China Flanker Thread II

[Blitzo]

Woah... that ECM wing pod isn't the same as the previous ones.

From what I can see, the wingtip pod (I think it is likely an ESM pod), looks the same as on the initial prototype?

J-15D uses a slightly different pod without the dorsal vertical antennae on the pod, instead using a more conformal and shorter continuous antennae, and some past pictures of what might have been the second J-16D prototype may have used the J-15D pattern ESM pod, but it's unclear because the photo quality and the angles of the photos taken for the second J-16D prototype weren't very good to definitively determine the dorsal antennae configuration.

But either way, it seems for the J-16D they have ended up retaining the vertical antennae configuration for production.

For J-15D, I suspect they chose a conformal/continuous dorsal antennae configuration partly because the folding wings of the J-15D necessitated a degree of horizontal clearance between the wingtips that they felt was safer to redesign.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of 23k kg. What are some ways that the J-16 can be/is already improved relative to the Su-30, and how does the F-15E effectively use this additional lift capacity that could be missing for the J-16?

 

[Tam]

From what I can see, the wingtip pod (I think it is likely an ESM pod), looks the same as on the initial prototype?

J-15D uses a slightly different pod without the dorsal vertical antennae on the pod, instead using a more conformal and shorter continuous antennae, and some past pictures of what might have been the second J-16D prototype may have used the J-15D pattern ESM pod, but it's unclear because the photo quality and the angles of the photos taken for the second J-16D prototype weren't very good to definitively determine the dorsal antennae configuration.

But either way, it seems for the J-16D they have ended up retaining the vertical antennae configuration for production.

For J-15D, I suspect they chose a conformal/continuous dorsal antennae configuration partly because the folding wings of the J-15D necessitated a degree of horizontal clearance between the wingtips that they felt was safer to redesign.

The sides and the dorsal antenna are for ESM, but the tips of the pods, both front and back, are definitely jammers.

 

[Blitzo]

The sides and the dorsal antenna are for ESM, but the tips of the pods, both front and back, are definitely jammers.

How come?
It would be quite odd for such a small pod to have dedicated roles for both passive ESM and active jamming.
The closest peer to these wing pods on J-16D are the ALQ-218 on the EA-18G, which is exclusively a passive ESM/RWR pod, with a very similar configuration of having a set of dorsal antennae and front and aft radomes.

For dedicated EW aircraft like J-16D and EA-18G, it makes sense to have an integrated passive ESM capability (including wingtip ESM pods that are "permanent" to the aircraft), while carrying different jamming pods depending on the mission and as they are developed.



.... In any case, regardless of what specific role those wingtip pods have, your last post suggested the wingtip pods aren't the same as previous, and I think I established fairly reasonably that they are the same pods we have seen on the first J-16D prototypes those 5 or so years ago.

 

[Tam]

How come?
It would be quite odd for such a small pod to have dedicated roles for both passive ESM and active jamming.
The closest peer to these wing pods on J-16D are the ALQ-218 on the EA-18G, which is exclusively a passive ESM/RWR pod, with a very similar configuration of having a set of dorsal antennae and front and aft radomes.

For dedicated EW aircraft like J-16D and EA-18G, it makes sense to have an integrated passive ESM capability (including wingtip ESM pods that are "permanent" to the aircraft), while carrying different jamming pods depending on the mission and as they are developed.



.... In any case, regardless of what specific role those wingtip pods have, your last post suggested the wingtip pods aren't the same as previous, and I think I established fairly reasonably that they are the same pods we have seen on the first J-16D prototypes those 5 or so years ago.

Not odd at all. Its common for example with the Sorbtsya pods used with the Flanker family, which surely were imported with the Su-27SK and Su-30MKK.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The Sorbtsiya-S, unlike most Western jamming pods, is designed to operate in pairs and uses forward and aft looking steerable wideband phased arrays to maximise jamming effect, a similar arrangement to the Eurofighter Typhoon EWSP package. It is worth observing that the Sorbtsiya is clearly built to provide cross-eye jamming modes against monopulse threats, and the wideband mainlobe steering capability provided by the phased array permits best possible utilisation of available jamming power. A graded dielectric lens is employed. Russian contractors have been recently using Digital RF Memory (DRFM) technology, which is of the same generation as the US IDECM EWSP, and competing Israeli systems."

Crosseye jamming is a method that can spoof monopulse radars, such as those used with missile seekers.



For such it requires that the pod has both receive and transmit (Rx/Tx). Basically, it takes the signal received in one end, stores it in DRFM for analysis and matching, sends a sample to the ECM for spoofing, which takes the sample, copies it, then modifies the copy to produce false information on range or velocity (range gating or velocity gating.) Then it transmits the signal back to the threat which accepts it with false data, creating irregularities. But in addition with cross eye, the transmitting signal is sent from the other pod, not on the same pod, while the receiving signal is from the other pod, is spoofed and transmitted on the other. This creates angular errors on the threat seeker.

Angled tips on the pods are phase arrays. The ESM part of the pod should be on the body, reserving the tips for the ECM.

Wingtip pods used with electronic warfare should be using cross eye jamming as this is the best method to defend themselves against radar guided AAMs and SAMs.

 

[Totoro]

Will we now see other flankers with the shorter radome cover as well? Or is somehow this J16D very specific in its changes to the radar (not sure why that'd be, though) which required a different radar array subsystem, which in turn required more space allocated to the array backend, which in turn changed the construction of the whole nose section.

As for the ESM pod discussion, it does make much more sense they're ESM pods, rather than combined ESM/ECM pods.

 

[Blitzo]

Not odd at all. Its common for example with the Sorbtsya pods used with the Flanker family, which surely were imported with the Su-27SK and Su-30MKK.

Yes, however those aircraft are not dedicated jammer aircraft like J-16D or EA-18G.

Obviously many small sized jamming pods exist -- and those pods possess both a ESM function and a jamming function. However, those pods are typically equipped aboard regular fighter or strike aircraft where it is intended as their podded self protection jamming capability -- not for dedicated tactical jammers, where such pods would be far too small to fulfill both a passive and an active function.


The whole point of a dedicated tactical jammer is to equip it with the ability to do more than a typical fighter aircraft equipped with a jamming suite can do.
This is primarily via having a much more capable and much more extensive integrated ESM/ELINT suite, and a much more powerful ECM/jamming capability.
For virtually all tactical jammers, the ESM/ELINT capability is either integrated as part of the aircraft (as part of its structure) or very closely integrated with the aircraft (as pods that are rarely unequipped), or both.
The ECM/jamming capability is often via dedicated, but removable large size jamming pods that are removable and able to be tailored to the threat (legacy pods for the US being ALQ-99, but more recently being the NGJ pods that are being developed across multiple bands). In some aircraft like the EF-111, the jamming function is somewhat integrated with the airframe itself, which is often a limitation for tactical jammers because it doesn't allow you to upgrade your jamming capability as the threat evolves.


So I highly doubt the wingtip pods on J-16D serve an active ECM/jamming role, and instead I expect it to be dedicated for the passive ESM/ELINT role, given the status of the aircraft as a dedicated tactical jammer rather than just any other ordinary fighter aircraft equipped with some self protection jamming pods.
The active ECM/jamming capability of the aircraft I expect to lie mostly in the form of podded systems (which we have yet to see on J-16D), and possibly supported by its main radar as well.

If the wingtip pods did possess an active jamming function it would be very confusing and somewhat counterintuitive to the aircraft's role.



Really I'm surprised you would consider the configuration and the wingtip pods of the J-16D to be designed in such a roundabout manner, when the whole configuration of the aircraft, it's removed gun, it's extra added antennae, it's wingtip pods -- are all logically consistent and near identical in nature to the differences between EA-18G and F/A-18F.
And that is entirely expected, because as tactical jammer aircraft based off multirole strike fighters, you would expect similar solutions to be reached for configuring them in the EA/EW role.

 

[Blitzo]

Will we now see other flankers with the shorter radome cover as well? Or is somehow this J16D very specific in its changes to the radar (not sure why that'd be, though) which required a different radar array subsystem, which in turn required more space allocated to the array backend, which in turn changed the construction of the whole nose section.

Since J-16D first flew 5 or so years ago, the only other Flanker we've seen with a similar modification to its radome was the very much related J-15D.

The fact we haven't seen any other new production Flankers or MLU Flankers with such a nose, suggests to me whatever the role of the J-16/15D's nose difference is, it is related to their role as dedicated tactical jammers.

How that modification enables their role, is a whole other question. Different array, or different back end, or both, or neither, who knows.

 

[Tam]

Yes, however those aircraft are not dedicated jammer aircraft like J-16D or EA-18G.

Obviously many small sized jamming pods exist -- and those pods possess both a ESM function and a jamming function. However, those pods are typically equipped aboard regular fighter or strike aircraft where it is intended as their podded self protection jamming capability -- not for dedicated tactical jammers, where such pods would be far too small to fulfill both a passive and an active function.


The whole point of a dedicated tactical jammer is to equip it with the ability to do more than a typical fighter aircraft equipped with a jamming suite can do.
This is primarily via having a much more capable and much more extensive integrated ESM/ELINT suite, and a much more powerful ECM/jamming capability.
For virtually all tactical jammers, the ESM/ELINT capability is either integrated as part of the aircraft (as part of its structure) or very closely integrated with the aircraft (as pods that are rarely unequipped), or both.
The ECM/jamming capability is often via dedicated, but removable large size jamming pods that are removable and able to be tailored to the threat (legacy pods for the US being ALQ-99, but more recently being the NGJ pods that are being developed across multiple bands). In some aircraft like the EF-111, the jamming function is somewhat integrated with the airframe itself, which is often a limitation for tactical jammers because it doesn't allow you to upgrade your jamming capability as the threat evolves.


So I highly doubt the wingtip pods on J-16D serve an active ECM/jamming role, and instead I expect it to be dedicated for the passive ESM/ELINT role, given the status of the aircraft as a dedicated tactical jammer rather than just any other ordinary fighter aircraft equipped with some self protection jamming pods.
The active ECM/jamming capability of the aircraft I expect to lie mostly in the form of podded systems (which we have yet to see on J-16D), and possibly supported by its main radar as well.

If the wingtip pods did possess an active jamming function it would be very confusing and somewhat counterintuitive to the aircraft's role.



Really I'm surprised you would consider the configuration and the wingtip pods of the J-16D to be designed in such a roundabout manner, when the whole configuration of the aircraft, it's removed gun, it's extra added antennae, it's wingtip pods -- are all logically consistent and near identical in nature to the differences between EA-18G and F/A-18F.
And that is entirely expected, because as tactical jammer aircraft based off multirole strike fighters, you would expect similar solutions to be reached for configuring them in the EA/EW role.


View attachment 77389

Its not counter intuitive to the plane's role, as the plane requires some self defense for itself. Note that aircraft you posted above still carries AIM-120Cs.

Simply said, cross eye jamming is the best EW defense against a missile which has a monopulse seeker, and which by the way are extremely difficult to jam, hence why this is the tracking system used by missiles.

If you look at the Su-34, which is a tactical aircraft, or any aircraft that is equipped with the Khibiny wingtip pod, these aircraft use these pods for threat signal directional finding, so they can send their Kh-31 ARM missiles at these sites. If these aircraft are equipped with jamming pods, the directional finding from the pods would tell the jammers where to jam and at what frequency. Yet these wingtip pods are also capable of jamming, including range gating, and their layout would suggest cross eye jamming.

These aircraft would also be attacked by SAMs, once again, monopulse seekers, which may not be easily jammed even with the jamming pods, unless you got ECM specifically tailored against missiles --- spoofing, range gating, velocity gating, and cross eye jamming.

I would think the J-16D would use the KG-300, KG-600/700/800 series of pods for directional finding and jamming.

I don't know why you would think that a jammer integrated to the airframe would be limited (EF-111). The jammer itself should be removed and replaced, the electronics upgraded if there is a will and money for it. In fact, as jamming pods evolve, sooner or later the plane's own internal electronics would require a major upgrade to handle these pods. ECM installed on the body of an aircraft is meant for its self defense, while ECM pods hung beneath the wings, are intended to be used offensively.

Problem of jammers in the body, is that it cannot implement cross eye jamming, which is the best electronic counter to monopulse seekers. Neither will a pod in the center body or close to the axis of the aircraft. The farther apart the two cross eye jammers working simultaneously, the greater the angular errors they exert.

The tips of the pods are slanted with flat straight faces, which point to a phase array. Now that's an active, directional beam making component. ESM antennas on the other hand, tend to be omni-directional.

Reason for removing IRST and the gun from the J-16D is simple enough, to leave more room for the electronics.

 

[Tirdent]

The J-16 avionics fit seems to follow the template of the Growler more than anything Russian, so I'd also expect the wing tip pods to house ESM equipment. The primary job of its ECM system is not self-defence of the host platform but to provide cover for *other* aircraft, so cross-eye jamming isn't really relevant.

As for surface finish, there's not much in it between the J-16, Su-30SM and Su-35. With its relatively dark grey and most importantly rather matte paint, the J-16 can look really good while Russian Flankers with glossier finish and kept outside in terrible weather year in year out often seem worse. Images taken in the right lighting conditions reveal the Chinese airframes aren't actually any better though, take these J-16s for example:






That first one is in fact recent enough to have the new longer nozzles. Even in this batch of J-16D photos you can find indications, such as the left side of this one (a bit out of focus, but the rivet patterns are clear):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

For comparison, a Kazakh Su-30SM with a paint job quite similar to the J-16 (though still glossier):



Same thing happens with recent MiG-29s, for example the Indian Navy airframes which look ok in their Western-style matte grey paint but are really as terrible as ever.