Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

[marshall]

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...

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...

No analysis on appearance alone can be complete regardless of methodology unless you have every minute detail of the aircraft on hand as well full knowledge of the materials composition of the aircraft. Only with unfettered access to the aircraft could any complete study be performed using a supercomputer. If this is the track you are following, then your question has been rhetorical all along because it cannot be answered since the J-20 is a publicly known but still classified project. The whole point of military forums like this one are to discuss these issues, the what-ifs, new developments, tactical/strategic implications, etc....not rhetoric to shut down discussions until projects are completely declassified.

If this is not your intention, then I would disagree that this is a "garbage in garbage out" analysis as you put it. PO computational method is not ideal with any angular displacement only if you are trying to achieve 100% accuracy. However, results were quoted as being in rough agreement with 3rd party measurements of test shapes approximating different J-20 surfaces. That does not sound like garbage in/out as you exaggerate. Diffraction was not measured in this study as stated in the footnotes. The study is called "A Preliminary Assessment of SPECULAR Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype" afterall. I do believe you are too dismissive of this study. In the absence of any hard details from China, military analysts rely on studies such as these to make their preliminary assessments for strategic decisions.

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.

If your sole mission is to ask for classified information and absolute proof, then you are correct and I suggest you go to Chengdu and request access to their classified RCS studies. Almost everybody else looks at what current information is available and from there note the various radar reducing features, and compare it to the estimated RCS of different known stealth aircraft or believed to be stealth aircraft and make rough approximations of capabilities. This is what every analyst does including professional aviation experts when performing their research. If some choose to call it a 5th gen aircraft because they believe it to have those qualities, it does not make them "fanboys". If you choose to believe others do not agree with you to be rah-rah cheerleaders....aka fanboys, that is your prerogative.

Btw, the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is a 4+ gen fighter is a well known example of a non-5th gen LO aircraft. There is consensus among the aviation community that its RCS with clean configuration is around ~1m square. The Eurofighter Typhoon has a CANARD delta layout. The J-20 also has a CANARD delta layout along with an F-22A style chin, serpentine inlets, continuous curvature, LOAN nozzles, planform alignment, internal weapon bays, RAM coating, oxide coated canopy, etc.... According to your insinuation, the J-20 cannot even match a 1m square RCS despite the multitude of estimates and studies that say otherwise, some of which estimate RCS of a fraction of a fraction of 1m square. Maybe you should educate all the Eurofighter fanboys the error of their ways.

 

[marshall]

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.

I thought I already answered this question and you just repeated it in different words here. Refer to message #413. You obviously did not understand the meaning and context of what I was saying because it was absolute proof of what I said using actual real-world examples. If you have real world experience in this field, then I can only suggest you get further training in real-world English classes since you consistently misunderstand context and meaning in messages and regularly use grammatical/syntax issues as points in your arguments rather than address what counterparts are actually saying.

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?

I didn't dismiss anything, that is your exaggeration. If there is anything I dismiss, it is your own blanket dismissal of L-Band radar advantages vis-a-vis stealth aircraft detection. Nobody ever suggested L-Band is a singular replacement for all radars. On the contrary, it is a supplement since it cannot be used for targeting but adds the immeasurable advantage of providing first detection. This opens a whole slew of tactical scenarios that the opponent does not have. In the case of the F-35, if it were to ever be on the receiving end of this scenario against a similarly capable aircraft, it would be at a disadvantage obviously!

 

[marshall]

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.

What do you think of the Russian L-Band wing mounted radars? I think the scanning methodology is clumsy. You have to wag the aircraft side to side to get a decent view of the horizon. I think it should be 1 part of an integrated UHF/L-Band stealth detection network with space based radars playing a prominent role. I cannot see any other way to do it without endangering the detecting fighter if it attacked.

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 .

Rumors have circulated that stealth missiles are being developed with IR shrouded nozzles to prevent this. If these sorts of missiles were in production, it would be likely the detected stealth aircraft would be shot down if a salvo of 3 such missiles were fired, directly at the aircraft and the other two 15 or so degrees to either side. At the probable detection range of less than 50km, at the mach 4+ flight speed of these missiles, they would reach the target in less than 1 minute and achieve IR lock in less than 40 seconds. Of course, if there were other aircraft in the vicinity, it might shoot them down by accident though. LOL

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?

EODAS is 360. I don't know what the detection range is though. There's speculation that J-20 will have a similar system.

 

[gambit]

I thought I already answered this question and you just repeated it in different words here. Refer to message #413. You obviously did not understand the meaning and context of what I was saying because it was absolute proof of what I said using actual real-world examples. If you have real world experience in this field, then I can only suggest you get further training in real-world English classes since you consistently misunderstand context and meaning in messages and regularly use grammatical/syntax issues as points in your arguments rather than address what counterparts are actually saying.

You gotta be joking...What 'real-world examples' did you present? Here are my supporting arguments...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-7.html#post2107861
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-8.html#post2111905

Show the readers where my logic is flawed. Keep in mind that they can perform keyword searches and find the vast majority of the 'fighter' class radars out there operate in the X-band.

Let us take your post 413 again...

Whatever you say, now back to the context of what I said instead of the unrelated rant that you veered off on. F-35 stealth is most effective in the X-band and has weaknesses at lower bands. That is why it is often derided as a narrowband stealth aircraft. In other words, an aircraft with radar operating at a lower radar frequency would see the F-35 almost as easily as a non-stealth LO aircraft and it would get detected at relatively distant BVR range. 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.

Where are those 'real-world examples'? You made an assertion that does not jive with the true 'real world', friend. How many 'fighter' class radars out there that DOES NOT operate in the X-band? Do not tell me the Russian's latest. It is still largely speculative. But show everyone which air forces in the world that manufacture their own fighter aircrafts and equip them with lower freqs specifically to target 'stealth'.

I didn't dismiss anything, that is your exaggeration. If there is anything I dismiss, it is your own blanket dismissal of L-Band radar advantages vis-a-vis stealth aircraft detection. Nobody ever suggested L-Band is a singular replacement for all radars. On the contrary, it is a supplement since it cannot be used for targeting but adds the immeasurable advantage of providing first detection. This opens a whole slew of tactical scenarios that the opponent does not have. In the case of the F-35, if it were to ever be on the receiving end of this scenario against a similarly capable aircraft, it would be at a disadvantage obviously!

Immeasurable?

Buddy, if a radar's maximum reach is 100 km distance, effective distance where there are credible target resolution will be at best %75-80 of that 100 km. It is the result of a combination of many things such as atmospheric attenuation, beam broadening, or internal noise. However, passive detection of such a transmission will be at that 100 km, meaning the man you are looking for will know you are looking for him BEFORE you even have the odds of finding him. Back in the Cold War, NATO pilots often trained in navigation via passive detection of the limit edges of air defense radar nets. That is called 'threat avoidance'...

Electronic Combat Solutions - Thales Group

• Capabilities needed for the engagement of combat aircraft against air, ground and surface targets:

- Multi-target detection and engagement for air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-surface missions

- Automatic terrain following and threat avoidance for high-speed blind penetration missions

- Offensive jamming for suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD)

- Self-protection

The 'blind penetration' is not exactly blind in the EM spectrum. What the training does is to allow the radar warning receiver set dictate the turns of the flight path. The moment the RWR alert the pilot that he just touched the fringe edge of radar's maximum reach, the pilot will turn away until the alarm is silent. The pilot transmit nothing of his own but uses his RWR set like a blind man uses his cane. For the air defense radar operator, such a fleeting return may be dismissed by the system itself, let alone stay constant enough for him to make a decision on what he saw. So if the enemy is blasting away with his L-band radar trying to find me, I would definitely encourage him to continue.

 

[marshall]

Show the readers where my logic is flawed. Keep in mind that they can perform keyword searches and find the vast majority of the 'fighter' class radars out there operate in the X-band.

Let us take your post 413 again...

Whatever you say, now back to the context of what I said instead of the unrelated rant that you veered off on. F-35 stealth is most effective in the X-band and has weaknesses at lower bands. That is why it is often derided as a narrowband stealth aircraft. In other words, an aircraft with radar operating at a lower radar frequency would see the F-35 almost as easily as a non-stealth LO aircraft and it would get detected at relatively distant BVR range. 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.

Where are those 'real-world examples'? You made an assertion that does not jive with the true 'real world', friend. How many 'fighter' class radars out there that DOES NOT operate in the X-band? Do not tell me the Russian's latest. It is still largely speculative. But show everyone which air forces in the world that manufacture their own fighter aircrafts and equip them with lower freqs specifically to target 'stealth'.

I expected you would Look up L-Band radar and F-35 but you obviously did not. That was the real-world example. To explain, again...the F-35 is well known to have "narrowband" stealth, meaning it does not provide equal stealth at all radar bands, specifically S, L and UHF radar bands. The lower the radar frequency, the more susceptible to detection the F-35 becomes. In other words, this weakness of the F-35 to certain radar bands allows opponents to exploit it, obviously. I'm not sure why you would assume the X-Band radar would be completely removed in place of a single L-Band radar. I never suggested this, this is your own idea because you can't grasp that an L-Band radar could be a supplement to exploit the F-35's weakness to it. Afterall, the F-35 is not the only opponent that could potentially be faced. Clearly, tactical military thinking is not your forte.

Looking at the hardware side of things, absolutely I will bring up the Russian wing-mounted L-Band AESA radar. The fact that this radar was created for the exact situation we are talking about is very pertinent to this conversation because it EXISTS which makes it a perfect real-world example. If you're going to say it is not yet mounted on any production fighter, then by that same logic the F-35 would not be in the real-world since it is not yet a production fighter.

Addressing my contention that opponents would exploit stealth weaknesses of their rivals, I'm not even sure why it is necessary to have this explained to you. It is OBVIOUS and I just gave you a perfect example of it. Honestly, I find it ridiculous I need to explain such a simple concept let alone more than 3 times now. Countering opponents weaknesses is a fundamental part of defense research.

As I said earlier, you didn't understand my English in your zeal to prove whatever you are trying to prove. Your so-called point about "RCS of different fighters" has little to do with the context of what I am talking about and is either your misinterpretation of the context and meaning of my words, or purposeful wordplay to avoid the obvious that you are just plain wrong.

*** L-Band Stealth Weakness ***
The L-band “game-changer” | ELP DEFENS(C)E BLOG

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

I haven't even mentioned the ongoing research into anti-stealth measures that are not fighter based such as the SMART-L radar, certain OTH radars, etc.... The narrowband stealth of the F-35 was a bad idea due to the short-sightedness of LM. They never expected this could be exploited so easily.

 

[marshall]

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.

LPI modes on AESA radars make RWR detection very difficult and pretty much impossible for tracking unless you're using 2 or more datalink'ed F-22s to triangulate the source. Granted, this is a rumored feature of the F-22 but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[gambit]

I expected you would Look up L-Band radar and F-35 but you obviously did not.

Buddy...I used to be in the business. I know exactly what you are talking about.

That was the real-world example. To explain, again...the F-35 is well known to have "narrowband" stealth, meaning it does not provide equal stealth at all radar bands, specifically S, L and UHF radar bands. The lower the radar frequency, the more susceptible to detection the F-35 becomes. In other words, this weakness of the F-35 to certain radar bands allows opponents to exploit it, obviously.

No current 'stealth' aircrafts, not even US ones, are immune from the longer wavelengths. This was well known decades ago.

Looking at the hardware side of things, absolutely I will bring up the Russian wing-mounted L-Band AESA radar. The fact that this radar was created for the exact situation we are talking about is very pertinent to this conversation because it EXISTS which makes it a perfect real-world example. If you're going to say it is not yet mounted on any production fighter, then by that same logic the F-35 would not be in the real-world since it is not yet a production fighter.

One example out of how many deployed? And do we have any credible data on its effectiveness? Is the aircraft even operational?

I haven't even mentioned the ongoing research into anti-stealth measures that are not fighter based such as the SMART-L radar, certain OTH radars, etc.... The narrowband stealth of the F-35 was a bad idea due to the short-sightedness of LM. They never expected this could be exploited so easily.

Wrong...LM worked out all the possible combinations of shaping, absorber, and threat freqs as far back as the F-117 days. It is incredibly presumptuous on your part to say that the pioneers of 'stealth' would miss the L-band when the data from the many freqs have been known for decades. Yours and many others' persistence in bringing up your misconception about vulnerability to the L-band by 'stealth' aircraft reveals a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of radar detection.

Here is why you and others are so very wrong about LM's alleged 'shortsightedness'...

We will begin with the sphere, the simplest shape in radar detection.

The sphere will produce three main modes of radiation: Specular, Leaky, and Creeping.

The specular reflection and leaky waves due to surface wave behaviors will always be present. The creeping wave behavior will depend on the '10-lambda' rule. The 10-lambda rule states that IF the diameter is greater than 10 wavelengths (lambda), then the creeping wave behavior will not exist. But IF the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths (lambda) then the creeping wave will contribute to the sphere's (or cylinder's) RCS. This behavior is applicable to all wavelengths.

If I build my sphere to specifically target the X-band freqs, does that mean I was 'shortsighted' in neglecting the L-band? If the answer is 'Yes' then might as well argue that I was 'shortsighted' in neglecting the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands as well. In that case, I might as well build my sphere whose diameter is one hundred or even one thousand meters to cover the entire spectrum. That way, the only dominant radiation will be specular. But is that reasonable?

The F-35 is not the F-22. If the F-22 has better performance against the L-band then it was by design. If the F-35 has inferior performance than the F-22 when it comes to the L-band, then it is also BY DESIGN. Not because LM was ignorant of the different results by the various freqs or because LM was 'shortsighted'. If they wanted the F-35 to be as effective against the L-band, it would not be the F-35 to start. The mission requirements are different and will demand compromises to some degrees. Use the L-band against the B-2 and we will have the an increase in RCS as well. So is it fair to criticize the B-2 in the same manner?

It is precisely this ignorance of the fundamentals of applied radar detection techniques that make the L-band trumpeters look silly in the eyes of those who actually designed these aircrafts.

 

[gambit]

No analysis on appearance alone can be complete regardless of methodology unless you have every minute detail of the aircraft on hand as well full knowledge of the materials composition of the aircraft. Only with unfettered access to the aircraft could any complete study be performed using a supercomputer. If this is the track you are following, then your question has been rhetorical all along because it cannot be answered since the J-20 is a publicly known but still classified project. The whole point of military forums like this one are to discuss these issues, the what-ifs, new developments, tactical/strategic implications, etc....not rhetoric to shut down discussions until projects are completely declassified.

If this is not your intention, then I would disagree that this is a "garbage in garbage out" analysis as you put it. PO computational method is not ideal with any angular displacement only if you are trying to achieve 100% accuracy. However, results were quoted as being in rough agreement with 3rd party measurements of test shapes approximating different J-20 surfaces. That does not sound like garbage in/out as you exaggerate. Diffraction was not measured in this study as stated in the footnotes. The study is called "A Preliminary Assessment of SPECULAR Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype" afterall. I do believe you are too dismissive of this study. In the absence of any hard details from China, military analysts rely on studies such as these to make their preliminary assessments for strategic decisions.

I am dismissive of that 'study' for two reasons...

1- What APA did was the equivalent of giving a junior engineer a project to test his abilities to perform his job. Although the project is valid it is a part of the more comprehensive testing regime where specular reflections measurement is just about the easiest test in a series of tests.

2- The quick seizure of this 'study' as somehow indicative of the J-20's true RCS.

These modes of scattering are of varying degrees of intensities on ANY complex body...

APA supposedly 'measured' just one mode: SPECULAR SURFACE RETURN. And that was using the word 'measured' very generously considering they admitted they did not perform any physical measurements but only the virtual one.

While...

- Cavity radiation from inlets, exhausts, and cockpit can be as wide as 60 deg in detectable angle and often resonate (ring) making the structure an effective pulsating beacon that can dominate the combined specular reflections from multiple flat surfaces.

- Traveling radiation occurs when the incident angle is nearly horizontal to the surface and direction of travel is opposite that of arrival. Upon meeting a surface discontinuity like an edge, the energy level of this signal is nearly as that of the original impinging signal. So on a wing, if PO is looking at the leading edge, PO will says the only radiation is from the leading edge. Nothing else exist.

- Interactions from all of the above modes do not exist as far as PO is concerned.

For the above...In terms of RCS control, a curved concave structure is a 'convergent' radiator or generator and will concentrate any packet of energy into a directional beam, advertising its presence. Physical Optics measurement will produce a large but false signature because it would mistake this to be from a flat surface. Because of this behavior, US 'stealth' aircrafts routinely flies with such devices called 'Luneburg lens' which are constructed in similar principles to disguise their true RCS.

A convex structure is a 'divergent' radiator and because the PO method can only deal with one impact point which is the tiny amount of surface area that happens to be perpendicular to source direction per degree of translation (movement), the rest of the signal's energy become surface wave energy, the result is a smaller and inaccurate signature. The concave and the convex structures could have identical surface areas but would have opposite RCS signatures via the PO method. The more curvatures are there on an expanse of surface area on a complex body, the greater the departure from accuracy PO will be, and given the current trend where we have largely moved away from F-117's method of RCS control, PO alone cannot provide us with any meaningful estimation of these complex bodies.

The radar cross section (RCS) value is a fictitious value. It is fictitious in the sense that it is heavily dependent upon the measurement regime and the tools used inside that regime. The RCS value is essentially a comparative figure between the sum of what those tools received in terms of power density PER TOOL versus the original total power density upon the body. The appropriate analogy here is the story of the blind men and the elephant where each man is a tool and each has his own perception of what is an 'elephant'.

It is to APA's credit that they admitted their own flawed methodlogy but it is sad on the part of the J-20's supporters that they so quickly seized upon that 'study', using the word quite generously, and imposed their own misconceptions and baseless enthusiasm upon the aircraft. Am confident that you are not as cavalier with your credulity in your financial dealings. But I guess nothing is really lost here if one does not count one's own intellectual honesty.

I hate the phrases 'Trust me on this one...' or 'Take my words on this...' and have never used them in these discussions. But I have complete faith that the gents over at Lockheed, Raytheon, or Boeing are smiling condescendingly at APA for this 'study' because in another life I used to do the same thing for other 'studies'.

 

[gambit]

As I said earlier, you didn't understand my English in your zeal to prove whatever you are trying to prove. Your so-called point about "RCS of different fighters" has little to do with the context of what I am talking about and is either your misinterpretation of the context and meaning of my words, or purposeful wordplay to avoid the obvious that you are just plain wrong.

Those are links to posts explaining why the X-band is the preferred region and is very pertinent to what we are talking about. Sounds like you are quite afraid of learning something new that would prove you wrong.

 

[Chinese Century]

the vietnamese kid gambit is getting owned!

 

[gambit]

the vietnamese kid gambit is getting owned!

You wish......I know that EVERYTHING I said went wwoooossshhh over your head.

 

[Firemaster]

You wish......I know that EVERYTHING I said went wwoooossshhh over your head.

 

[amalakas]

Each fighter developing country develops based on some kind of approach.

I can tell you definitely that the Europeans were gobsmacked when the F-22 and F-35 design requirements came out in earnest, because they had been working on aircraft capable of outclassing the F-15 and a possible successor, but definitely not the F-22 !!

The Russians on the other hand, kept silent due to economic struggles for a long time, and then took a pragmatic approach to things. The flankers are capable of holding their own if they have a way of defending and attacking. The kinematic abilities of the flanker, and even more so of the newest flankers is enough to evade current missiles if given enough warning. The IRST sensor on all flankers is enough to pick up at some range, which exceeds visual but shorter than the range of the AMRAAM stealth type planes.
Can it help shooting them down? Not to a comfortable point if not coupled with IR imagining seeker heads but still, better than fighting blind and mute. And also thought of equipping their large fighters with L-band radars... now they can also actively look for stealth targets even though they cannot provide firing solutions for the weapons from the L-band radars ... accurate enough at least.

To me this is a realistic, pragmatic way forward for them, rather than seeking ways that are too expensive, too untested and too .. much anyway.

The F-22 is shaped -so they say- to evade L-band radars as well- to a degree... so has the stealth problem been countered yet.. not really.. but at least the russians have figured out, that it is better to have a short sword in your hand, rather than nothing at all...

 

[gambit]

Each fighter developing country develops based on some kind of approach.

I can tell you definitely that the Europeans were gobsmacked when the F-22 and F-35 design requirements came out in earnest, because they had been working on aircraft capable of outclassing the F-15 and a possible successor, but definitely not the F-22 !!

The Russians on the other hand, kept silent due to economic struggles for a long time, and then took a pragmatic approach to things. The flankers are capable of holding their own if they have a way of defending and attacking. The kinematic abilities of the flanker, and even more so of the newest flankers is enough to evade current missiles if given enough warning. The IRST sensor on all flankers is enough to pick up at some range, which exceeds visual but shorter than the range of the AMRAAM stealth type planes.
Can it help shooting them down? Not to a comfortable point if not coupled with IR imagining seeker heads but still, better than fighting blind and mute. And also thought of equipping their large fighters with L-band radars... now they can also actively look for stealth targets even though they cannot provide firing solutions for the weapons from the L-band radars ... accurate enough at least.

To me this is a realistic, pragmatic way forward for them, rather than seeking ways that are too expensive, too untested and too .. much anyway.

The F-22 is shaped -so they say- to evade L-band radars as well- to a degree... so has the stealth problem been countered yet.. not really.. but at least the russians have figured out, that it is better to have a short sword in your hand, rather than nothing at all...

Reasonable enough...On the surface, anyway.

What the L-band trumpeters missed a bit of critical thinking is that if long wavelengths works better against 'stealth' -- and they do -- then why the L-band? Why not use the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands? The answer lies with the power, antenna, and freq combination. For practical application into a 'fighter' class size aircraft, the L-band is the limit.

Here is the spectrum...

Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

L 1–2 GHz 15–30 cm Long range air traffic control and surveillance; 'L' for 'long

X 8–12 GHz 2.5–3.75 cm Missile guidance, marine radar, weather, medium-resolution mapping and ground surveillance; in the USA the narrow range 10.525 GHz ±25 MHz is used for airport radar; short range tracking. Named X band because the frequency was a secret during WW2.

Lockheed was 'shortsighted' as some alleged? That is amazing an assumption in itself. Somewhere in their repository of EM knowledge, somehow Lockheed engineers missed a few lines and decided to focus on the X-bands. Wiki has the info all along and the Russians suddenly 'discovered' some brand spanking new properties of the L-band that no one noticed before......Then those same people assumed that it would a pinch that all the world's air forces would begin retrofitting the wing leading edges of their current fighters with small arrays of L-band transmitters and voila we have the defeat of 'stealth'.

What APA did was to mislead the public and the gullible jumped on that bandwagon. Any aircraft -- past to today -- is an exercise in best compromises between competing demands. Although the F-35 does share some similarities with the F-22, it is more of a bomber despite its 'F-' designation, therefore it will have different physical characteristics and will exhibit slightly different results in the EM and RCS arenas. So IF the F-35 has inferior performance in the L-bands as APA alleged, then it was not because of Lockheed's ignorance but of deliberate compromises. APA pointed this out without telling the public that this is normal practice and let the lay public exercise their imagination. So some people here gullibly assumed that somehow the L-band has quasi-magical properties that only the Russians so far have managed to divined.

 

[amalakas]

Reasonable enough...On the surface, anyway.

What the L-band trumpeters missed a bit of critical thinking is that if long wavelengths works better against 'stealth' -- and they do -- then why the L-band? Why not use the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands? The answer lies with the power, antenna, and freq combination. For practical application into a 'fighter' class size aircraft, the L-band is the limit.

Here is the spectrum...

Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lockheed was 'shortsighted' as some alleged? That is amazing an assumption in itself. Somewhere in their repository of EM knowledge, somehow Lockheed engineers missed a few lines and decided to focus on the X-bands. Wiki has the info all along and the Russians suddenly 'discovered' some brand spanking new properties of the L-band that no one noticed before......Then those same people assumed that it would a pinch that all the world's air forces would begin retrofitting the wing leading edges of their current fighters with small arrays of L-band transmitters and voila we have the defeat of 'stealth'.

What APA did was to mislead the public and the gullible jumped on that bandwagon. Any aircraft -- past to today -- is an exercise in best compromises between competing demands. Although the F-35 does share some similarities with the F-22, it is more of a bomber despite its 'F-' designation, therefore it will have different physical characteristics and will exhibit slightly different results in the EM and RCS arenas. So IF the F-35 has inferior performance in the L-bands as APA alleged, then it was not because of Lockheed's ignorance but of deliberate compromises. APA pointed this out without telling the public that this is normal practice and let the lay public exercise their imagination. So some people here gullibly assumed that somehow the L-band has quasi-magical properties that only the Russians so far have managed to divined.

no, not at all...

simply that it is better to have a low res image, than none at all....
besides you know as well as I, that no weapon exists today for fighter class planes that can be guided or fed by L-band systems, so all this is academic.

Also, it isn't the russians that magically found the L-band, it is simply that they have large enough fighters .. the Rafale or the EF2000 are simply not big enough, the only European fighter big enough for leading edge L-band radar is the Tornado and that is marginal.

I have no idea how the chinese plan to -at least attempt- to counter stealth.. an AESA radar does not by itself guarantee that a VLO target will be picked up. Although LM suggests otherwise.

I don't see any attempt on the J-20 for anything like a counter VLO measure on the initial stages.

I mean .. doubtful or not, the T-50 has stuck with the IRST / L-band combo the russians decided on.. what is the J-20's way ?