J-11B has received the AESA upgrade

[Akasa]

The russian PESA can track a su-27 with 10-15m^2 RCS at 330 km not 1m^2 target at 400 km .Get your facts straight.400 km is its maximum detection range.
As for your AESA claim it would make the radar waay waay more powerful than f-35 and f-22s radars as well.....Poor CCP propaganda.



The russian PESA can track a su-27 with 10-15m^2 RCS at 330 km not 1m^2 target at 400 km .Get your facts straight.400 km is its maximum detection range.
As for your AESA claim it would make the radar waay waay more powerful than f-35 and f-22s radars as well.....Poor CCP propaganda.

So what? The radar for the J-16 would have a couple hundred of kilometers of range further than the Russian one, which is expected of a radar that uses similar T/R module 2-tier packaging design as the AN/APG-77 versus a PESA radar.

Once again, you were asked to provide a technical reason why a radar can't have such specifications, given its T/R density and the power output of the J-16.

The various institutes have been experimenting with L-band radar. This L-band radar allows for extremely long range detection, and when coupled with a highly-dense radar and an enormous power output, detecting 400 km out is not unfeasible. Of course, the L-band spectrum also decreases its ability to track fast-maneuvering targets, but it depends on what the priorities are. Unless you know the declassified specifications on the AN/APG-77 and AN/APG-81, no, their comparisons are meaningless in this case.

That document was for other company employees, not the public. If you want propaganda, look to the Russians' claim on China purchasing the Su-35BM; that's a juicy one right there, especially when both governments have denied it already and the reports contradicts themselves.

 

[zzzz]

So credible that it had to contradict itself, reprint the same article with different information each time, and get denied by the governments of both countries?

Yep light years more credible than your delusional nonsense claims you repeat over and over. Again forgot to take your meds?

 

[nomi007]

New image of the Sino J-11B Flanker Fighter Jet with Grey Radome carrying Chinese active electronically scanned array (AESA) inside

 

[zon95]

Specifications of how it?

Max Range:....km
For Target RCS:....m2
beam angle of radar: narrow or wide?

 

[zon95]

Where offical source of this radar AESA J-11b ?

 

[cirr]

AESA etc for J-11D in 2014.

 

[zon95]

AESA etc for J-11D in 2014.

Where ?!

 

[bolo]

This guy is working over time to make himself a laughing stock by telling lies after lies without any references.

Pl follow the link to read the article of Chinese order/Interest in SU 35. And yes it is from China Times.

China's Su-35 fighter order reaches 100

You might as well use any blogs instead of a tabloid news outlet at best

 

[anoncatfish]

I'm surprised that Gambit didn't pick it up, but the F-22 has a minimum RCS of .0001m^2. It means that an AESA with 250km range versus .1m^2 RCS has about 45 km of range against the F-22 at its minimum RCS. This is because detection range scales with the fourth root of RCS; instead of linearly or even quadratically.

The stats cited for the Chinese AESA are completely believable, as it's an AESA for a Flanker. The Flanker actually has a larger aperture than the F-22; the F-22, for a stealth aircraft, is a bit nearsighted with a radar aperture smaller than the F-15. Were the F-22's radar scaled to the F-15's size, it would easily have a range comparable to the Chinese flanker AESA. It also has to be noted that the F-22 for which we have stats uses an obsolete AESA; the F-35 uses more advanced technology, sufficient to jam a F-22, which has since been employed for an F-22 radar upgrade package.

 

[gambit]

I'm surprised that Gambit didn't pick it up, but the F-22 has a minimum RCS of .0001m^2. It means that an AESA with 250km range versus .1m^2 RCS has about 45 km of range against the F-22 at its minimum RCS. This is because detection range scales with the fourth root of RCS; instead of linearly or even quadratically.

The stats cited for the Chinese AESA are completely believable, as it's an AESA for a Flanker. The Flanker actually has a larger aperture than the F-22; the F-22, for a stealth aircraft, is a bit nearsighted with a radar aperture smaller than the F-15. Were the F-22's radar scaled to the F-15's size, it would easily have a range comparable to the Chinese flanker AESA. It also has to be noted that the F-22 for which we have stats uses an obsolete AESA; the F-35 uses more advanced technology, sufficient to jam a F-22, which has since been employed for an F-22 radar upgrade package.

What is there to 'pick up'? When it comes to radar, even an ESA, a larger array does not guarantee superior performance. Radar detection is half hardware and half software. The MIG-25's radar was so powerful that it could burn through any countermeasure, and yet its target resolution ability was so shitty that the best it could do for the pilot was to indicate general target location.

45 km detection distance against the F-22? The Flanksteak would be grilled at double that distance.

The APG-77 is 'obsolete'? That is a laugh. Obsolete by what standard? Ours? What make you believe what the Chinese have is better than the APG-77? Because the Chinese say so?

 

[anoncatfish]

The assumption is that the Chinese have AESA technology comparable to that of older versions of the F-22. Using the same technology, and scaling it up to the aperture size of the Flanker (the F-22 has an aperture around 900mm, the F-15 and Flankers have an aperture size of about 1000mm), you should get roughly 10% more detection range. The official detection range is 240km+, which I assume means 300km in practical use, adding 10% range via aperture size grants about 330 km range. You are right, the declared range is a bit high for Gallium Arsenide, but it's possible with GaN technology and higher power outputs.

The APG-77v1 is obsolete, however. I believe that the US is in the process of upgrading the APG-77v1 to the APG-77v2 with technology from the F-35. It means that the APG-77v1 is no longer state of the art and that later versions should exceed it in performance and resolution.

About the F-22 smoking J-11Bs that detect it at 44km, the answer is, duuuh. The J-11Bs are fourth or 4.5th generation fighters. They lack the RCS reduction of the F-22s, at best they could be expected to have an RCS around 5 m^2 with weapons loaded. The F-22 will likely end up detecting it around the 200 km mark and the J-11Bs will likely stroll into the NEZ of AMRAAMs around 80 km, meaning that the J-11Bs will only be able to detect the F-22s when the F-22s have their bays open while launching missiles. Fourth generation aircraft generally stand no chance against fifth generation aircraft; it's easily a given. Now, if you field J-20s with EODAS and GaN AESA, on the other hand, you have a fight, and it will resemble Flanker versus Eagle; skill of the pilot is everything here and the USAF is better trained and more experienced than the PLAAF.

 

[anoncatfish]

The one special possibility is that the J-11Bs catch the F-22 off its central RCS reduction zone. That is relatively unlikely, as the F-22 is considered to have decent side-stealth, but off the centerline the F-22's RCS is likely to increase to -30 dbsm. It would extend range to around 80 km, which would put the F-22 into NEZ for PL-12Cs or PL-15s, but you'd still wonder as to whether the X-band AESA on the missiles would be able to track the F-22 due to reduced tracking range from smaller seekers. Actually, the biggest problem with this scenario is that the F-22 would be able to detect the J-11Bs from long-range, at least 240km, and would be able to adjust its heading to reduce the J-11B's detection range to its minimum, so trying to detect it via inferior side-stealth is not a viable strategy.

 

[gambit]

The assumption is that the Chinese have AESA technology comparable to that of older versions of the F-22. Using the same technology, and scaling it up to the aperture size of the Flanker (the F-22 has an aperture around 900mm, the F-15 and Flankers have an aperture size of about 1000mm), you should get roughly 10% more detection range. The official detection range is 240km+, which I assume means 300km in practical use, adding 10% range via aperture size grants about 330 km range. You are right, the declared range is a bit high for Gallium Arsenide, but it's possible with GaN technology and higher power outputs.

When a customer is looking to purchase a radar system, civilian or military, he would normally say something like: 'I want a system that have an %X odds of detecting any target at Y distance.'

Maximum range is always greater than effective detection range so if I say: 'I want a system that will have a %75 certainty (odds) of any target at 200 km.', the maximum reach of this system will be around 300 km. The percentage figure will be the threshold upon which the system will flag the system to display the target on the scope. The %75 figure means that a body became reflective at around 300 km, but the system have not been able have consistent target resolutions of:

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

As this body approaches, the system must have those target resolutions at %75 intensity by the time it reach that 200 km marker. If a supplier/competitor have only %70 intensity of those target resolutions at 200 km, it means he will have %75 at 180-190 km. Am just playing with rough numbers here to illustrate a point. Anyway, this supplier will be disqualified from competition.

The customer -- me -- specified a distance and target intensity combination for a reason.

If I am an air traffic control designer, 200 km (or whatever) will be the distance where I will begin to manage traffic and order aircrafts around. Beyond 200 km, those aircrafts can self manage.

If I am an air defense specialist, 200 km will be where I need to have %75 certainty so I do not send my forces chasing ghosts. But if you can give me %75 certainty at 300 km, I will move you to the top of the list and if you can prove to me that you can acquire %75 certainty at 500 km, I will buy your product on the spot.

I can specify %50 certainty at whatever distance and the lower that threshold, the more suppliers/competitors I will get.

Now when we add low radar observable bodies into the mix, it gets problematic for air defense systems, whether that system is a SAM station or a fighter aircraft. If the system is designed to flag at %75 certainty at 200 km, against an F-117 class body, it will flag %75 at visual range. Or may be a little bit further out. Again, am just using rough numbers to illustrate the relationship between target intensity and distance to produce that 'effective detection range' that everybody casually throws around.

If you want to know what an F-117 class body look like on a typical fighter-class radar, then look at this article...

http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041725

Pilots from the 65th and 64th AS, including exchange pilots from the Royal Australian Air Force and Royal Air Force, of Australia and England respectfully, expressed their frustration related to flying against the stealthy F-22.

"The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. "It's the most frustrated I've ever been."

Chappell was able to acquire visual ID of the F-22 but his radar was unable to acquire that %X threshold necessary for weapons lock. If both fighters are at fixed distance from each other, then most likely Chappell would be able to have those target resolutions, but most likely he failed because his adversary was maneuvering, creating high levels of radar target scintillation (keywords search), as in high-low reflectivity with no discernable pattern, for his radar to calculate those target resolutions at %X certainty.

Scintillation (radar) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scintillation is a fluctuation in the amplitude of a target on a radar display. It is closely related to target glint, or wander, an apparent displacement of the target from its mean position. This effect can be caused by a shift of the effective reflection point on the target, but has other causes as well. The fluctuations can be slow (scan-to-scan) or rapid (pulse-to-pulse).

People who do not understand the crucial relationships between target resolution, threshold certainty, and distance usually focus on sales brochure 'maximum' and 'effective' target detection ranges, how large is the array, etc...etc...And for those of us who know, we just shrugs those figures off.

What I presented above I presented them here before -- many times. I know more precise figures but people here know I will not reveals them for reasons am sure you can understand.

The APG-77v1 is obsolete, however. I believe that the US is in the process of upgrading the APG-77v1 to the APG-77v2 with technology from the F-35. It means that the APG-77v1 is no longer state of the art and that later versions should exceed it in performance and resolution.

Again...Obsolete based upon whose standards? If the -77 is still the desirable system for most of the world's forces out there, and most American arms that became 'hand-me-downs' for other countries are still formidable systems, then the criticism that the -77 is 'obsolete' is meaningless.

 

[anoncatfish]

Gambit, when you're not busy trolling you're highly informative. I was not looking for a lecture on how minutae of radar operation can prevent weapons locks, but this is very interesting and something one appreciates being made aware of.

One criticism I would like to make is that when I speak of F-22 detection ranges; I assume that the F-22 understates its detection range as its actual detection range is classified.

With regards to the AESA described in the beginning of the article, my impression is that this is prototype or developmental technology, probably employing GaN AESA, and is thus unlikely to actually be employed in the J-11B. The reason for that is that the figures are just too high to be conventional GaAs AESA technology, so one would more expect that it represents GaN technology, which China has shown no indication of having mastered yet. The numbers employed actually seem to be normal operating and maximum operating range, because if you look at the figures for the .1, the first number given is for "normal detection range", while the second is given for "maximum detection range".

 

[longlong]

China military budget 2014 will be more than west Europe add up together.

Those huge amount will return a lot, and AESA is just a small fish among them.

Only those retirees with a pair of 70 years used eyes and refresh-free brain will sleep sweetly in his coffin with a full bed of rotten roses.