via Defense Talk.
J-16, a new model of 3.5th-generation multi-functional dual-seat warplane evolved from J-11, uses Russian Su-30 fighter for reference. J-16 is equipped with AESA and can attack multiple targets at the same time and recognize the information about the targets.
The biggest feature of J-16 is its long-range and Beyond Visual Range (BVR) strike capability and its strong air-to-ground and air-to-sea strike capability.
In May 2014, the new batch of J-16 fighters was delivered to the Air Force of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLAAF) and it is well-reasoned for it to show up in Zhuhai.
A quick note before I start my spill. The Chinese label their "generations" differently than the West. Generation 3.5 is the equivalent of our Gen 4.5 fighters.
Having said that, has anyone noticed that outgoing ACC, General Hostage has switched from talking about stealth as being the reason for the F-35 and now he's emphasizing sensor fusion?
The reason for this I believe is that all those reports we've gotten about the Chinese, Russians, French, Brits, and others having developed the capability to target stealth aircraft is probably true. Another theory is that they can no longer emphasize stealth because the opposition is now developing their own stealth airplanes.
Either way, you have to wonder.
Will sensor fusion be enough?
When I was a fan boy of the F-35 program I was constantly asked about the quantity vs. quality thing. The example of WW2 with the allies flying great fighters but none the less were a step behind the best that the Luftwaffe had to offer (talking about their early jets).
Our stuff was good, but they had better and yet we beat them. How? Better pilots. We had the WW2 version of sensor fusion. We had taught our pilots to utilize the proper tactics, get the most out of their airplanes and use their number to advantage.
But in the future we're going to be faced with the same issue but on the other end. We're going to have (supposedly) technological marvels but will be outnumbered and it can be assumed that the Chinese will produce some pilots of exceptional skill (remember they did during the Korean War...too many stories exist that state that Chinese pilots flying for the N. Koreans performed exceptionally well), will be flying jets that MIGHT not be as good but will be good enough and they'll have the NUMERICAL advantage.
So I ask again. Will sensor fusion be enough?
Please explain exactly 'sensor fusion' ? Borrowed from EPL - this is an interesting read: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/accs-gen-hostage-on-fifth-gen-combat-cloud-and-syria/
ReplyDeleteIt still did not explain it to such simple people such as myself. All heard was blah blah blah marketing BS, marketing BS....and the clincher.... wait for it..... read on:
"The advanced fusion of the F-35 versus the F-22 means those airplanes have an equal level or better level of invulnerability than the Raptors have, but it takes multiple airplanes to do it because of the synergistic fused attacks of their weapon systems" = buy and operate more more in the fight and you will win.
"Please explain exactly 'sensor fusion' ?"
DeleteIntently Curios,
In the context of the F-22/35 "Sensor Fusion" is as follows:
The F-22 has two primary electronic weapon systems on board. The AN/APG-77 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar and the AN/ALR-94 Radar Warning Receiver/Electronic Warfare Suite.
Similarly the F-35 has the AN/APG-81 AESA and AN/ASQ-213 RWR/EWS plus the additional AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (Electro Optical and Thermal).
Most people think the APG-77/81 are the primary sensors, but that's not the truth.
First a brief course on Radars vs. Radar Detectors:
Radar radiation (or anything in the radio spectrum (radar, datalinks, communication etc.)) can generally be detected at ranges that exceed the detection range of the radar array or emission source itself. This is because radar detectors work via a 1-way signal path, while traditional radar works via a 2-way (send/return) signal path. Propagation losses occurs on the trip out, the reflection off the target, and the return trip. Since there is less propagation loss on the 1-way signal path the radar detector generally has the range advantage. 1/r^4 for a radar array compared to 1/r^2 for a radar detector. So the radar detector generally wins...
So an F-22/35 that uses its APG-77/81 to illuminate an air target may be giving up its position in the process by triggering enemy aircraft radar detectors. (Limited Probability of Intercept (LPI) Radar Modes attempt to prevent this (it's a dice roll)...but this is beyond the scope of discussion.)
Instead, the idea is to use the radar detection range advantage to locate other aircraft by their own radio emissions.
So think of a F-22/35 as a large electromagnetic sponge that soaks up radio emissions and locate the sources. That's the ALR-94's and the ASQ-213's job. It's the heart of the F-22/35 EWS and key to maintaining the element of surprise aka "Stealth".
Key word here is: locate.
Once the ALR-94/ASQ-213 locates a patch of sky the emission source is coming from, the APG-77/81 is cued and steers it's beam to that location only. This limits the amount of radiation emitted and reduces the time for target acquisition. <---- This is where the marketing term "Sensor Fusion" comes from...
However, there are limitations and vulnerabilities even within such complex and impressive technological systems. (A discussion beyond both the scope and the character limits. :) )
Sol,
You're touching on a core issue that remains present in this generation of bullshit marketing terms like "5- Generation Fighters", "All Aspect Full EM Spectrum Stealth (LOL)" "Joint - bullshit - money Programs" -and everyone's favorite "Sensor Fusion".
Where statements like "...maneuverability and agility are metrics of a bygone era." and "We don't need an internal gun." and "We can kill the enemy at BVR with 100% IFF certainty!" are made by many people who clearly and willfully disregard the fact that those same concepts were touted in the 50's and 60's and proven not to work as dreamed.
Throughout human history I've observed that the greatest armies in the world have always followed a core doctrine that generally follows:
Experience, Training, Tactics, Technology, Numbers, Strategy, Victory
In that order.
All parts equal.
Nowadays we've tossed the experience, switched training with technology while opening our wallets, and now we don't have enough to spend on the numbers to implement the strategy!
TL;DR: The ALR-94 locates an emission source and tells the APG-77 to scan that spot quickly to see whats over there = marketing term "Sensor Fusion". Sorry for the long post...you can tell I don't have many people to talk to about this kinda stuff...
You can rant all you want with long posts like that, it was aviation pornography for my eyeballs.
DeleteBVR....hahaha... such a "interesting" history that has. The success rates for beyond visual rate combat are absolutely abysmal primarily because of the inherent limitations in missile technology once they fly long distances. It is the primary means of engagement according to F22 and F35 fans, who somehow believe their AMRAAMs are magical laser beams of death screeching across the heavens, although this has been proven demonstrably *FALSE* by conflicts as recent as desert storm, where BVR ratios were still abysmal despite engaging incompetent and impotent Iraqi pilots.
Sol'... better pilots? Allies had good bunch of seasoned vet's with the US the smallest number of it (as they enter war pretty late) but they win because you had just MORE of them not better ones.
ReplyDeleteIt's don't mater if you have good trained pilots with proper tactics and good planes... when the enemy can send 10 times more of bad trained with bad tactic and slightly worse or equal planes. It's simple statistic, finally one of that 10 will shoot down the ace even if he shoot down the other 9 before. And replacing the good ace is a lot harder then those 10 air grunts.
Axis lost because they were unable to replace losses they take, even when often they win on tactical level they lost in strategical one. Numbers Sol' numbers win the war.
There was the ammo thing too : you have 10 US P51 and 2 me 262 in front : They will take care easily of them when the germans went out of ammo !
ReplyDeleteIt's even worse with fight : they didn't get 5000 bullets, but 4 - 8 missile. All the fighter you could send to china couldn't survive to their number of fighter and SAMS..
To Go further, Hitler push germany to use me 262 as bomber rather than fighter : which make them easy target at low altitude and less efficienty due to payload.
That make me think about USAF / marines / NAVY wanting to use F35 as fighter, despite it's just a bomb truck with shiny paint...
Not to mention that Allies wait for returning Schwalbe's over the airfields and hunt them when they were the most defenseless, slowing to land with low or nothing in ammo magazines. They had so many fighters they would not only protect bombers, make free hunts but also put whole squadrons on airfield's traps for returning Germans.
DeleteAnd double true, Hitler obsession with bombers delay entering of Me 262 as full combat ready interceptor by years. At the end, it was just too little, too late.
Actually the super realistic simulators have change the equation. Any country can have really good pilots spending much less than in the past. Yeah, nothing can be as good as real flight hours, but if the enemy have a lot of 4+ airplanes with pilots almost as good as yours, the situation can be even more complicated for the few F-35.
ReplyDeleteSensor Fusion is not enough, because it is just information, it is not decision making. A human pilot (as long as they exist) still has to make the decision(s) on what to do. So all this marketing bullshit about "sensor fusion" is exactly that over-hyped bullshit, used by the "sellers" to sell they wear. Naturally, having more information is useful, but it's knowing what to do and having the ability to do it that matters.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, it will always be pilots with good training in sufficient numbers that will win the day in the air. Even if you have 1000 F-35 and pilots, but they are only flying 13 hrs a month due to maintenance and cost, you will be in trouble because 156 hrs a year is not enough. It's all about tactics and the OODA loop. If you want your pilots truly ready for a conflict they will need have at least 300+ hours per year. or 25-30 hrs per month. Currently the F-35 is no where near that sortie rate, and therefore the pilots will be in trouble against a decent enemy.
Thats an excellent argument ive seen made on defenseissueswordpress.
DeleteThe F35 AND F22s sortie rates are crippling. In a major war, they would be simply insurmountable obstacles.
Yeah im so fucking tired of technocratic woo-woo like "sensor fusion", "low profile stealth", "stealth UAVs", and "it doesn't need to dogfight".
In a major war against a competent adversary, simple aircraft with higher sortie rates will club the ever living shit out of insanely expensive and complex air forces.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would take "Sensor Fusion" concept as pre-set of scripts to dev new UCAVs (2020-2025 horizon) ... well, that is, as long as you can gather all the information, not only from onboard systems but mainly from space/ground instalations and ohter fighters (convering most of the spectrum) ... in fact, as you all know, there's no true stealth jet around, just planes with low cross-section or narrow energy absorbing materials ... thus, what could be hard to an modern AESA to track and lock alone, would be easier if youre "fusing" many sensors (diferent bands and op modes) from as many directions as you can ... ofc, it will give a strong advantage to defenders with proper surveilance rigs, including some large ground (vg, x band) instalations to ping down targets and direct specialized sensors on it ...
ReplyDeleteAlso, there's another issue on this matter: big players already have anti-sat capabilities and, thus, can deny the use of EM spectrum and block many hi-speed data links ... it's a big advantage, for instance, to PLA or RF along their mainlands and litoranean theaters ... no 5th gen can avoid modern 50g missiles, nor supress tatics involving saturation ... that's the main reason, in my opinion, why there will not be a convencional hi-intensity war between them, because the political cost of losing 5th gen fighters at gazillion programs cant be aforded after all ...
Against 3rd world countries, well, it's a diferent situation ... once you can gather all the data to fusion, it will render a clear advantage over enemies without this capability ... however, even S300's or S400's system on it will put alot of presure over the planers, specially in the first waves ...
In short: stealth and sensor fusion works against small enemies, but it wont lead to defeat 50 g's missiles on saturation mode ...
just asking, anyone know if a western modern jet ever engaged a sukhoi 27 derivative in a real fight (not simulated like Copa India).. That Chinese J-16 looks awesome.. its a wonderful time for the chinese military development.. i cant wait to see their military in the next 25 years.. what a great nation..
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"The reason for this I believe is that all those reports we've gotten about the Chinese, Russians, French, Brits, and others having developed the capability to target stealth aircraft is probably true. "
ReplyDeleteANY country with IRST sensors on their aircraft will be able to target and acquire stealth aircraft. That is the Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, and numerous other US and Russian aircraft.
IRST will be the new paradigm changer for aircraft sensors, not radar. IRST effectively renders stealth ineffective because all craft, even cessnas and helicopters, generation friction which creates heat.
"Another theory is that they can no longer emphasize stealth because the opposition is now developing their own stealth airplanes."
Yes and stealth was always a wet dream anyways. A reactive solution to a problem that constantly evolves and changes.
Radars evolve, missiles evolve, IRST becomes fielded, and aircraft that are stuck in stealth emphasis mode, making compromises in sortie rates and the ability to dogfight, will be gradually rendered obsolete. That and the fetishistic American attachment to beyond visual range combat.
The ease of which the iranian detected and hijacked the modern US stealth drone (Wraith) and subsequent capture and dissemination , must be an eye opener to the stealth mafia in pentagon who think steatlh / LO alone will nullify enemy AD/AA .. the move back toward ECM/EM in addition of Stealth/LO is a good thing, the day of using stealth aircraft with impunity is long gone.. the cats is out of the bag now.. time to look for another Silver Bullet
DeleteIn my opinion, and as ive posted elsewhere before until i was blue in the fingertips, stealth drones are an absolute joke. The very concept is a giant contradiction.
DeleteThe means to control the damn thing is the very reason why they will never be "stealth". Its quite simple. http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/on-drones/
I couldn't agree more. Stealth has always been a one dimensional solution to a three dimensional problem that is aviation detection. Its almost like the stealth mafia believes radar is the end all be all of aircraft detection. dismissing stealth aircrafts' immense thermal signatures is a foolish act of stupidity.
I mean, hell, the supposed "successes" of the F117 and stealth in general have been against third world banana republic dictatorships (and this is even questionable, as anecdotes by the British and Iraqis themselves claimed to have supposedly detected F117s. Given the blatant lies of the stealth mafia, i dont give them the benefit of the doubt and have every reason to believe these anecdotes). A semi-competent foe, such as the innovative and intelligent Serbian Army, managed to shoot one down by elegantly stupid simple means using a missile fielded in the 1960s.