What's new

J-10B with AESA / PESA Radar.

J-10B RADAR (IN THE PHOTO)?


  • Total voters
    23
China's civilian and economy is why I think that China's going to leave Russia in the dust in terms of mil tech. There was a US report on how China has leveraged its civilian chip making industry to advance things like radar and avionics.

True but a Country have to be sufficiently sovereign in order to achieve this. This is why Japan, despite having the capabilities, will never produce top end military equipment.
 
.
J-11 and J-15 are both bigger platforms, wider range of missions, more types of weapons so maybe needs more powerful sensors.

J-10 is a dogfighter through and through. That probably means visual range.

The J-11B and J-15 are less multirole than the J-10B, therefore decreasing their need to have complete awareness of the surroundings. Their getting AESA indicates that AESA in China is not so immature as we thought.

J-10B, being an air defense fighter, is exactly why it needs AESA. Modern dogfights initiate at BVR range, and the AESA needs to do that.

All pictures point to AESA. The fact that the radar is photographed to be slanted already leads me to believe that this is AESA. I have never seen a PESA equipped aircraft with a slanted radar and a slanted randome. The glossy finish and inconsistency of the "antennae" lead me to believe that it's either a cover or simply a label, and even then, that is no indication that it is not AESA.

Read tphuang's analysis on SinoDefence Forum. I find it interesting.
 
.
True but a Country have to be sufficiently sovereign in order to achieve this. This is why Japan, despite having the capabilities, will never produce top end military equipment.

Japan is a special case like you said but in every other example, military technological progress marches hand in hand with civilian.
 
.
.

It's obvious. The J-11B is not even believed to be able to drop guided munitions.

J-11B is for air superiority. J-10 is multirole.



I thought that an AESA main advantages were that it is hard to jam and supports paralleled scanned (since it has many modules)

Thus giving the pilot better awareness of surroundings and increasing the air to air capability.

Will do, if you can post a link.

http://www./air-force/new-j-10-thread-iii-4290.html

Post #1873
 
.
The J-11B and J-15 are less multirole than the J-10B, therefore decreasing their need to have complete awareness of the surroundings. Their getting AESA indicates that AESA in China is not so immature as we thought.

J-10B, being an air defense fighter, is exactly why it needs AESA. Modern dogfights initiate at BVR range, and the AESA needs to do that.

All pictures point to AESA. The fact that the radar is photographed to be slanted already leads me to believe that this is AESA. I have never seen a PESA equipped aircraft with a slanted radar and a slanted randome. The glossy finish and inconsistency of the "antennae" lead me to believe that it's either a cover or simply a label, and even then, that is no indication that it is not AESA.

Read tphuang's analysis on SinoDefence Forum. I find it interesting.
There is NOTHING inherent to ESA systems that said antenna physical tilt angle is necessary for one type but not for the other. Same for the radome. A fixed tilt angle intended for frontal RCS reduction is applicable only when the rest of the aircraft has been designed to the extent that direct deflection from the antenna raised the aircraft's frontal RCS to an unacceptable level. Else tilting the antenna on an aircraft not designed for 'stealth' may be useless.
 
.
There is NOTHING inherent to ESA systems that said antenna physical tilt angle is necessary for one type but not for the other. Same for the radome. A fixed tilt angle intended for frontal RCS reduction is applicable only when the rest of the aircraft has been designed to the extent that direct deflection from the antenna raised the aircraft's frontal RCS to an unacceptable level. Else tilting the antenna on an aircraft not designed for 'stealth' may be useless.

Tilting apparently is to decrease the head on RCS for the AESA.
 
.
Tilting apparently is to decrease the head on RCS for the AESA.
No, for the aircraft. Failure to understand that everything on an irregular and complex body is a contributor to the body's overall RCS seems to be consistent here.
 
.
No, for the aircraft. Failure to understand that everything on an irregular and complex body is a contributor to the body's overall RCS seems to be consistent here.

Yeah, so there's no point in tilting a PESA radar, since the lack of Low Probability of Intercept ability pretty much already renders it much more observable. I've never seen a configuration where the PESA is tilted.
 
.
Yeah, so there's no point in tilting a PESA radar, since the lack of Low Probability of Intercept ability pretty much already renders it much more observable. I've never seen a configuration where the PESA is tilted.
Incorrect...There is NOTHING that said only an AESA system can perform low probability of intercept (LPI) mode. This is a gross misunderstanding.

Radar detection is essentially a stochastical process, fancy word for statistics, it mean the system must detect <something> consistently over an arbitrarily set of timespan before declaring that there is a 'valid' target. Most radar systems operate at what could be considered 'high probability of intercept', meaning the transmitted signals are above a certain level and with characteristics that are predictable.

What low probability of intercept (LPI) does is to alter those characteristics, such as power level or pulse repetition, to deny the receiver that statistical certainty that <something> is out there. Absent that statistical certainty, the system can only alert the operator that it suspect that <something> is present and that it effectively passed the decision ball to the humans to investigate and declare if that <something> is a true target. Not a 'valid' target but a true target. The system can make a 'valid' call but investigation can reveal that it is a 'false positive'. Hence it is important that we distinguish the differences between a 'valid' declaration versus a physically 'true' target. The more the human operator is involved handling that decision ball, be he a radar operator or a pilot, the more time is consumed in the decision making process.

That said...The 'low probability of intercept' (LPI) radar is more an operating mode than a hardware related issue. What it mean is that ANY radar, in theory, can be an LPI radar. The misunderstanding come from the fact that a hardware/software combination make that operating mode more efficient, as in a thousand times more efficient than if the human operator can attempt.

A passive ESA system can be an LPI radar if the power and array software management is good enough. However, an active ESA system is a hundred times more efficient at being deceitful to any receiver that it practically make no sense, financially or otherwise, to install the LPI mode into a PESA system. A non-ESA system can also be LPI but it would be a hundred times less efficient than a PESA can. And the AESA is superior to all.

In certain situations, such as marine navigation through an EM dense environment such as population centers, the radar's signals can interfere with other navigation radars, or television, or communication radios, or even cellular towers' operations, so the word 'intercept' is sometimes replaced by some engineers to be 'interference', as in 'low probability of interference'. The difference here is the type of response by those who 'intercept' such signals. The military would respond harshly. The civilian sector would respond with annoyance that their music and television entertainment is being adversely affected. So the words 'intercept' and 'interference' is quite philosophically synonymous.

So to get back to the current topic, if the J-10B is discovered to benefit from a tilted PESA, as far as RCS reduction goes, then tilting the antenna would make practical sense.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom