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

This falls back to it. The is the reason Stealth is all the Rage. and back to my thinking that in a Stealth fighter nation vs a Stealth fighter nation The AEW birds and Tankers would hang back with the more conventional fighters networking a safe zone at the edges of known Enemy range with the fifth gens on the offensive.
Systems like the PL-X and Lockheed Martin Air launched Hit to Kill missile ( an F15 Launched Pac 3 missile) creating a conventional non stealth no man's land. This would also demand a big stealth revolution Low observable platforms doing Tanking and maybe infantry transport for assault.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

And bringing it back to J20 there is a Fact I think that kills VLRAAM in it the box. J20 like all 5th Gens carries it's main weapons in internal weapons bays. The VLRAAM The Chinese have shown is between 17-19 feet long that's roughly the size of a Pac 3. That is not fitting in the box. That means either External carriage like on the Flanker that it was seen on, or Uses of a modified external fuel tank as a external weapons bay. either way It's visible to radar.

Click to expand...

But that is precisely why I question whether the J-20 would be used so predominantly in the AWACS/Tanker hunting role. That this missile can't fit into the J-20's bay and that its purposes seems to be for hitting these kinds of targets suggests an altogether different approach to achieving the same objectives. Again, this PL-X exists for a reason.

We're talking about the maturity of Chinese aircraft, vs the maturity of American subsystems. One is a lot faster to develop than the other, and considering that the DoD received 4 proposals for the MSDM missile, and that noises about CUDA have been made for years, it's safe to assume that anti-missile capabilities, at least for large missiles, are real.

The other thing I do note is that you're placing a lot of confidence on the Chinese ability to defeat American jammers, when we know that the US is, or at least was, ahead in the EW game. If we accept that Chinese missiles can target AEW&C past jamming, we should also be able to accept that American anti-missiles have a high probability of working.

Click to expand...

Not the first time the defense establishment promised a system that it couldn't deliver on.

I assume nothing about either side's jamming capabilities, but even if I were, that does not preclude accepting that an anti-missile missile has a high probability of working. Defeating a jammer and being able to track, lock, and hit a hypersonic bullet with another bullet under 2 minutes are two completely different challenges. The former is an ongoing contest with very known dimensions. The latter has never been done before. Even if I were to accept that such a weapon is inevitable, that has no forbearance on when we might see it given how early we are in its development.

latenlazy: my point is that the J-20 gets detected by the AEW&C, then tracked by the F-35 EODAS. It's the F-35's EODAS that's supposed to pick up the missile, not the AEW&C. Think networks; the AEW&C knows the approximate location of the J-20, the F-35 EODAS is ordered to scan a narrow area to obtain a track.

Click to expand...

If we're talking about escorts operating forward of the target and within distance of being able to track the aggressor, they have even *less* time to intercept the missile. Furthermore, I'm doubtful that either radar or EODAS could get a reliable track and lock a missile traveling at mach 4 , and realistically speaking such a mission profile for the aggressor would include additional units to deal with escorts, so the attention of your escorts will have to be split between interdiction and missile interception.

You're exaggerating the difficulties of tracking a Mach 4 missile; Mach 4 missiles are already commonplace with the AIM-120, R-77, and PL-12, and aircraft don't seem to have any difficulty in figuring out they've been targeted. Likewise, an interceptor missile operating at long ranges is likely to be an EM emitter, simply because its IR sensors can't track at long distances.

If we're discussing escort fighters, there's roughly 30 seconds for the escort fighter to launch missiles, which is enough time. Alternately, my point is that AEW&C will have MSDM / active chaff at the destination, and other escort fighters can be vectored to intercept.

Inst said:

You're exaggerating the difficulties of tracking a Mach 4 missile; Mach 4 missiles are already commonplace with the AIM-120, R-77, and PL-12, and aircraft don't seem to have any difficulty in figuring out they've been targeted. Likewise, an interceptor missile operating at long ranges is likely to be an EM emitter, simply because its IR sensors can't track at long distances.

If we're discussing escort fighters, there's roughly 30 seconds for the escort fighter to launch missiles, which is enough time. Alternately, my point is that AEW&C will have MSDM / active chaff at the destination, and other escort fighters can be vectored to intercept.

Click to expand...

You're assuming that once you get a detection timely track, lock, and kill are trivial problems. They are not.

I do not think an MSDM will work like an active chaff. If you do, it highlights the problems of assuming the features and capabilities of a missile that hasn't exited the concept stage yet.

I'm not suggesting they're trivial, but the current US approach is towards highly networked planes. Besides, a Mach 4 missile, or Mach 6 as some sources have it, is intensely hot and will light up EODAS almost automatically. Given US technologies, tracking should not be considered a problem. Killing it, on the other hand, might.

Generally, your attitude is of FUD. It's gotten too late now, have fun.

Inst said:

I'm not suggesting they're trivial, but the current US approach is towards highly networked planes. Besides, a Mach 4 missile, or Mach 6 as some sources have it, is intensely hot and will light up EODAS almost automatically. Given US technologies, tracking should not be considered a problem. Killing it, on the other hand, might.

Generally, your attitude is of FUD. It's gotten too late now, have fun.

Click to expand...

Again, the problem isn't speed, but lead time. It's not just a matter of doing all the things you need to to shoot down an AAM, but doing them fast enough to matter. Network-centric warfare isn't a magic bullet. Anyways, the point, ultimately, is that you are taking something that hasn't left the concept stage to be a given. It's just not a good assumption to make.

Due to the long but even if interesting now almost completely off-J-20-related discussion in the original J-20-thread I started a new topic and moved all related posts to this one.

Please continue here.



Deino

You are assuming that people are still calculating with slide rules. With computerized, network systems, it's trivial to perform these types of detections, as well as cue missiles. There is still a man in the loop, of course, and that can introduce error, but with the appropriate sensors, software, missiles, and maneuvering technologies, it's not that complicated to shoot down a missile with a missile.

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.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with the OP the supposed new generation US missile in 3 years is vaporware until there are concrete evidence it exists and would actually deal deathblows to current LO aircrafts like the J-20. We'll see in 2 to 3 years if the vaporware actually materalize.

Inst said:

You are assuming that people are still calculating with slide rules. With computerized, network systems, it's trivial to perform these types of detections, as well as cue missiles. There is still a man in the loop, of course, and that can introduce error, but with the appropriate sensors, software, missiles, and maneuvering technologies, it's not that complicated to shoot down a missile with a missile.

Click to expand...

Bit of a desperate characterization you're going for there. You don't need to believe engineers are still using slide rules to recognize the physical limits and challenges of technology. Your basic argument is that everything works "because technology", which, ironically, isn't how technology works. Technology isn't magic. If it was then we wouldn't need to factor in elements like pK. Greater processing power and more powerful sensors do not equal a solution on their own. Please get some hands on experience with engineering before making blanket presumptions.