J-11B has received the AESA upgrade

[zzzz]

Just because it was reposted on a later date doesn't make it any more legitimate than a debunked claim.

It was not reposted, it was an original statement of official during Paris Air Show. And as i said no one debunked this statement.

 

[cirr]

Zivojin，Deputy Commander of Russian Airforce，sits in the cockpit of a J-10 taking part in Moscow Airshow：

 

[Akasa]

It was not reposted, it was an original statement of official during Paris Air Show. And as i said no one debunked this statement.

The original statement originated way before that.

 

[zzzz]

The original statement originated way before that.

Gone mental because China is buying SU-35?

 

[Akasa]

Gone mental because China is buying SU-35?

Gone retarded because you haven't noticed that (1) both China and Russia denied the deal, and (2) the original article was from long before that?

 

[zzzz]

Gone retarded because you haven't noticed that (1) both China and Russia denied the deal, and (2) the original article was from long before that?

How could you deny something has not yet happened? How about pills?

 

[Lightningbolt]

Gone mental because China is buying SU-35?

Su-35 is outdated. We have no need to buy it. It's the Russians that are desperate to sell their crap to stay relevant in the weapons market.

 

[zzzz]

Su-35 is outdated. We have no need to buy it. It's the Russians that are desperate to sell their crap to stay relevant in the weapons market.

Yep, that perfectly explains why China is buying it

 

[Akasa]

How could you deny something has not yet happened? How about pills?

How could you accept something that already has been debunked? The original article came out in 2012, and even then it was based on a series of false purchases from many years ago. And then the two governments flat out denied it in 2012 and 2013.

Is Russia so desperate on selling its less-than-popular Su-35S that it resorts to falsified information to compensate for its loss?

Yep, that perfectly explains why China is buying it

But except they aren't.

 

[zzzz]

How could you accept something that already has been debunked? The original article came out in 2012, and even then it was based on a series of false purchases from many years ago. And then the two governments flat out denied it in 2012 and 2013.

Is Russia so desperate on selling its less-than-popular Su-35S that it resorts to falsified information to compensate for its loss?



But except they aren't.

Wtf some article from 2012 has to do with government official who spoke to journalists in Paris during Air Show and told them about current situation with Su-35 deal as of June 2013?

 

[Mitro]

@Sinodefence i feel sorry for you please dont waste your time on indian **** of **** who don't know WTF is going on

And i like to congratulate on your achievement atleast some one in these fcuking world are able to complete their aircraft in time not like indian who are incapable to finish that piece of **** LCA .

 

[Akasa]

Wtf some article from 2012 has to do with government official who spoke to journalists in Paris during Air Show and told them about current situation with Su-35 deal as of June 2013?

Because the original article that started the whole thing was from 2012. As of June 2013 both the Russian government and Chinese government stated that the deal did not exist. And so far the governments are far more credible than a recycled rumor that contradicts itself.

 

[gambit]

If they have a search range of 250 km against a 0.1 m^2 target, these radar can easily achieve a radar lock on F-22 at a minimum 100km

The ridiculous radar range of 250 km vs .1m^2 indicates propaganda was hasty and ill prepared.

All the RCS tables are in the table and the description explicity states that it can detect a 0.4 m^2 target from 280 km. By calculations that would mean a detection range of 250 km for 0.1 m^2 and 450 km for 1 m^2.

AN/APG-77 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is a solid-state, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. Composed of 1500 transmit/receive modules
As yet unconfirmed sources suggest that APG-77 has a 'typical' operating range of 193 km (120 mi) and is specified to achieve an 86% probability of intercept against a 1 m2 target at its maximum detection range using a single radar paint.

Some understanding is in order here...

First...Go back to post 65 to understand that the RCS value is not a fixed figure...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...-has-received-aesa-upgrade-5.html#post4678567

Now...We need some clarity on what is a basic radar transmission...

The foundation of every radar transmission is the pulse, assuming the common pulsed system, instead of the continuous wave type...

For a continuous wave system, there would be no gaps, or pulse repetition interval (PRI). But for the example above, we have a PRI and with it, we have a 'pulse train', which is a period of fixed time that contains a number of pulses interlaced with gaps or PRIs. Over longer periods of fixed time, we can have many pulse trains with even larger gaps between trains. There are reasons for this but for now, we need to focus on just one pulse train, say it consists of 100 pulses, to keep it simple for visualization.

What if we received 10 returns out of 100? Can I declare that 10% is good enough for me to declare that I found a target and start chasing it? Absolutely. I can declare one return out of 100 if I wanted to. But is that a wise thing to do, to declare that I found a target from 10%? Absolutely not. I would be chasing ghosts all over the sky and that is exactly what happened often back in WW II when radar data processing was much more primitive than what we are used to today.

As this <something> approaches, now I received 20%, then 30%, then 40%, then 50%. Can I declare that this <something> is now a target worthy of investigation? Absolutely. Effectively, whatever I wanted to investigate, I have at least half odds of being wrong, and wasted a lot of avgas in the event that I was chasing a ghost.

So what are we to make of this wiki statement about the AN/APG-77...???

AN/APG-77 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...an 86% probability of intercept against a 1 m2 target at its maximum detection range using a single radar paint.

The wiki source is quite simplistic.

Translation 1: As this suspicious body approaches me, at one point in space/time, I am 86% certain that this body is 1 m/squared. I am not 100% that this body is 1 m/squared. Only 86% FROM total certainty. I am programmed to alert the pilot at the 80% threshold, therefore, I will now declare this body a 'target' and will display it on the scope.

Translation 2: As this suspicious body approaches me, at one point in space/time, specifically at 200 km out, I am only 86% FROM total certainty that this body is 1 m/squared. Two hundred km is too far from me to say with total certainty that the body is 1 m/squared. However, since I am programmed to trigger an alert at this distance, I will now declare this body to be a 'target' and will display it on the scope.

T1 is a statistical threshold.

T2 is a distance threshold.

In either programming, with a single pulse train, the radar is only 86%, as in 86 returns from 100 transmitted out, of odds that it found <something> and and declared that finding a 'target'. Until I actually take a tape measure to this body and assured myself beyond any reasonable doubt that it is 1 m/squared, my radar is only 86% certain that it is 1 m/squared and that is good enough for me to investigate.

Are there any utility to either threshold? Absolutely.

Statistical threshold can be used for missile engagement as one example of utility. The missile, either from using its ow radar or from using a parent's guidance radar, can detonate, as in proximity fusing, at 50%, or 60%, or 99.999% threshold.

Distance threshold can be used for prioritization of threats and potential threats. If a body is 1 m/squared at 300 km out, it is less of a threat than a body that is 1 m/squared at 150 km out. This is where the often cited radar specs of 'Track 6 out 24 targets' came from.

The Doppler component of any target can be used as another useful threshold. When coupled with the statistical threshold, we can use it to help the missile ignore decoys, for example. Say a missile trigger its own radar soon enough to acquire a target that have over 80% odds of being 1 m/squared and the Doppler component between missile and target reached above a certain freq range, the missile can be programmed to lock on to that combination and ignore any other Doppler components from any other sources within its radar view. Decoys usually have very different flight characteristics but the important thing is that the missile must acquire this combination as early in its engagement flight as possible.

The 1 m/squared figure is often used because it is the unofficial 'official' threshold for 'stealth' from a clean F-16 at most fighter class radar range of 150-200 km out.

There are other types of thresholds that can be used singly or in combinations, either in parallel or sequential with other thresholds, to help secure a body to become a target. But am NOT going into them here.

So just because there is an ESA array/antenna, that DOES NOT automatically mean the system can acquire a target of any dimension, physical or estimated, with a single scan. It depends on the programming and data processing. All three components: hardware, pulse generator, and data processing, are equal in importance. Like in a 3-legged stool.

The hardware, the ESA array/antenna, is the first enabler to a high sophistication ESA system.

The pulse generator and data processing of returns must be sophisticated enough to exploit the hardware.

In the first example, 'stable' is vulnerable to jamming, so we can relegate that to civilian uses, like meteorology.

However, we can use 'stagger' to probe the target as to its ECM capabilities. We can raise the difficulty with 'jitter' to see how his ECM can compensate for rapid changes. We can use 'dwell and switch' to test his ability to deal with unpredictability. Then we can use all four to deceive and acquire him. All of this must happen -- IN A SINGLE PULSE TRAIN. And this pulse train must be as short as possible.

If the target is completely oblivious to being tested because we have LPI capability, guess it is a short life for him.

This is why it is very possible for an older generation planar or even (gasp) concave half-dish mechanical scanning array/antenna to outperform an ESA system with sh1tty programming.

So please be careful in throwing these figures out.

 

[帅的一匹]

Su-35 is outdated. We have no need to buy it. It's the Russians that are desperate to sell their crap to stay relevant in the weapons market.

If Su35 is a crap, all PLAAF fighters except J20 are craps with no doubt. You should get a filter on those brain to mouth stuff, be grown up.

China is not that strong enough to show Russian denigration, so much so you will become &#22812;&#37070;&#33258;&#22823;&#12290;

 

[帅的一匹]

Because the original article that started the whole thing was from 2012. As of June 2013 both the Russian government and Chinese government stated that the deal did not exist. And so far the governments are far more credible than a recycled rumor that contradicts itself.

I bet 1000 USD with you that China is gonna induct Su35, will you on it?