J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

[Inst]

@Brumby

I've talked to a European EE PhD on the subject with broad knowledge of military affairs. According to him, EW is still better handled by a specialist even in an age of data fusion as there is a lot of data to process. This is where the second seat really comes into its own; you can have a driver in front handling the piloting, but the EW specialist in the rear is in charge of collating signals collection, choosing where to jam and so on. Automating this process is more difficult than drone control (as the drones are essentially autonomous under human supervision).

Design of an EW J-20 also does not have to resort to pods, as is done with the EA-18. Since it's being built off a stealth paradigm, EW systems and antennas could be integrated into the aircraft's stealth shaping, like how conformal AESA arrays were built into the Su-57's wings (and these arrays have EW features). As EW systems have a broad overlap with radar systems in general, an EW J-20 could also end up being an AEW&C aircraft; iirc the Su-57's wing radar antennas are L-band and thus semi-counterstealth; an EW J-20 could have enhanced counterstealth radar compared to a base J-20, although it'd be behind an AEW&C counterstealth radar due to its reduced aperture size.

===

Let me put it another way. The Chinese are arguably more aggressive in EA aircraft deployment than the Americans are. The Americans currently only have the EA-18 serving as an EW aircraft, with the B-52 derivative mothballed. The Chinese have recently developed both a J-16D as well as a J-15D for electronic warfare. It seems reasonable that the Chinese might choose to develop a J-20D for electronic warfare purposes. Remember that the EW on the base F-35 model (the NGJ has been delayed for the F-35 and will go into the EA-18 first) can already hack into enemy systems. Imagine what a larger aircraft with greater engine power can do. It is a tremendous force multiplier.

In essence, I am not really saying that much different than the people claiming that the J-20 dual-seat version will be used to escort J-20 single-seats in a command role. I am just saying that the tactical flight command will either be done from out of a conventional datalinked J-20, or a AEW&C craft, while the dual-seat version is more likely to end up as an EW craft. That way, you spread your eggs in different baskets and if the EW craft gets shot down, as EW craft are liable to be, you still have leadership in a different plane and it's less tactically devastating than losing both leadership and signals detection.

===

I'll also correct the statement that the Russian side of the Flanker family has no jammers. The Su-34 light bomber variant was apparently modified to include a powerful jamming pod that made mince out of NATO electronics.

 

[Inst]

tactical training. Having a conductor in my view is old school and may not fit a modern tactical environment but that is just my opinion.

This is my entire point as to why a J-20 command aircraft is pointless for a J-20 formation. For a J-11 formation, all of a sudden you have a mostly capable 5th generation aircraft escorting light air superiority and strike aircraft. All of a sudden, the capability increase for the J-11 flight is tremendous, as the J-11 flight now has EODAS coverage, modern AESA coverage, as well as a stealth aircraft to defend overwhelmingly against 4th generation aircraft attacks. You do not need any upgraded AESAs, modified radomes to accommodate quasi-AEW&C functions, or anything. All you need is a J-20, and a J-20 with someone to datalink / bark out the J-20's superior situational awareness to the J-11s is better than a base J-20. And a commander in this case, doesn't even need to datalink. You could be escorting JH-7s or J-11As and they don't need a systems upgrade to receive the J-20's datalink, just someone to tell them "non-stealth bogies 400 km ahead".

I'd say think of the American equivalent where an F-35 is escorting a F-15E strike flight. Except in the American case, the F-35's radar isn't grossly superior to the F-15E's AESA due to the smaller aperture.

The J-20 command aircraft, on the other hand, does not significantly increase the capabilities of a J-20 formation. The Chinese have been talking heterogenous aircraft formations. This is likely it.

 

[Inst]

Sticking a jammer in a stealth fighter is *very* different from making a dedicated electronic attack version of that fighter.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The F-35 NGJ implementation was supposed to have been in an external pod.

 

[Blitzo]

One of your main point in support of a twin seater is the notion that such a set up will "enhance" C2 in the immediate battle space of operations. Unfortunately you have not actually explain what those enhancements might be and their corresponding benefits to justify such an investment. Can you please put some content behind your argument for the sake of the discussions.
Secondly I think it is important to actually differentiate between C2, SA, and ISR because by nature they are different but appears to me that there are a high degree of overlap in the discussions. For example, C2 by nature is ultimately about decision making pertaining to the planning and execution of operations. Mission tasking with set objectives are predefined by operational HQ. In every mission what may happen are targets of opportunity and by definition cannot be predefined. The issue of C2 has become a more predominant feature because 5th gen assets has opened up a greater level of previously unavailable opportunities due to its advanced senors and its penetrative capability into contested environment. The question is should such decision making be delegated to the units or be retained by HQ. It is primarily not a technology issue but one of control and command over a battle space and to what extend operational units are allowed to act outside of mission tasks.
Finally, sharing of sensor information by more advanced platforms with those platforms with lesser sensor capabilities will enhance overall unit effectiveness due to greater situation awareness. However this is not a C2 issue but data linking and the question is what would a two seater bring to the party? Are there any evidence that the J-20 has stealthy data links?

All of the discussions prior to this is of course operating under the assumption that J-20 does have significant enhanced active and passive sensors compared to 4th generation aircraft as well as the sensor fusion and stealthy datalinks to utilize it.

I'm not interested in going into another "does J-20 have AESA" debate, you are free to take it or leave it.


As for the way that a twin seater J-20 can enhance command/control;
- Compared to a single seater J-20, it is primarily through the provision of an extra human that is able to leverage the aircraft's sensors+sensor fusion+stealthy datalinks, and to focus on the task of observing the immediate and high intensity battlespace and distributing commands to friendly assets in the environment in a way that a single seater cannot when participating in the same battlespace.
- Compared to a standard traditional AEW&C or airborne command post (like one based on a Y-8/9 airframe or otherwise), a twin seater J-20 obviously has much reduced sensor size and much lower crew, however it is much more survivable and self defending and capable of operating in or near a high intensity environment and much closer to the active battlespace.

Also, my overall position is that the reasoning for a twin seater J-20 only makes sense if the PLA needs a combat capable trainer for J-20 (to aid in the acceleration of the training and conversion process of J-20 pilots) AND for the command/control role (including for the likely command of drones). If the PLA wanted a twin seater J-20 for only one of those roles, then I believe it is possible that they might not have committed to it. But with two (or arguably three) of those roles, for a twin seater, I can see procurement being viable and attractive.

 

[Brumby]

@Brumby
I've talked to a European EE PhD on the subject with broad knowledge of military affairs. According to him, EW is still better handled by a specialist even in an age of data fusion as there is a lot of data to process.

I do not disagree that a dedicated EW platform offers more capability than any SPJ. That wasn't the point of contention. The issue is pairing a VLO for escort jamming as such a proposition in my view is highly questionable as explained in an earlier post.

The issue of capability associated with EW is not directly related to data fusion. EW as generally described is actually comprised of three different components which collectively is known as a suite. They are :
1)RWR;
2)ESM, and
3)Jammer

Technically there is a fourth component which are dispensables but we can ignore it as it does not come into play with escort jamming.
To cut a long story short, the RWR is to detect, the ESM to classify and the Jammer obviously to jam. The process window from detect to jam do not necessarily require manual intervention because the time window may be extremely short and threats are many especially in a dense environment. For example, it is my understanding that the S400 detect to launch sequence window is only 4 seconds. The role of EW is to get inside that time window to either deny, degrade, disrupt or deceive that threat sequence. Any manual operation is a liability not an asset in my view.

This is where the second seat really comes into its own; you can have a driver in front handling the piloting, but the EW specialist in the rear is in charge of collating signals collection, choosing where to jam and so on. Automating this process is more difficult than drone control (as the drones are essentially autonomous under human supervision).

I agree that there may be a role for a second seat with escort jamming. That role in my opinion is not about conducting EW but in tactical planning and execution of stand off jamming. SPJ by nature are reactive jamming. In contrast escort jamming is proactive management and conducting the electronic order of battle (EOB). Every contested battle space already has an EOB previously mapped though SIGINT assets. Initial mission planning is based on this information to establish routing and a preliminary order of battle during ingress. EOB unfortunately are not set pieces but subject to changes. During ingress, the WSO would map current signals against previously mapped signatures and might have to revise the EOB during ingress in terms of tactics and jamming requirements.

Design of an EW J-20 also does not have to resort to pods, as is done with the EA-18. Since it's being built off a stealth paradigm, EW systems and antennas could be integrated into the aircraft's stealth shaping, like how conformal AESA arrays were built into the Su-57's wings (and these arrays have EW features). As EW systems have a broad overlap with radar systems in general, an EW J-20 could also end up being an AEW&C aircraft; iirc the Su-57's wing radar antennas are L-band and thus semi-counterstealth; an EW J-20 could have enhanced counterstealth radar compared to a base J-20, although it'd be behind an AEW&C counterstealth radar due to its reduced aperture size.

You are talking about a technological level of using conformal antennas for standoff jamming which no one out there is attempting. We may see it at some time but how far away that is is beyond my knowledge. The NGJ's known issues include draq which required it to be redesigned. What a wonderful solution it would be if it was embedded rather than it being a pod. Maybe the Chinese might go for it but that is not my area of knowledge.

Let me put it another way. The Chinese are arguably more aggressive in EA aircraft deployment than the Americans are. The Americans currently only have the EA-18 serving as an EW aircraft, with the B-52 derivative mothballed. The Chinese have recently developed both a J-16D as well as a J-15D for electronic warfare. It seems reasonable that the Chinese might choose to develop a J-20D for electronic warfare purposes. Remember that the EW on the base F-35 model (the NGJ has been delayed for the F-35 and will go into the EA-18 first) can already hack into enemy systems. Imagine what a larger aircraft with greater engine power can do. It is a tremendous force multiplier.

Firstly there are prototypes in the form of J-16D and J-15D. How long they remain in development is an unknown and so we are not even talking about numbers unlike the EA-18. Secondly I have yet to see a picture of a jamming pod for escort jamming. I mean those big pods and not those wingtip pods as seen with the SU-34. According to the Indians, they have basically abandoned the L-175V Khibiny-10V because it turned their SU-30MKI into transport planes.



The Russians were working on a centreline jamming pod for escort jamming known as SAP 14 but I don't know what happened to it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The F-35 NGJ implementation was supposed to have been in an external pod.

I has been discussed as an option but it remain a topic of discussion currently.

 

[latenlazy]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The F-35 NGJ implementation was supposed to have been in an external pod.

Yes, which is very different from creating a dedicated EW version of a fighter.

 

[Blitzo]

The notion of a command J-20 is basically having a flight / squadron leader fly in the back of a twin-seater, monitoring the situation and barking out orders. The idea is that if someone can be dedicated to situation monitoring instead of actually flying the plane, the combat effectiveness of the flight / squadron can be enhanced.

The drawback, of course, is that you've just put a non-redundant C2 node right into the fray, in a stealth and maneuverability compromised aircraft, and this is something Blitzo etc refuse to acknowledge.

Of course, this is assuming the stealth and maneuverability of this twin seater aircraft is significantly compromised to a degree such thatit cannot be sensibly mitigated by having the aircraft operate moderately behind the frontline of the rest of your single seaters.

As I wrote before, if your twin seater is able to retain the vast majority of the VLO and A2A characteristics of a single seater but capable of exerting multiple times the command/control capability of a single seater, would such an exchange of capabilities make sense?

 

[Brumby]

All of the discussions prior to this is of course operating under the assumption that J-20 does have significant enhanced active and passive sensors compared to 4th generation aircraft as well as the sensor fusion and stealthy datalinks to utilize it.

I'm not interested in going into another "does J-20 have AESA" debate, you are free to take it or leave it.

That is your prerogative. I will simply invoke the Deino burden principle.
J-10 Thread IV

 

[Blitzo]

That is your prerogative. I will simply invoke the Deino burden principle.
J-10 Thread IV

Absolutely, the burden of proof is on the party arguing against the null hypothesis.

 

[azesus]

Oh come on, Blitizo single handly gives this forum value, sometimes I thought he works for defense intelligence