New J-10 Thread III

[Ambivalent]

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

Isn't that a dummy missile?

Do you know what a CATM is? A captive carry missile with no warhead or rocket motor, just a seeker for training. The pilot can fly the airplane as necessary in a turning engagement to line the missile up on the target and obtain a tone in his or her headset. IR missiles make a moaning sound in the pilot's headset when it detects heat. For training pilots need to be able to hear that tone to know they are in a position to lock their missile.

[AssassinsMace]

At this stage I don't think they're training pilots on a J-10B.

[Ambivalent]

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

At this stage I don't think they're training pilots on a J-10B.

They would still be mounted for test and evaluation. That plane has a brand new intake and some other aerodynamic changes which will be evaluated for their effects on weapons delivery among many other things. It's great to have a new intake, but what happens if, say, turning the airplane hard enough to obtain a lock in a dogfight stalls the engine? I'm not saying the J-10 has this problem, but other aircraft have had unexpected problems turn up during test and evaluation. This is the time to find such problems, not once production examples are in the hands of operators.
Most militaries will want to demonstrate a new piece of equipment in an operational environment before committing to a large and expensive purchase.

[crobato]

Materially different? If you check the PL-9C, which is only a slightly externally modified from the PL-8, specs are different, 22km vs. 15km in range. Janes had reported a four element multispectral seeker also for the PL-9, which is nothing but the export version of the PL-8.

Yes, the Python 3 does use radar slaving, but HMS requires a different software approach, because you are queing via the helmet sight. The rationale for using a helmet sight is when the missile seeker has a field of view considerably greater than the radar set on the boresight mode,which is used for close combat and used to que IR missiles, and the display field of the HUD. Talking about 60 degrees greater off bore at least, in contrast to 30 to 40 degrees. Those helmet sights being used in the PLA are patterned after those used in the Su-27, and are slaved to R-73s. You don't take those and expect them to work on the PL-8 just like that without changing the systems in both plane and missile.

Let me add, for all the time studying PL-8 pictures, earlier missiles don't have the cloudy lenses and neither do the R-73s. Previously, PL-8s never worked with HMS until some years ago.

[crobato]

Originally Posted by Ambivalent

Do you know what a CATM is? A captive carry missile with no warhead or rocket motor, just a seeker for training. The pilot can fly the airplane as necessary in a turning engagement to line the missile up on the target and obtain a tone in his or her headset. IR missiles make a moaning sound in the pilot's headset when it detects heat. For training pilots need to be able to hear that tone to know they are in a position to lock their missile.

Wrong. That's a dummy missile. We know what captive carry missiles in the PLAAF look like, and this is not it. We have seen many training missiles in the PLAAF before, they are identified by a blue color, and those acting as PL-8s don't have the front canards, and has a big TV camera lens on the nose.

The missile on the J-10B is a complete dummy. Just a body, shell, nothing more. The whole point of the dummy is for simulating the weight and aerodynamic effects of the missile, which is helpful for an aircraft doing flight tests like the one being shown here.

[Ambivalent]

Originally Posted by crobato

Materially different? If you check the PL-9C, which is only a slightly externally modified from the PL-8, specs are different, 22km vs. 15km in range. Janes had reported a four element multispectral seeker also for the PL-9, which is nothing but the export version of the PL-8.

Yes, the Python 3 does use radar slaving, but HMS requires a different software approach, because you are queing via the helmet sight. The rationale for using a helmet sight is when the missile seeker has a field of view considerably greater than the radar set on the boresight mode,which is used for close combat and used to que IR missiles, and the display field of the HUD. Talking about 60 degrees greater off bore at least, in contrast to 30 to 40 degrees. Those helmet sights being used in the PLA are patterned after those used in the Su-27, and are slaved to R-73s. You don't take those and expect them to work on the PL-8 just like that without changing the systems in both plane and missile.

Let me add, for all the time studying PL-8 pictures, earlier missiles don't have the cloudy lenses and neither do the R-73s. Previously, PL-8s never worked with HMS until some years ago.

PL-9 is a Sidewinder copy, and yes I have seen both. They differ primarily in the attachment and design of the rear wings. The front canards are a direct copy of an AIM-9. PL-9C has according to my sources not a four element seeker but four acquisition modes in the seeker, but is a single element seeker like an AIM-9L. PL-8 is a completely different airframe from PL-9. Python 4 introduced the four element seeker, and Python 5 reportedly uses a staring planar array. The USAF just bought a bunch for testing.
What you say regarding the HMS is true, but again, there is no great material difference in the Israeli and Chinese versions of Python. Your first post made it sound like they are completely different weapons, which isn't the case. Software is not hardware.
I wish Israeli Weapons was working properly. The link to "Launched Weapons" is not up. There is a good discussion of the Python family inside, including photos inside the Chinese factory.

[crobato]

No. PL-9 is a Python 3/PL-8 copy. The only "Sidewinder" about it is the fins. Otherwise, the body of the two missiles (PL-8/Pyt3) are directly identical, and the fins are mish-mashed. The Sidewinder copies are PL-5s, like the more recent PL-5E.

According to Chinese factory text, the PL-9B/C uses a four element multispectral seeker. This development occurred 2004, so it does not cover the earlier versions of the PL-8/9.

[Totoro]

Luoyang Optoelectro Technology Development Center

Website of the manufacturer - and the data there would suggest that external dimensions - length, diameter of the body, weight of the missile are much, much closer to python family than sidewinder family.

It doesn't say how many elements are used in the seeker but it does say it's a multielement seeker.

[challenge]

外媒：中国军方有源雷达曝光让美国吃惊
　
美国环球战略网撰文说，中国的有源电子扫描阵列(aesa)雷达技术近年来发展神速。文章声称，有源电子扫 描阵列雷达强大的功能吸引了中国技术人员的极大关注，而他们在研制发展过程中发挥的重要作用不容忽视。美国 已经在有源电子扫描阵列雷达技术领域获得巨大成功。有源电子扫描阵列雷达系统由成千上万个微型雷达组成，这 些微型雷达能够各自独立地瞄准不同的方向。

美军当前正在为各型战斗机装备小型机载有源电子扫描阵列雷达。随着装备机载有源电子扫描阵列雷达系统的战机 越来越多，该型雷达的新用途也在不断发掘扩大之中。机载有源电子扫描阵列雷达系统的最新用途是遂行电子作战 任务。出于保密以及其它一些显而易见的原因，美国军方至今尚没有公布太多的相关细节。但是过去数年当中，各 种商业期刊关于这方面的私下报道揣测层出不穷。有源电子扫描阵列技术的出现，到应用于军事装备投入实战部署 ，迄今为止也就大约30年时间。美国海军"宙斯盾"舰载导弹防御系统的心脏an/spy-1雷达--当前全球最先进的计算机控制雷达系统，也是有源电子扫描阵列技术首先成功应用的著名实例之一。

An/spy-1相控阵雷达是世界上第一部四面阵舰载相控阵雷达，由四面六角形的相控阵雷达组成。它是"宙斯盾"系统最主 要的对空/对海探测工具，可对空中和海面目标进行自动搜索、检测、跟踪，并完成对"标准(sm)"型导弹的中段制导， 其四面阵天线可提供方位360度、仰角90度的覆盖。在美国海军"宙斯盾"巡洋舰和驱逐舰上服 役的spy-1d型集监视、防空战和导弹防御功能与一体，性能比出口型更为强大。

有源电子扫描阵列技术也使得美军的e-8c"联合星"(机载联合监视和目标攻击雷达系统，jstars)战场监视机成为可能。特制机载有源电子扫 描阵列雷达系统使得e-8c可以对地面行驶中的车辆等移动目标进行定位。不仅如此，新型机载有源电子扫描阵列雷达系统性能进一步加 强，使其能够对更小的、人体大小的目标进行侦察监视。有源电子扫描阵列雷达得到各国军方特别青睐的另一个主 要原因是，它具备同时应对大量目标的出众能力。美军并已经对e-8c"联合星"战场监视机的机载雷达进行了调整改进，这样它就可以对海上的各型舰艇等目标进行侦察监视 。

除此之外，有源电子扫描阵列技术现在也已经被作为一种通信工具使用，因为它可以发射、传输和接收大量信息。 而功率更加强大的机载有源电子扫描阵列雷达，甚至能够杀伤摧毁导弹携带的弹头和制导系统，或者其它战机。文 章最后说，中国的技术力量长久以来一直集中关注美国的有源电子扫描阵列技术。他们的努力没有白费，最终帮助 中国的有源电子扫描阵列能力在短期内获致巨大发展和进步。

[Engineer]

The article begins by saying that China is making significant progress in AESA development. For the rest of the article, it gave examples about current application of AESA in the US military. The article concludes by pointing out potential applications in communication and in EW for AESA.

Please, no Google translate.

[challenge]

while Phozotron did offer AESA to China to retrofit there entire SU-27SK (or J-11) to date there's no report from either from russia or China about PLAAF accepting russian offer.
according to aviation week, Phozotron identified 2 firm in China engaging in AESA research, one nanjing the other in suzhou.

[Hyperwarp]

Originally Posted by challenge

while Phozotron did offer AESA to China to retrofit there entire SU-27SK (or J-11) to date there's no report from either from russia or China about PLAAF accepting russian offer.
according to aviation week, Phozotron identified 2 firm in China engaging in AESA research, one nanjing the other in suzhou.

I thought one of the proposed Su-27SK upgrades was the NIIP Pero PESA. When did NIIR offer AESA for the PLAAF Su-27SK?

[challenge]

Originally Posted by Hyperwarp

I thought one of the proposed Su-27SK upgrades was the NIIP Pero PESA. When did NIIR offer AESA for the PLAAF Su-27SK?

australia airpower.com
phozotron did offer PESA radar to China, at same time Phozotron is currently working AESA radar for both MiG-39/35 and SU-27/33.and offering to China

[tphuang]

Originally Posted by challenge

australia airpower.com
phozotron did offer PESA radar to China, at same time Phozotron is currently working AESA radar for both MiG-39/35 and SU-27/33.and offering to China

that was written by Carlo Kopp, one of the worst sources for PLAAF. basically, not a good idea to believe in his commentaries. And also the likelihood of China importing AESA radar from Russia is very low.

[pla101prc]

Originally Posted by tphuang

that was written by Carlo Kopp, one of the worst sources for PLAAF. basically, not a good idea to believe in his commentaries. And also the likelihood of China importing AESA radar from Russia is very low.

if so then where is China gonna get its AESA?