The downing of Rafales along the India-Pakistan border goes beyond a simple military incident. According to aerospace and defense expert Jean-François Geneste, its origins run much deeper
The Rafale jet could have been shot down by a Cessna 150 if a Cessna 150 had been able to launch the missile
The missile did the killing.
But the Rafale had a protection system to protect it from the missiles radar.
The key to shooting the Rafale down was the Y8 airborne radar. The missile was invisible because it only turned on its radar in the last seconds.
Steering the missile into the Rafale was done by the Y8.
I was a member of the Lockheed flight test team which did a complete test flight series on the Y8, followed by an engineering debriefing at the Ministry of Aviation in Beijing.
I translated that debriefing. My profile picture was taken that afternoon, after a hard day.
Y8, I believe is China's gen 1 AWACS, developed in 1970s. The KJ3000 currently being deployed is gen5 based on Y20 super transport. There is KJ200 through to latest KJ600 based on turboprob airframes. KJ3000 is speculated to be full airborn command centre incorporating latest AESA radars and EW suites and control centre for drone swarms.
In the early 80s, a U.S. Army TV commercial showed parachute extraction of a jeep from the cargo hold of the C-130.
The PLA wanted this ability but the Y8 had two severe problems. Sharp leading edges caused wings to stall one at a time instead of together, so the aircraft would flip over when it stalled.
The 2nd problem was the cargo deck took a ten degree downward slope at the landing gear.
Because they feared stalls, they flew the aircraft too fast and when a parachute grabbed the vehicle inside the Y8, the vehicle became airborne at the 10 degree slope. It hit the top of the empennage on exit and almost crashed the aircraft.
Immediately the Ministry of Aviation was in Lockheed Georgia asking to use our wind tunnels.
Neither side had a translator so they were doing a point and grunt tour.
We happened to be in an elevator together. I said hello to them and was recruited as their translator.
That afternoon I translated a contract to use Lockheed’s wind tunnel to test the Y8. That was followed by over a year of test flights.
Well, that's how all air(air missile work, don't they? First guided from the aircraft and then embedded radar kick inn, doesn't it? Key there was the speed of the missile.
But not guided by the aircraft which launched the missile. This blinded the Rafale aircraft. Maybe they could see the Y8 but the Y8 was far from the battlefield and not an immediate threat
The speed of the missile PLUS the fact that you the missile was radar silent. The Y8 radar did all the guidance from beyond the battlefield
This is not a new problem. The U.S. Navy’s E2 does the same job.
This is an input. It is not a final solution. The U.S. Navy has dealt with this problem for 30 years. Watch how scientists/mathematicians/technicians compete.
The missile tracks its target using input from a distant radar aircraft. What is the counter?
The other variable is the comprehensive EW suit jamming and spoofing the Rafale and IAF radars. Not to be underestimated. Also not just the mach5 speed of PL15 but also its dual pulse feature, shutting off its rocket after initial accleration to remain as stealthy as possible. Only when close to bogey does it reignite and onboard AESA radar lock and acclerate to mach5 for no escape kill.
Aircraft effectiveness is due to maneuvrability and situational awareness. The unmanned fighter proponents seem to deal in hard technical discussions of maneuverability and survivability but simply assume that AI will provide all situational awareness and decision making needs.
Considering the growing pains which simple ai for self driving cars experienced I don't expect this technology to mature so rapidly in the next 20 years.
Cars are not airborne... The rationale set forth by Mr. Geneste is that human limitations makes it impossible to counter any hypersonic threat. Developing the SCAF will take more than 20 years, and it is already obsolete. Drones can be operated via satellites far from the operating theater.
Autonomous cars circulate in a very constrained environment and likely to be disrupted by a whole bunch of unpredictable parameters (pedestrians, cyclists, dogs, etc.), unlike unmanned planes...
This is the crux of the problem with the AI Fighter Drone crowd. The assumption is that because we have had computer that can fly like autopilot keeping a steady course on an airplane or a missile homing in on a target, a computer to fly a fighter jet.
It should be obvious that the business of air combat maneuvering as an art and science of war, is not only more complex than simple homing or course correction, it is also orders of magnitude more challenging than driving a car. With more unpredictable and confounding parameters.
I think if you are starting from the standpoint that air combat maneuvering is simpler task than driving a car, you are showing your hand as not understanding the actual tasks involved.
High maneuverability is primarily for dogfighting. If you are locked on by 30G capable missile travelling at hypersonic speed, unless you believe Top Gun is documentary rather than fantasy, it is certainly gameover. The PLA current implementation of dual manned stealth fighter to control hypersonic armed drones that fly ahead for recon and attack seems most likely the platforms to dominate. Of course even these are fully integrated with advanced AWACS, EW assets plus SAT, hi altitude ISR drones and ground/sea based AESA radars. Full comprehensive kill chains to not only deal with frontline fighters and stealth bombers but also the adversary AWACS and tanker refuelers. It is a new game indeed.
I don't think you can quite say "its certainly gameover" but definitely survival at that point is going to be primarily predicated on countermeasures with maneuverability playing a secondary role.
Yes I think you are right that manned/unmanned integration is going to be the paradigm and importantly, I think its too early to predict exactly what that will look like.
It would be game over for side that expect future air battles will be aerial dog fighting when adversary is setup for BVR kills. Reports are in the India Pak air battle, 125 fighters planes were involved but not one visual contact of enemy bogey was made. Future air warefare will be all about IRS, sensors, EW, radar, drones all securely communicating in real time. 6th gen fighters will incorporate all these electronic.attributes. The principle physical requirement for 6gen fighters will be full dimensional stealth, speed and ceiling. The ability to quickly get into a position as directed by external ISR sensors to launch hypersonic missiles at bogeys while being undetected by adversary.
The Rafale jet could have been shot down by a Cessna 150 if a Cessna 150 had been able to launch the missile
The missile did the killing.
But the Rafale had a protection system to protect it from the missiles radar.
The key to shooting the Rafale down was the Y8 airborne radar. The missile was invisible because it only turned on its radar in the last seconds.
Steering the missile into the Rafale was done by the Y8.
I was a member of the Lockheed flight test team which did a complete test flight series on the Y8, followed by an engineering debriefing at the Ministry of Aviation in Beijing.
I translated that debriefing. My profile picture was taken that afternoon, after a hard day.
Y8, I believe is China's gen 1 AWACS, developed in 1970s. The KJ3000 currently being deployed is gen5 based on Y20 super transport. There is KJ200 through to latest KJ600 based on turboprob airframes. KJ3000 is speculated to be full airborn command centre incorporating latest AESA radars and EW suites and control centre for drone swarms.
In the early 80s, a U.S. Army TV commercial showed parachute extraction of a jeep from the cargo hold of the C-130.
The PLA wanted this ability but the Y8 had two severe problems. Sharp leading edges caused wings to stall one at a time instead of together, so the aircraft would flip over when it stalled.
The 2nd problem was the cargo deck took a ten degree downward slope at the landing gear.
Because they feared stalls, they flew the aircraft too fast and when a parachute grabbed the vehicle inside the Y8, the vehicle became airborne at the 10 degree slope. It hit the top of the empennage on exit and almost crashed the aircraft.
Immediately the Ministry of Aviation was in Lockheed Georgia asking to use our wind tunnels.
Neither side had a translator so they were doing a point and grunt tour.
We happened to be in an elevator together. I said hello to them and was recruited as their translator.
That afternoon I translated a contract to use Lockheed’s wind tunnel to test the Y8. That was followed by over a year of test flights.
The Y8 or its variant modified by China for Pakistan, the ZDK-03 Karakorum Eagle ?
Not significantly modified for Pakistan. The Y8 is the platform. China added a horizontal radar dome on top, similar to the U.S. E2
Well, that's how all air(air missile work, don't they? First guided from the aircraft and then embedded radar kick inn, doesn't it? Key there was the speed of the missile.
But not guided by the aircraft which launched the missile. This blinded the Rafale aircraft. Maybe they could see the Y8 but the Y8 was far from the battlefield and not an immediate threat
There's got to be some kind of guidance until the missile radar kicks in.
Yes. The missile radar can handle the whole mission but the Rafale jet has a defensive system designed to kill such a missile.
The Y8 uses their radar from a distance and guides the missile. The missile is passive, receive only, until just seconds before impact
So this is what I've been writing from the start. What was key here is the speed of the missile.
The speed of the missile PLUS the fact that you the missile was radar silent. The Y8 radar did all the guidance from beyond the battlefield
This is not a new problem. The U.S. Navy’s E2 does the same job.
This is an input. It is not a final solution. The U.S. Navy has dealt with this problem for 30 years. Watch how scientists/mathematicians/technicians compete.
The missile tracks its target using input from a distant radar aircraft. What is the counter?
1. Destroy the Y8 or E2? The lag time is deadly
2. Other?
The other variable is the comprehensive EW suit jamming and spoofing the Rafale and IAF radars. Not to be underestimated. Also not just the mach5 speed of PL15 but also its dual pulse feature, shutting off its rocket after initial accleration to remain as stealthy as possible. Only when close to bogey does it reignite and onboard AESA radar lock and acclerate to mach5 for no escape kill.
Excellent points
Lets be honest, Lenins quote describes why the West is losing: "We will hang the capitalists with the rope they sell us."
Shareholder returns are the number one Achilles heel of the West.
True
Aircraft effectiveness is due to maneuvrability and situational awareness. The unmanned fighter proponents seem to deal in hard technical discussions of maneuverability and survivability but simply assume that AI will provide all situational awareness and decision making needs.
Considering the growing pains which simple ai for self driving cars experienced I don't expect this technology to mature so rapidly in the next 20 years.
Cars are not airborne... The rationale set forth by Mr. Geneste is that human limitations makes it impossible to counter any hypersonic threat. Developing the SCAF will take more than 20 years, and it is already obsolete. Drones can be operated via satellites far from the operating theater.
Autonomous cars circulate in a very constrained environment and likely to be disrupted by a whole bunch of unpredictable parameters (pedestrians, cyclists, dogs, etc.), unlike unmanned planes...
This is the crux of the problem with the AI Fighter Drone crowd. The assumption is that because we have had computer that can fly like autopilot keeping a steady course on an airplane or a missile homing in on a target, a computer to fly a fighter jet.
It should be obvious that the business of air combat maneuvering as an art and science of war, is not only more complex than simple homing or course correction, it is also orders of magnitude more challenging than driving a car. With more unpredictable and confounding parameters.
I think if you are starting from the standpoint that air combat maneuvering is simpler task than driving a car, you are showing your hand as not understanding the actual tasks involved.
High maneuverability is primarily for dogfighting. If you are locked on by 30G capable missile travelling at hypersonic speed, unless you believe Top Gun is documentary rather than fantasy, it is certainly gameover. The PLA current implementation of dual manned stealth fighter to control hypersonic armed drones that fly ahead for recon and attack seems most likely the platforms to dominate. Of course even these are fully integrated with advanced AWACS, EW assets plus SAT, hi altitude ISR drones and ground/sea based AESA radars. Full comprehensive kill chains to not only deal with frontline fighters and stealth bombers but also the adversary AWACS and tanker refuelers. It is a new game indeed.
I don't think you can quite say "its certainly gameover" but definitely survival at that point is going to be primarily predicated on countermeasures with maneuverability playing a secondary role.
Yes I think you are right that manned/unmanned integration is going to be the paradigm and importantly, I think its too early to predict exactly what that will look like.
It would be game over for side that expect future air battles will be aerial dog fighting when adversary is setup for BVR kills. Reports are in the India Pak air battle, 125 fighters planes were involved but not one visual contact of enemy bogey was made. Future air warefare will be all about IRS, sensors, EW, radar, drones all securely communicating in real time. 6th gen fighters will incorporate all these electronic.attributes. The principle physical requirement for 6gen fighters will be full dimensional stealth, speed and ceiling. The ability to quickly get into a position as directed by external ISR sensors to launch hypersonic missiles at bogeys while being undetected by adversary.
yeah thats true enough, but doesn't everybody with an airforce consider BVR the default at this point?
I agree with everything else, with the caveat that lasers may restrict and marginalize air operations
Have total global sales recouped the cost of the F-35, including post-production design modifications and tech changes?
Thanks
You are welcome.
Nope. They have not.