Operational use of LR-AAMs in aerial combat - Interceptor role

L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Inst said:
Thing is, AEW&C can detect the J-20 at 300-400km. If we assume the E-2D Hawkeye has 600-800km detection range vs 0 dbsm, and the J-20 has -10 dbsm in UHF frequencies, then it can be detected at 300-400km ranges. Assuming that a derivative of the PLAAF's interceptor missile is readied for the J-20, how many missiles can the J-20 carry? And considering the bulk and weight of the interceptor missile, how many anti-missiles can the OPFOR carry in return?

Meteor, for instance, sports a 300+ km range and weighs 185 kg. The PL-ASR, on the other hand, weighs about 90 kg. This implies that for a single interceptor missile, the opponent can launch 2 anti-missiles, and what's more, if the opponent keeps 4th generation aircraft as escorts for their AEW&C, the defensive payload can easily hit 64 or more per AEW&C.
Click to expand...
1) Where did you get those figures?
2) Detection=/=track+lock.
3) Why are we assuming a scenario where the J-20 is acting by itself against multiple adversaries?

I'll also add that I have no clue which anti missile missile you're referring to, because afaik no such thing exists for hypersonic aams.
 
I

Inst

Captain
For the E-2D's detection range, look up details about how its detection range is only limited by the horizon. That implies it has a range of 550+ km.

For the J-20's RCS in UHF band, check out Kopp's estimations. If we assume it's a -40 dbsm aircraft at X-band, it drops to -10 dbsm / .1 m^2 RCS in UHF band.

For detection, the trick is multisensor detection. The problem with EODAS and other optical systems is that tracking is easier than scanning; a good lens can give you a strong picture of a faint source, but it means you lose field of view. UHF AESA, on the other hand, is good at detecting targets, but bad at tracking them. If UHF AEW&C detects the opponent, it can relay information to F-35s using EODAS at short range to track without being tracked.

For the number of anti-missiles a F-15 can potentially carry, check this out:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This is a 16 missile AIM-120 load. That implies that the aircraft is carrying 16 160 kg missiles, while the AIM-9X is roughly 85 kg.

For the existence of anti-missiles:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Lockheed, for better or for worse, lost the contract to Raytheon. Lockheed was trying to develop a dual-role offensive/defensive kinetic kill short range missile, while Raytheon offered a family of missiles instead.
 
I

Inst

Captain
Iron Man: my issue with interception roles and interceptor missiles is that long-range missiles by their nature have a bulk and weight penalty. An aircraft can only carry so many heavy interceptor missiles aimed to kill AEW&C. For the same weight, an aircraft can carry many smaller and shorter-ranged missiles, which do not need a miracle PK vs missiles to work.

With older generation interceptor missiles, like Novator K-100, we're seeing a 4-1 ratio vs short-ranged missiles. Newer missiles like the Meteor, with 300km+ range, have a 2:1 ratio. At the same time, however, advances on the anti-missile front can improve the number of anti-missiles per interceptor missile. Lockheed, for instance, claims that it can load 12 CUDA into the F-35, where previously the F-35 could only load 4 AAMs.

Lastly, if your point is about anti-missiles tying up munitions load, it doesn't matter. The USAF has a ton of F-15s, and they're cheap and antiquated. Normally, they'd be mincemeat for 5th generation aircraft, but if they're flying as escorts for AEW&C, it doesn't matter, because the AEW&C, to begin with, is an exposed aircraft, and there's 5th gens with lesser combat loads preventing enemy 5th gens from hitting vulnerable targets.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Inst said:
For the E-2D's detection range, look up details about how its detection range is only limited by the horizon. That implies it has a range of 550+ km.

For the J-20's RCS in UHF band, check out Kopp's estimations. If we assume it's a -40 dbsm aircraft at X-band, it drops to -10 dbsm / .1 m^2 RCS in UHF band.

For detection, the trick is multisensor detection. The problem with EODAS and other optical systems is that tracking is easier than scanning; a good lens can give you a strong picture of a faint source, but it means you lose field of view. UHF AESA, on the other hand, is good at detecting targets, but bad at tracking them. If UHF AEW&C detects the opponent, it can relay information to F-35s using EODAS at short range to track without being tracked.

For the number of anti-missiles a F-15 can potentially carry, check this out:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This is a 16 missile AIM-120 load. That implies that the aircraft is carrying 16 160 kg missiles, while the AIM-9X is roughly 85 kg.

For the existence of anti-missiles:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Lockheed, for better or for worse, lost the contract to Raytheon. Lockheed was trying to develop a dual-role offensive/defensive kinetic kill short range missile, while Raytheon offered a family of missiles instead.
Click to expand...
You don't know what kind of RAM the J-20 has and how that affects RCS at UHF. EODAS doesn't have the range a UHF would to complete the kill chain. The anti-missiles you're talking about are vaporware.
 
I

Inst

Captain
Vaporware?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


SACM is real. You're upset about it because I'm telling you, the moment it comes online and is widely implemented, the J-20 loses its interception role and has to go to conventional air superiority.

Regarding RAM, the J-20 has two tail strakes, tailfins, and a set of canards. It's limited by resonance effect vs low-frequency radar. Likewise, if you go off the Kopp RCS, the RAM was already simulated.

Regarding EODAS, so what if it's short-ranged? You use a two-element detection scheme; EODAS in front, AEW&C in back, AEW&C detects, EODAS tracks and kills the opponent. Since EODAS is passive, the EODAS-sensor isn't spotted by the attacking aircraft, and it can't use its own EODAS to track the opponent without assistance from its own AEW&C. In the interceptor role, the J-20 is moving too quickly to be escorted by AEW&C.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Inst said:
Vaporware?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


SACM is real. You're upset about it because I'm telling you, the moment it comes online and is widely implemented, the J-20 loses its interception role and has to go to conventional air superiority.

Regarding RAM, the J-20 has two tail strakes, tailfins, and a set of canards. It's limited by resonance effect vs low-frequency radar. Likewise, if you go off the Kopp RCS, the RAM was already simulated.

Regarding EODAS, so what if it's short-ranged? You use a two-element detection scheme; EODAS in front, AEW&C in back, AEW&C detects, EODAS tracks and kills the opponent. Since EODAS is passive, the EODAS-sensor isn't spotted by the attacking aircraft, and it can't use its own EODAS to track the opponent without assistance from its own AEW&C. In the interceptor role, the J-20 is moving too quickly to be escorted by AEW&C.
Click to expand...
I'm not upset about anything. It's not the first time I've heard of this missile. Just wasn't sure if that was the missile you were referring to.

Anyways, this missile isn't even past the study stages yet, so yeah, I think it's fair to call it vaporware.

I've read Kopp's study several times now. Every time I note that he provides very strong caveats for its accuracy. Never a good idea to over extrapolate from a study that is very modest about its own limits.

If EODAS is short range, then you can't complete a kill chain at long distance, which moots the point of saying an incoming bogey would be threatened by a long detect range.
 
I

Inst

Captain
IIRC, we have pictures of CUDA models floating around. It is definitely not vaporware, and it's coming. I'm not saying it's a present US capability, but once it comes online the J-20 and PAK-FA can no longer fulfill their interception roles.

Regarding Deino and Chinese missiles, the PL-ASR (to avoid confusing with the older PL-10) has a range of about 22 km, and it lacks LOAL capability. Other WVR missiles have hit 40 km, and IIRC US WVRs are being upgraded to around 50 km range, important since stealth vs stealth is going to be all about extended range knifefights, swordfights if you'd will.

The PL-15, likewise, is a muddle. Are we talking the PL-21 interceptor missile, or the PL-12 modified to fit in the J-20's internal bays, or the PL-12D with a ramjet and extended range? The first two we've seen, and the last we've not, and more importantly, if it exists, it has to be able to fit into the J-20's weapons bay. True, compared to modern R-77s and AMRAAMs, the PL-12 is not that far behind, but when you consider that Meteor is about to hit operational status the PL-12 is antiquated.
 
I

Inst

Captain
Latenlazy, I don't think you understand my point about EODAS + AEW&C combos. It's late, so it's probably my fault.

Look, the deal is, you have an AEW&C in the back, providing detection of stealth aircraft at roughly 300-400km. In the front, about 200 km off from the AEW&C, you have stealthy fighters with EODAS. Now, when the opponent attempts an interception mission, the moment they get detected by AEW&C, the AEW&C passes them off to the stealth EODAS fighters, which then track, and open fire.

Now, in this circumstance, the attacking aircraft have two choices. Either they can abort the interception mission, or they can attempt to launch. In the former case, it's neutralization of the interception, since the mission is aborted. In the latter case, if you don't have sufficient missile range, it doesn't matter whether or not you want to fire, you can't. So it's necessary for interception missiles to have long-range, and by extension, significant volume and weight.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Inst said:
Iron Man: my issue with interception roles and interceptor missiles is that long-range missiles by their nature have a bulk and weight penalty. An aircraft can only carry so many heavy interceptor missiles aimed to kill AEW&C. For the same weight, an aircraft can carry many smaller and shorter-ranged missiles, which do not need a miracle PK vs missiles to work.

With older generation interceptor missiles, like Novator K-100, we're seeing a 4-1 ratio vs short-ranged missiles. Newer missiles like the Meteor, with 300km+ range, have a 2:1 ratio. At the same time, however, advances on the anti-missile front can improve the number of anti-missiles per interceptor missile. Lockheed, for instance, claims that it can load 12 CUDA into the F-35, where previously the F-35 could only load 4 AAMs.

Lastly, if your point is about anti-missiles tying up munitions load, it doesn't matter. The USAF has a ton of F-15s, and they're cheap and antiquated. Normally, they'd be mincemeat for 5th generation aircraft, but if they're flying as escorts for AEW&C, it doesn't matter, because the AEW&C, to begin with, is an exposed aircraft, and there's 5th gens with lesser combat loads preventing enemy 5th gens from hitting vulnerable targets.
Click to expand...

If this hit to kill anti-missile is developed, and then maybe it will be capable of intercepting opposing MRAAMs at a good accuracy, and maybe it will also have a chance at intercepting a missile like PL-X which we seem to know as coming in from a parabolic trajectory.

But technology also advances both ways, and you can be sure MRAAMs and BVRAAMs will evolve to mitigate the potential factor of anti-missiles as well, such as via their own onboard counter measures.


So the problem I have with your posts is you take potentially possible premises/developments/capabilities, take them as fact, and extrapolate it forward without also considering the potential advances that the other side may make as well and often leads to your assumption of new developments as being "trump cards" of a sort, and often describe them along the (paraphrased) routine of: "well the problem for X is Y will make it obsolete"...
 
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Inst said:
For the E-2D's detection range, look up details about how its detection range is only limited by the horizon. That implies it has a range of 550+ km.

For the J-20's RCS in UHF band, check out Kopp's estimations. If we assume it's a -40 dbsm aircraft at X-band, it drops to -10 dbsm / .1 m^2 RCS in UHF band.

For detection, the trick is multisensor detection. The problem with EODAS and other optical systems is that tracking is easier than scanning; a good lens can give you a strong picture of a faint source, but it means you lose field of view. UHF AESA, on the other hand, is good at detecting targets, but bad at tracking them. If UHF AEW&C detects the opponent, it can relay information to F-35s using EODAS at short range to track without being tracked.

For the number of anti-missiles a F-15 can potentially carry, check this out:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This is a 16 missile AIM-120 load. That implies that the aircraft is carrying 16 160 kg missiles, while the AIM-9X is roughly 85 kg.

For the existence of anti-missiles:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Lockheed, for better or for worse, lost the contract to Raytheon. Lockheed was trying to develop a dual-role offensive/defensive kinetic kill short range missile, while Raytheon offered a family of missiles instead.
Click to expand...
LOL "researching concepts and subsystems that could be used in a new kind of air-to-air weapon".

In other words, this is barely at the R&D stage and not even a sure thing, which by the way is what you fronted this as. Until we see a photo of an actual missile you've got no reason at all to start speculating about what this hypothetical missile is GOING to do when in reality it doesn't even exist, and may just as easily may not ever exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top