Can China's New Destroyer Find U.S. Stealth Fighters?

USNI ^ | May 14, 2014 | By: Dave Majumdar

[Fennie]

Can China's new Type 052D Luyang III destroyers successfully see through the stealth of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter?

Maybe.

U.K., Chinese and Russian media report the radar on China's new destroyer could track and engage the F-35; however it is not clear if such claims have any validity.

Konstantin Sivkov, director of the Russian Academy for Geopolitical Issues, asserted that the destroyer's active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar system can detect, track and launch weapons against the F-35 at a range of 350 kilometers or about 189 nautical miles, according to a Voice of Russia report.

[puppypusher]

It sounds as if the Russians and the Chinese are blowing smoke here.Since the U.S. has had stealthy aircraft since the 1980’s.At that time the Russians had radars that were not as good as an American radar and even if the Russians improved their radar capabilities the U.S. has had the time and experience to update its stealth aircraft capabilities.

[WorkerbeeCitizen]

it wouldn’t surprise me if they could - hell, we prolly gave the technology to them to do it with - we’re pretty stupid that way

[FreeAtlanta]

Or a Democrat voting traitor sold it to them. Anyone seen Bill Clinton, Al Gore or Obama today?

[RayChuang88]

It might work--if the radar has separate, well-spaced apart transmitting and receiving antennas. But that requires very sophisticated computer technology to take advantage of what's known as bi-static radar.

[SZonian]

Geez, this will be a “fun” and “informative” thread...

Can’t wait for all the resident FR self-proclaimed “aviation and F35 experts” to weigh in.../s

[Lazamataz]

They are not blowing smoke. What they look for is the absence of radio signals. Stealth tends to be a black hole for all radio emmissions, so... instead of looking for radio reflections (looking for a white dot on a grey field) you look for a lack of ambient radio signals (looking for a black dot on a grey field).

[Lower Deck]

Questions about how effective the stealth capabilites are is one of the reasons why the Navy has requested funding for additional EF-18G aircraft.

[SampleMan]

So they are claiming to have an SAM with a 189 NM range?

Right there I’m calling BS.

And harking back to my old NAVAIR days, no ship was going to see me in my non-stealth aircraft, until I broke the radar horizon at about 20 miles.

[DTA]

>>>>>It sounds as if the Russians and the Chinese are blowing smoke here.Since the U.S. has had stealthy aircraft since the 1980’s.At that time the Russians had radars that were not as good as an American radar and even if the Russians improved their radar capabilities the U.S. has had the time and experience to update its stealth aircraft capabilities.<<<<<

F117A was shot down by using obsolete 1950s radar.

And this obsolete radar made stealth gimmick obsolete overnight.

For some reason Chicoms decided to make their own copy through R&D (reverse engineer and Duplicate).

A quiz question for aviation aficionados:

F-35 can be considered stealth only when 2 internal weapon bays are used and no external weapons attached to the hardpoints.

When using only 2 internal weapon bays F-35s can be easily outgunned.When using under-wing missiles it can be out-maneuvered.

True or false?

[SampleMan]

They are not blowing smoke. What they look for is the absence of radio signals. Stealth tends to be a black hole for all radio emmissions, so...

You know what else is a black hole for radio emissions? The entire rest of the sky. The emissions don't reflect back off of nothing.

[SampleMan]

The F-117 got shot down by being predictable and by having the bomb bay open too long.

[SeaHawkFan]

If the Chinese are using active radar, EF-18G Growlers will be able to identify the source, fry the electronics and sink the ships with anti-ship missiles. The U.S. Navy and USAF have different approaches to counter anti-aircraft fire. The USAF tries to hide using stealth, and the USN identifies, fries and then bombs the AA sites. That's why the USAF always liked to have USN EA-6B Prowlers lead them in on bombing missions during the Gulf wars.

[puppypusher]

The F-117 shotdown over Serbia was flying the same flight path that it had been flying on a previous mission if I recall.

The plane was also shot down by AAA not a SAM.Which only tells me that sooner or later if you fire enough rounds into the air your likely going to hit something sooner or later.

In this case it was a luckey shootdown on behalf of the Serbians.The case of the Golden B.B.

[minnesota_bound]

I would think launching say 1,000 cruise missiles at targets all at once would destroy any fleet of ships or land targets. Follow up with aircraft after that for any left over targets. I think the future combat will be cruise missiles. The first side that runs out will lose the war.

[rdcbn]

false

[SZonian]

The “mission planners”, NATO conops, NATO ROE, spies in Italy and an open weapons bay were the reasons 786 was shot down...they failed to follow the highly successful tactics used during DS to ensure the aircraft wouldn’t be compromised.

In my opinion, it was a deliberate act that cost us that aircraft and almost the pilot.

[SZonian]

Sorry, not 786, 806...

Crewed both...

[Yo-Yo]

Not to mention the civilian observers in Italy that watched the F-117s take off and reported that back to the Serbs.

If you know where to look, and you know when to look, you can find them.

[afsnco]

SM-2 Block IV has that kind of range, and our fearless leaders have no doubt given the ChiComs all the specs.