J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Not true. Stealth fighters can stay stealthy with their radar on. They have Low Probability Intercept modes that keeps the aircraft pretty silent still even with radar on. It degrades stealth but it's not automatic detection.

LPI radars can still be detected. Similar to physical stealth, LPI radars decrease the range and probability of detection and increase the time needed for both detection and tracking. However, the longer duration of time a LPI radar emits, the higher the probability it will be detected and located. ESM systems have not stood at a standstill while radars evolved: modern ESM systems have adapted to counter the threat posed by LPI radars (via increased sensitivity and more advanced signals processing algorithms). Even with LPI mode, stealth fighters do not operate with their radars constantly on (they are used intermittently).

 

[by78]

J-20S and J-20A.

 

[gongolongo]

LPI radars can still be detected. Similar to physical stealth, LPI radars decrease the range and probability of detection and increase the time needed for both detection and tracking. However, the longer duration of time a LPI radar emits, the higher the probability it will be detected and located. ESM systems have not stood at a standstill while radars evolved: modern ESM systems have adapted to counter the threat posed by LPI radars (via increased sensitivity and more advanced signals processing algorithms). Even with LPI mode, stealth fighters do not operate with their radars constantly on (they are used intermittently).

Even in the US we did not always have the luxury of having AWACS with us all the time. Without going into too much detail, we often would have one fighter as a spotter with strong emissions while the others ran slick. The radar on fifth gen fighters are already incredibly powerful themselves and they can already sort of act as AWACS. No doubt the J-20 fails under this description with its massive radar. Stealth fighters don't always need to act stealthy. But yes even with LPI they degrade the stealth of the aircraft but in a tactical sense it's ok for one or so stealth fighters in a formation to be much louder than the rest especially in the absence of AWACS.

Think about it too, China has 1000 4.5/5 Gen fighters but estimated 40 AWACS. They will likely be running without AWACS support some times.

 

[InsaneHum]

Even in the US we did not always have the luxury of having AWACS with us all the time. Without going into too much detail, we often would have one fighter as a spotter with strong emissions while the others ran slick. The radar on fifth gen fighters are already incredibly powerful themselves and they can already sort of act as AWACS. No doubt the J-20 fails under this description with its massive radar. Stealth fighters don't always need to act stealthy. But yes even with LPI they degrade the stealth of the aircraft but in a tactical sense it's ok for one or so stealth fighters in a formation to be much louder than the rest especially in the absence of AWACS.

Think about it too, China has 1000 4.5/5 Gen fighters but estimated 40 AWACS. They will likely be running without AWACS support some times.

Your estimated 40 AWACS is way off by the way. Some credible Chinese PLA watcher (I forgot who it was) mentioned the number of KJ-500s have already exceeded that of the E-3D's (88+). Add that with the other types of AWACS the PLA operates and the number easily goes above 100.

 

[leibowitz]

Your estimated 40 AWACS is way off by the way. Some credible Chinese PLA watcher (I forgot who it was) mentioned the number of KJ-500s have already exceeded that of the E-3D's (88+). Add that with the other types of AWACS the PLA operates and the number easily goes above 100.

AWACS are a lot less responsive than fighters though. While we can safely assume AWACS coverage for an offensive strike package, in the first 15-20 minutes of a near-peer rapid defense scenario (when airbases are getting hit with cruise missiles and multiple massive air battles are happening in parallel), many squadron commanders will have to figure out their own solutions to situational awareness

 

[tamsen_ikard]

AWACS are a lot less responsive than fighters though. While we can safely assume AWACS coverage for an offensive strike package, in the first 15-20 minutes of a near-peer rapid defense scenario (when airbases are getting hit with cruise missiles and multiple massive air battles are happening in parallel), many squadron commanders will have to figure out their own solutions to situational awareness

If the situation is tense enough that a war is eminent, then AWACS should be flying 24/7 without breaks. They are the ultimate eye in the sky against any attack.

 

[Gloire_bb]

If the situation is tense enough that a war is eminent, then AWACS should be flying 24/7 without breaks. They are the ultimate eye in the sky against any attack.

They're more or less ultimate observation tool, with caveat that band optimization against LO aircraft hurts other important areas.

To be ultimate eye in the sky they're far too vulnerable, and they aren't a type of aircraft you want to lose.
AEW CCA (for example, multistatic receivers) offer a way around, but overall, right now, it is still unresolved(at scale).

 

[banjex]

Satellite surveillance would be on extremely high alert in any imminent war scenario...

And isn't China working on a satellite recon network that can offer a 15 minute refresh capability across the Pacific?

Sorry for the OT.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Satellite surveillance would be on extremely high alert in any imminent war scenario...

And isn't China working on a satellite recon network that can offer a 15 minute refresh capability across the Pacific?

Sorry for the OT.

Satellites are most likely gone in WW3 scenario in the first few days. They are easiest to target and destroy. Neither US or China will allow the other to fly satellites.

 

[gongolongo]

Your estimated 40 AWACS is way off by the way. Some credible Chinese PLA watcher (I forgot who it was) mentioned the number of KJ-500s have already exceeded that of the E-3D's (88+). Add that with the other types of AWACS the PLA operates and the number easily goes above 100.

Ah yeah figured. I'm not really aware of how to find reliable numbers data. Thanks