Rafales or No Rafales– Chinese Designer Explains Why Stealth, 5th Gen J-20 Jet Beats Everyone Around

[Raj-Hindustani]

SEARCH

EurAsian Times: Latest Asian, Middle-East, EurAsian, Indian News

ASIA PACIFIC
Rafales or No Rafales – Chinese Designer Explains Why Stealth, 5th Gen J-20 Jet Beats Everyone Around
The Indian Air Force will soon be equipped with state-of-art Rafale Fighter Jets which will be stationed at Hasimara Air Base while China already has 5th generation Chengdu J-20 jets. Chinese experts claim that J-20s are ahead of everyone in competition including much-hyped Rafale jets.




EurAsian Times Desk

The Chief Designer of Chinese stealth, fifth-generation J-20 jets, Yang Wei, has explained the vast, unmatched capabilities of J-20 aircraft. The J-20 has been described as a revolutionary, cognition-subverting next-generation fighter jet, characterized by long-range, high capabilities in penetration, awareness, firepower, and fast decision-making.


Yang published a paper in Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, a Chinese monthly journal on aeronautics describing the capabilities of the Chinese J-20 fighter jet. Experts observing the China-India conflict have been discussing the prowess of both air forces with many drawing comparisons between J-20 and highly anticipated – Rafale jets.


As reported by EurAsian Times earlier, five Rafale jets are en route to India from France. The jets will stop in the United Arab Emirates before arriving at Ambala Air Force station. New Delhi aims to gain air superiority over China with the addition of French Rafales.


In the paper, Yang said that in older generations of fighter jets, manoeuvrability used to be the deciding factor, but this concept is becoming outdated with the development of advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles with their beyond-visual-range attack capabilities.

Yang believes that information has now become the deciding factor, as modern fighter jets focus on gaining more information with the help of active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars and data chains, while also reducing opponents’ ability to gain information, including using stealth technology and electronic countermeasures.


In Yang’s opinion, when aircraft can get more information with these advanced devices, pilots must have extensive knowledge, sharp analysis, and sound decision-making to put them to use. Yang said artificial intelligence will help pilots process the information, and help them become mission objective-oriented.

Chinese jets in action

The author adds that at each step in the original observe-orient-decide-act (OODA) loop in the air combat decision-making process will feature artificial intelligence’s assistance. “Intelligence becoming the deciding factor” will be the essence of what Yang calls an OODA 3.0.

Citing foreign projects, Yang said that a future fighter jet will generally require a longer combat range, longer endurance, stronger stealth capability, a larger load of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons, and the functionality to provide its pilot with easy-to-understand battlefield situation images and predictions.


According to Yang, in an integrated system, the aircraft should be able to form a network, draw real-time integrated situational images, create multiple attack routes, and transmit target information across mission areas in real-time.

Yang’s vision could indicate what China’s future fighter jet might be like, a Chinese military expert told the Global Times on Monday under the condition of anonymity.


As reported by EurAsian Times, China is close to developing indigenous engines for its J-20B fighter jet. China wants to reduce its dependency on foreign-made engines and once it masters the art of powering jets via indigenous engines, it will be able to develop and produce the next generation of fighter jets.

China is eyeing to develop a next-generation fighter jet by 2035 or earlier, which could feature laser, adaptive engines and the ability to command unmanned drones.

https://eurasiantimes.com/rafales-o...ealth-5th-gen-j-20-jet-beats-everyone-around/

Stealth of j20 is a question mark. Last time even Su 30 mki detected the j20 at the border during the patroing.

 

[HalfMoon]

Most of the CCP keyboard warriors and lackeys dont realise (or ignorantly dismiss) how few airbases China has in Tibet and why thats a huge problem for any actual air war with India.

They are frankly some of the most illiterate twits you will find on this forum. Copy, paste, blab, copy paste some more.

A system is only as good as its weakest part in the chain of deployment.

LoL

PLA can walkin into India through both Myanmar and Pakistan apart from Tibet

The farthest point on Arunachal border at the Myanmar-China-India tri junction is closer to Beijing than New Delhi

They can bomb India from Chengdu using mid-air re-fuellers

 

[Nilgiri]

LoL

PLA can

View attachment 656550

Again you are an example of an extremely unintelligent type that's not worth wasting time on.

You actually humiliate your clear actual identity (and agenda) by being this stupid combined with the sheer level of time waste and "im leaving waaaah drama", but you are too dumb to figure that out.

This is why your lot never advances.

 

[HalfMoon]

Again you are an example of an extremely unintelligent type that's not worth wasting time on.

You actually humiliate your clear actual identity (and agenda) by being this stupid combined with the sheer level of time waste and "im leaving waaaah drama", but you are too dumb to figure that out.

This is why your lot never advances.

China also has a military base in Myanmar's Coco Islands which are part of Andaman archipelago.

Indians are running like headless chickens as they know Andaman is the first to fall when the war starts.

 

[gambit]

There is a formula for calculating the ideal range and speed combination when designing an air-air missile. Am not going to say what is that formula and anything found on the Internet is bogus, anyway.

But I will explain high level what that formula does...

Yes...In combat, the greater the range from which you can reach out to your opponent, the better. Look at the army sniper, for example. But the sniper also knows that for X range in X time, if the bullet's speed does not match, the target maybe aware of the attack and evade. In other words, for X time, the greater the range, the greater the speed in order to reach that target inside that X time window.

Now...If your fuel burnout rate is high enough to reach X speed but your missile design does not contain enough fuel, then you will be out of that ideal window. If your missile design contains the fuel quantity you want, but the missile ended up larger and heavier than expected, then your missile will be out of that ideal window. You can reduce warhead load, but you may not do enough damage to the target.

Another issue is the criteria of that ideal window, which varies from designer to designer. In other words, there is no universal ideal criteria. This is known as the 'probability of kill' question. If the range is 1 km and the speed is 1 km/sec, then the pk is pretty much instantaneous. If the range is 100 km and the speed is 1 km/sec, then the pk broadens and maybe enough to render the missile an inferior product to its peer. Acceleration also factored but acceleration affects burnout rate, which affects effective range, which will compels the pilot to engage at a lesser range than what is claimed in order to remain inside the ideal pk window.

This is why combat pilot places a higher value on acceleration and speed over range. After acceleration and speed is the missile's flight controls system which includes guidance. A pilot, knowing the missile's range, will STILL try to get in at a lesser range, if it will put him into a tactically advantageous position, in order to improve that pk window.

 

[Armchair]

J-20s will carry LR-AAMs for taking out HVTs but also carry PL-15s to take out fighter aircraft. Anything below 5th gen will have a distinct disadvantage. Rafale is an "omnirole" fighter, a jack of all trades, not a dedicated air superiority platform.

There is something called Luneberg lenses, which are used to make stealth aircraft unstealthy for regular use, hiding their real capability.

 

[PeacefulWar]

If I understand it correctly from your post, the most effective tactic for a 5G jet to kill a 4G jet is to fly close enough(defined by No-Escape-Zone of the AAM) to the enemy jet without being detected/locked then shoot the AAM.
It makes sense.
I would also assume that the longer range of the AAM the longer range of the it's No-Escape-Zone. So technically it's still not wasted to launch very long range AAMs against maneuverable targets.

Wrong, long range AAMs are wasted against a highly maneuverable target when employed at the edge of its envelope. Particularly when the adversary in question has a self defense suite like SPECTRA and the IAF version unlike the French is equipped with the X-Guard fibre-optic towed decoy.

Towed decoy is very effective against radar guided missiles.
None of these options are available to slow movers such as air refuelers, transport and AWACS.

https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/X-GUARD1.pdf

There is a formula for calculating the ideal range and speed combination when designing an air-air missile. Am not going to say what is that formula and anything found on the Internet is bogus, anyway.

But I will explain high level what that formula does...

Yes...In combat, the greater the range from which you can reach out to your opponent, the better. Look at the army sniper, for example. But the sniper also knows that for X range in X time, if the bullet's speed does not match, the target maybe aware of the attack and evade. In other words, for X time, the greater the range, the greater the speed in order to reach that target inside that X time window.

Now...If your fuel burnout rate is high enough to reach X speed but your missile design does not contain enough fuel, then you will be out of that ideal window. If your missile design contains the fuel quantity you want, but the missile ended up larger and heavier than expected, then your missile will be out of that ideal window. You can reduce warhead load, but you may not do enough damage to the target.

Another issue is the criteria of that ideal window, which varies from designer to designer. In other words, there is no universal ideal criteria. This is known as the 'probability of kill' question. If the range is 1 km and the speed is 1 km/sec, then the pk is pretty much instantaneous. If the range is 100 km and the speed is 1 km/sec, then the pk broadens and maybe enough to render the missile an inferior product to its peer. Acceleration also factored but acceleration affects burnout rate, which affects effective range, which will compels the pilot to engage at a lesser range than what is claimed in order to remain inside the ideal pk window.

This is why combat pilot places a higher value on acceleration and speed over range. After acceleration and speed is the missile's flight controls system which includes guidance. A pilot, knowing the missile's range, will STILL try to get in at a lesser range, if it will put him into a tactically advantageous position, in order to improve that pk window.

 

[Genghis khan1]

Stealth to 4+ Kill ratio is 3:1.

 

[dbc]

I would also assume that the longer range of the AAM the longer range of the it's No-Escape-Zone. So technically it's still not wasted to launch very long range AAMs against maneuverable targets.

No escape zone is a myth propagated by marketing brochures. these days pilots have more defensive tools at their disposal than the simple chaff and flares.

 

[Figaro]

Stealth of j20 is a question mark. Last time even Su 30 mki detected the j20 at the border during the patroing.

I'm pretty sure this was debunked as fake news because the J-20 was never in the border area with India in the first place ... it did go to the Tibetan plateau for testing but it was hundreds of kilometers away from the Indian border. There is not even a single J-20 in operation in the entire Western Military Command.

J-20s will carry LR-AAMs for taking out HVTs but also carry PL-15s to take out fighter aircraft. Anything below 5th gen will have a distinct disadvantage. Rafale is an "omnirole" fighter, a jack of all trades, not a dedicated air superiority platform.

There is something called Luneberg lenses, which are used to make stealth aircraft unstealthy for regular use, hiding their real capability.

This is why any reports of any country supposedly detecting a F-22, F-35, or J-20 is bogus. All of these aircraft in regular patrols would use the lunenberg lense to prevent the enemy from gaining any RCS information.

 

[PeacefulWar]

No escape zone is a myth propagated by marketing brochures. these days pilots have more defensive tools at their disposal than the simple chaff and flares.

I agree, but meanwhile these defensive tools can equally play against all AAMs whether they are short or long range, aren't they?
So longer No escape zone is still better.

 

[gambit]

If I understand it correctly from your post, the most effective tactic for a 5G jet to kill a 4G jet is to fly close enough(defined by No-Escape-Zone of the AAM) to the enemy jet without being detected/locked then shoot the AAM.

New technology produce new weapons which will produce new tactics. But no matter what, getting 'close' is always the better option to increase the odds of a kill.

Now...What constitute 'close' become variable based upon the effectiveness of the weapon. Take the rifle, for example. If the effective kill range is 500 meters, then 500 meters is not always the first choice but more like 400 meters. This is certainly far greater than pistol range which is about 25 meters max. So the rifle allows the shooter to be farther from the target than with the pistol, however, a good shooter would balance proven tactics -- getting close -- with the new allowances created by the new technology.

Extrapolate this to air combat. Back in WW II, fighters could fight from 50 meters to about 900 meters, but good tactics would advocate the middling ranges, but rarely at the maximum range allowed by the fighter's guns/cannons. Same idea with the missile. Just because the missile now allow the pilot to engage the target at dozens of kms, literally out of (human) sight, good tactics rarely advocate launching at whatever maximum the missile is capable.

I would also assume that the longer range of the AAM the longer range of the it's No-Escape-Zone. So technically it's still not wasted to launch very long range AAMs against maneuverable targets.

Here is my take on the 'No Escape Zone' idea...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-16-block-52-vs-mirage-2000-5-mk2.367886/page-5#post-6981301

 

[PeacefulWar]

New technology produce new weapons which will produce new tactics. But no matter what, getting 'close' is always the better option to increase the odds of a kill.

Now...What constitute 'close' become variable based upon the effectiveness of the weapon. Take the rifle, for example. If the effective kill range is 500 meters, then 500 meters is not always the first choice but more like 400 meters. This is certainly far greater than pistol range which is about 25 meters max. So the rifle allows the shooter to be farther from the target than with the pistol, however, a good shooter would balance proven tactics -- getting close -- with the new allowances created by the new technology.

Extrapolate this to air combat. Back in WW II, fighters could fight from 50 meters to about 900 meters, but good tactics would advocate the middling ranges, but rarely at the maximum range allowed by the fighter's guns/cannons. Same idea with the missile. Just because the missile now allow the pilot to engage the target at dozens of kms, literally out of (human) sight, good tactics rarely advocate launching at whatever maximum the missile is capable.


Here is my take on the 'No Escape Zone' idea...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-16-block-52-vs-mirage-2000-5-mk2.367886/page-5#post-6981301

Make a lot of sense.
Thanks for the detailed explanation!

 

[OBLiTeRate TrumpTurd]

... (or ignorantly dismiss) how few airbases China has in Tibet and why thats a huge problem for any actual air war with India.
...

@Nilgiri

I thought you are actually much more knowledgeable dude.

I am aware that you are very BITTER after you had been kicked out from China,
and you are unable to earn a living in China anymore.

Please learn & study from the AWESOMELY BRILLIANT Indian own
Strategic Military Expert Mr. PRAVIN SAWHNEY.

What will prevent PLAAF from using all other air bases from other provinces outside Tibet ??
Answer : Nothing.

PLAAF can fully load their fighters with FUEL & MISSILES and depart from air bases outside Super High Altitude Tibet, then before they enter the Himalayan frontline, PLAAF can arrange to mid air refuel those fighters with Y-20U Tankers in Tibet airspace.

After the refuelling, those PLAAF fighters can obliterate the left over assets from IAF and IA that somehow can survive the PLA Precision guided Rockets saturation attacks.

===

Eventually 40 years from now, Open Minded Indian Intellectuals will regret Indian refusal to learn from World Class Top Notch Experts such as the Brilliant Prof. KISHORE MAHBUBANI and the Super Brilliant Strategic Military Expert Mr. PRAVIN SAWHNEY.

If Indian government are populated by thousand of Brilliant Experts the caliber of Prof. KISHORE MAHBUBANI and Super Brilliant Strategic Military Expert Mr. PRAVIN SAWHNEY,
then INDIA ... will be a Super Dominant nation that CHINA want to emulate and learn from instead of the King Cockroach Murica.

 

[ziaulislam]

I think a very narrow lens is being applied to the J-20. Just one of the "possible" operational profiles of the J-20 would be to operate in interdiction roles against force-multipliers. Otherwise who says that J-20 will not employ PL-10s in BVR against smaller, fighter aircraft sized targets? Chinese certainly are not limiting a 5th generation aircraft's profile to be used only against such force multipliers. Towed decoys have been employed for much longer with Typhoon and other platforms as well. It is just one of the measures available to increase survivability of the aircraft but no Rafale pilot in his right mind would want to sit around waiting to test his towed decoy system specially when there is a BVR missile coming in his direction from an adversary that has crept up against him due to very low visibility profile.

Secondly, and practically, what would hold the Chinese back from launching BVRAAMs on a Rafale? Do you think they would pause just because it is equipped with "Spectra" which is completely untested in air-to-air combat?

All of the above are self-convincing arguments as to why the Chinese will not employ J-20 for fighter interdiction. The entire purpose of the F/A-22 program is to use long range AAMs to whittle down adversarial fighters so the older aircraft can get in and do what they need to. J-20 would certainly be considered for employment in the same manner.

J20 are on verge of being mass produced ..
Soon china will have more j20s than entire IAF