The J-11B's, J-15's, and J-16's next generation radar

[Akasa]

This radar shown is exactly like the one seen on the J-11B a while ago.

Some points regarding this new radar:

1. It is in L band

2. It can track a 0.1 m^2 target from 250 km away

3. It can track a 1 m^2 target from 450 km away

4. The radar is very similar to the rumors about it in terms of characteristics

 

[cnleio]

U leak our secret.
Where r u? Somebody will check the water meter of ur house tonight.

 

[rashid.sarwar]

In english please or anyone

 

[Srinivas]

U leak our secret.
Where r u? Somebody will check the water meter of ur house tonight.

That is funny

 

[Fsjal]

There goes China's secrets. Luckily, I don't read Chinese

 

[GR!FF!N]

Some points regarding this new radar:

1. It is in L band

2. It can track a 0.1 m^2 target from 250 km away

3. It can track a 1 m^2 target from 450 km away

4. The radar is very similar to the rumors about it in terms of characteristics

First..English Please...

and 2nd,with this specs,it will be multi times better than AN/APG-77 and AN/APG-81 Radars which is in service with F-22 and F-35 Lightning II(I read somewhere AN/APG-77 can track a small fighter jets 230 km away,which i think should have RCS > .1 m^2)..so,I doubt this specs..though some more knowledgeable can clarify it more..

 

[Anony]

Fighter planes main radar in L band. That's interesting if true. Can this direct air to air missiles generally accepting X band signals towards target.?.

 

[UKBengali]

@SinoSoldier: Is this a radar that is planned to be incorporated into J-11B/15 and 16s as opposed to already have been put onto the J-11B?

If it is the former then it is believable and this is showing just how advanced the Chinese have come along in radar technology.

I read a while back one of the top Chinese radar experts saying that Chinese radar technology is now second only to the US and then only a little behind them. Not sure how he actually came to this conclusion but even if it is half true, then this is really positive news for the Chinese.

 

[UKBengali]

First..English Please...

and 2nd,with this specs,it will be multi times better than AN/APG-77 and AN/APG-81 Radars which is in service with F-22 and F-35 Lightning II(I read somewhere AN/APG-77 can track a small fighter jets 230 km away,which i think should have RCS > .1 m^2)..so,I doubt this specs..though some more knowledgeable can clarify it more..

F-22 radar is a decade old.

Anyway, just because a radar has greater range does not automatically mean that it is more advanced than one with lesser range.

The Chinese ZDK-03 AWACs that Pakistan acquired has a greater detection range than the Swedish Erieye AWACs but most likely is not quite as advanced.

Whatever the actual specs, there can be no doubt that the Chinese are making progress in radars when you see just how many different types of radars on different platforms they have produced over the last decade.

 

[gambit]

First..English Please...

and 2nd,with this specs,it will be multi times better than AN/APG-77 and AN/APG-81 Radars which is in service with F-22 and F-35 Lightning II(I read somewhere AN/APG-77 can track a small fighter jets 230 km away,which i think should have RCS > .1 m^2)..so,I doubt this specs..though some more knowledgeable can clarify it more..

No, it will not.

The issue is GRANULARITY or refinement of such 'tracking'. So it looks like back to basics...

The above is not to true physical scales but to give comparison between different wavelengths.

Here is where granularity comes in...

The shortest pulse you can create is one cycle, which is too short to do any good. A typical radar pulse transmission is composed of many cycles, as illustrated above. The longer the wavelength used, the higher the energy level. The longer the pulse, the higher the energy level. So if you use the meters long freq band (HF) and create pulses from this freq, your transmission will have a very high energy level at the moment of impact on the target.

A pulse have two timestamps: leading edge and trailing edge. This create what is called 'finite pulse length'. A radar computer uses these timestamps to create virtual spatial locations for a target over time.

A pulse hit the target. Then it bounced off the target. Its leading edge is naturally followed by its trailing edge. The radar computer detect the reflected pulse's leading edge's timestamp and the trailing edge's timestamp and create ONE virtual location at ONE moment of time. And it does it for the next pulse. And so again for the next pulse. The longer the timestamps between leading and trailing edges, the less refined the target's location over space and time.

This is why missile targeting uses very short wavelengths in the X-band. Short pulses have very narrow timestamps between leading and trailing edges, creating many more virtual location points than longer wavelengths.

It is:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compares to:

..............................................

Where each point represent one pulse.

Against a highly maneuverable target, we want as many distinct points in as closely spaced as possible because the gaps in the first example are where the target could maneuver out of our radar view. The top line would be the L-band. The bottom line is how an X-band would see our target.

 

[DrSomnath999]

well L band aesa radar have been unveiled in MAKS 2009 airshow but it was to be installed in leading flap edges of Pakfa /Flanker derivatives

But a complete radar of L band frequencies on fighter planes on radome is a very cumbersome & techinically expensive

Lband radar has some advantages against VLO platforms

The volume, weight, power, cooling and cost penalties of putting an L-band search radar on a fighter have historically precluded the use of this band in fighter applications. An X-band or Ku-band radar provides for greater accuracy, and vastly better antenna directivity, given the available geometries for installing radar antennas. The only reason to pursue the L-band is thus if it can do something which cannot be done easily in the X/Ku-bands. That something is inevitably the ability to produce useful skin returns from targets which are difficult to detect and track in the X/Ku-bands. Embedding an IFF/SSR function in the design simply increases the design payoff, as a single design can perform two functions, interleaving IFF/SSR interrogation messages with target search pulse trains.

For more info
Assessing the Tikhomirov NIIP L-Band Active Electronically Steered Array

 

[tanlixiang28776]

I'm thinking this radar is designed to be in use in conjunction with other fighters operating an X band AESA. The size of an Flankers nose cone is actually larger than any other fighters including the F 22's. This allows a massive amount of elements capable of being placed in its cone compared to say a rafale. With its massive detection range an L band AESA equipped Flanker could be put in a group of X band AESA flankers to give them an first detection advantage which is huge in BVR combat.

This radar also seems to have stealth detection as a major component in its design. at 0.1 m^2 detection at 250 km it can find LO platforms at massive ranges, and VLO platforms at better than normal radar ranges.

L band and X band each have advantages and disadvantages. Thats why countries are moving towards dual band radars.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

For comparison the Tikhorimov L band AESA radar has detection of 1 m^2 targets at 130 km and 0.1 m^2 targets at 75 km.

The area of an entire radar cone is much larger than just the wing tips the Russian ones use.

 

[Akasa]

First..English Please...

and 2nd,with this specs,it will be multi times better than AN/APG-77 and AN/APG-81 Radars which is in service with F-22 and F-35 Lightning II(I read somewhere AN/APG-77 can track a small fighter jets 230 km away,which i think should have RCS > .1 m^2)..so,I doubt this specs..though some more knowledgeable can clarify it more..

America's top line radars are definitely more capable than what is released on the Internet.

@SinoSoldier: Is this a radar that is planned to be incorporated into J-11B/15 and 16s as opposed to already have been put onto the J-11B?

If it is the former then it is believable and this is showing just how advanced the Chinese have come along in radar technology.

I read a while back one of the top Chinese radar experts saying that Chinese radar technology is now second only to the US and then only a little behind them. Not sure how he actually came to this conclusion but even if it is half true, then this is really positive news for the Chinese.

The J-15 and J-16 adopted this from the start. I don't know about the other Flankers, but gradual updates are constant.

 

[UKBengali]

America's top line radars are definitely more capable than what is released on the Internet.



The J-15 and J-16 adopted this from the start. I don't know about the other Flankers, but gradual updates are constant.

In that case this may be a brand new radar that is not yet being used on production aircraft.

The general designer of the Chinese KJ-2000 AWACS stated in an interview that research in the next generation of AWACS was being focused on countering stealth aircraft, so it is possible that radars like this have benefitted from that research as no other fighter radar in the world can detect 0.1m^2 target from as far away as 250km. Only way to get this kind of detection range on such as low-RCS target has been to use AWACS aircraft.