so difficult.

 

[amalakas]

The F-22's radar warning receiver set is good enough to provide its missiles with targeting information. So monitoring L-band emissions will not be so difficult.

i wouldn't know about that... experiance with the F-22 as you can guess is non existant