Taiwan Has a Plan to Find (And Destroy) China's Stealth Fighters

[Armchair-General]

THE BUZZ
Taiwan Has a Plan to Find (And Destroy) China's Stealth Fighters

Asia Times
May 15, 2018

TweetShareShare

The Taiwanese military will deploy mobile passive radar systems to fend off stealth aircraft from China after rumors Beijing may dispatch its J-20 fighters to circumnavigate the island.

Two radar units – developed by the ministry-affiliated Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology – would be deployed some time this year for operational testing, with mass production and deployment expected by 2020, the Taipei-based Liberty Times quoted a defense ministry official as saying.

The institute has been working for years incorporating Western military technologies into its mobile passive counter stealth aircraft radar system, which would be able to detect, track and lock on to targets at long range.

The military has envisioned a defense system comprising passive means involving a land-based advanced radar system and active means made up of F-16 jets.




Recommended: This Is How China Would Invade Taiwan (And How to Stop It).

Recommended: North Korea’s Most Lethal Weapon Isn’t Nukes.

Recommended: 5 Worst Guns Ever Made.

The island’s fleet of upgraded F-16s are also to be mounted with the cutting-edge APG-83 scalable agile beam radar against stealth fighters, which will deliver “a quantum leap in capability” for the plane. Upgrades to Taiwan’s existing F-16 fleet started in January 2017.

These airborne radar units would be remotely linked to land-based phased array radar systems and “magnify” the cross-section to detect objects without emitting radiation, making them less vulnerable to electronic warfare interference and anti-radiation missile attacks, a fact sheet published by the Chungshan Institute said.

“The military must plan for and deploy counter-measures to preempt [the breaches of Taiwan’s airspace by more advanced Chinese stealth warplanes],” said the official.

Previously, the island’s defense ministry had warned that the J-20’s entry into service could erode the detection range of advanced warning radar systems or even lead to the complete loss of advanced warning and quick reaction capabilities of the Taiwanese Air Force.

It is believed that apart from its indigenous J-20s, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force has also been coating its Sukhoi Su-35 squadron imported from Russia with radiation-absorbing paint to give them a measure of stealth, part of Beijing’s bid to boost the size of its fleet of stealth aircraft amid mounting pressure on the breakaway island.

On Friday last week Beijing dispatched formations of Su-35 fighters and H-6K bombers that flew around Taiwan, the first time the bombers were sent on such a patrol.

This first appeared in AsiaTimes here.

 

[Imran Khan]

yes they can if they merge taiwan with mainland

 

[Arsalan 345]

taiwan is too small to target anything inside china.they can't stand a chance.if they are thinking to find and destroy chinese jets,than it's laughable and pathetic.they must think about peace.

 

[siegecrossbow]

It is believed that apart from its indigenous J-20s, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force has also been coating its Sukhoi Su-35 squadron imported from Russia with radiation-absorbing paint to give them a measure of stealth, part of Beijing’s bid to boost the size of its fleet of stealth aircraft amid mounting pressure on the breakaway island.

On Friday last week Beijing dispatched formations of Su-35 fighters and H-6K bombers that flew around Taiwan, the first time the bombers were sent on such a patrol.

Where are those journalists finding their sources?

 

[jhungary]

Where are those journalists finding their sources?

You mean is it for real or how do those journo get their source?

If China have schedule Su-35 flight over Taiwan, they will know by comparing the data and see the Su-35 are getting their coating, because it would return a different value than when it is bare.

And for the second point, don't underestimate how journo can penetrate into top-secret information. Back in the days when I was working with DIA/NSA, we did daily intelligence briefing and sometime we invite some journo to see how much they know as part of counter-intelligence procedure, and most of the time, they get information that we are deemed too sensitive to leak, and for some reason, they just have them.

 

[beijingwalker]

Does China needs J 20 to do that job? They are just seeking some cold comfort to appeace their constant anxiety.

 

[siegecrossbow]

You mean is it for real or how do those journo get their source?

If China have schedule Su-35 flight over Taiwan, they will know by comparing the data and see the Su-35 are getting their coating, because it would return a different value than when it is bare.

And for the second point, don't underestimate how journo can penetrate into top-secret information. Back in the days when I was working with DIA/NSA, we did daily intelligence briefing and sometime we invite some journo to see how much they know as part of counter-intelligence procedure, and most of the time, they get information that we are deemed too sensitive to leak, and for some reason, they just have them.

What I meant is that the idea that you can reduce RCS significantly using just radar-absorbing material is a myth and could probably only fool lay person. Why bother with RCS shaping (which pays attention to rivet-level details) when you can smear some magic powders over a plane and call it a day? I'm not doubting that many journalists from Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc. probably has real insider information, but National Interest is a tabloid paper and seems to be regurgitating secondhand fanboy speculation from Chinese military forums.

 

[jhungary]

What I meant is that the idea that you can reduce RCS significantly using just radar-absorbing material is a myth and could probably only fool lay person. Why bother with RCS shaping (which pays attention to rivet-level details) when you can smear some magic powders over a plane and call it a day? I'm not doubting that many journalists from Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc. probably has real insider information, but National Interest is a tabloid paper and seems to be regurgitating secondhand fanboy speculation from Chinese military forums.

The problem is, you don't know how good or bad RCS shaping in Su-35, even with leaked data of RCS, they could be not accurate. And since PLAAF cannot redesign the shape of Su-35, so the logical choice if I want a Su-35 to be more stealth. Kind of like what PLAAF did with J-10C, you cannot alter the shape too much on a J-10 and the only way it can diminished in is RCS is to apply a coat of stealth absorption material or add an engine bracket to reduce the heat signature.

Also, do not underestimate two bit tabloid....

That said, I am neither agree or disagree with what the journo said. For me, its just a piece of information, believe it or not is up to the individual reader.

 

[siegecrossbow]

The problem is, you don't know how good or bad RCS shaping in Su-35, even with leaked data of RCS, they could be not accurate. And since PLAAF cannot redesign the shape of Su-35, so the logical choice if I want a Su-35 to be more stealth. Kind of like what PLAAF did with J-10C, you cannot alter the shape too much on a J-10 and the only way it can diminished in is RCS is to apply a coat of stealth absorption material or add an engine bracket to reduce the heat signature.

Also, do not underestimate two bit tabloid....

That said, I am neither agree or disagree with what the journo said. For me, its just a piece of information, believe it or not is up to the individual reader.

I chose to not agree because it isn't worth the weight penalty to apply RCS reduction coating to a non-stealth aircraft. Although many 4th generation fighters claim low frontal RCS (F-16 has 1 M^2 for instance), it is only low with clean configurations. Even if the PLAAF has some magic powder for significantly reducing an aircraft's RCS by a significant margin, it won't be useful if the said aircraft needs to carry missiles, fuel tanks, or ECW pods externally. If an article gets the basics wrong, I think it is fair to examine other claims in the same article especially if they aren't explicitly source or consist of hearsay (he said she said).

Just my two cents.