China Flanker Thread II

[Hyperwarp]

200 km against 1 sqm is something like 265 km against 3 sqm . Official range (on Tikhomirov website) of Irbis-E is 350-400 km for 3 sqm target on meeting course . Therefore, according to official data it is somewhat better then APG-77, which is not surprising since it is larger and somewhat younger (newer technology) .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the 200km for 1m^2 is using LPI mode IIRC. AN/APG-77 has other modes and actual range is classified. I read at Keypublishing MMA forum the Irbis-E achieves its 400km range at maximum power and at a very slow scanning rate. When scanning at that power, the F-22 probably doesn't even need the AN/APG-77 and AN/ALR-94 would probably suffice for the pilot to know where the Su-35 is.

Air Force Brat, could you add to this.

 

[b787]

You're forgetting things like software optimization, systems design and optimization, beam frequency and duration, the effects of shrinking element sizes on waste and efficiency, etc. Not saying that 400 km range is reasonable, but it's not far outside the realm of possibility, tentatively speaking, if some other factors, adjustments, and compromises are made.

If you have a microwave oven you know just by looking at your electricity bill the amount of voltage it uses; Radars are basically microwave ovens albeit with a receptor, a 400 km range able to detect a 3sqm target radar, it uses a lot of power density, first because distance will reduce the signal and second because the target it self has a RCS, the software will not help you in the same way your eyes can not see with the distance in detail in a dark night, you need a powerful signal, in few words a powerful search light, the material will help if it allows you to reduce heat loss in your circuits, you know your computer needs a fan to cool it off, same a Radar, more power more losses, the only way to increase range is by focusing the signal with a phased array, most old TV antennas have a dipole array to use constructive interference, but Irbis uses an array too, because is a Phased array radar too to do that to but so most AESAs.

It is unlikely J-16 has more voltage available to power a 400km range radar

 

[Air Force Brat]

the 200km for 1m^2 is using LPI mode IIRC. AN/APG-77 has other modes and actual range is classified. I read at Keypublishing MMA forum the Irbis-E achieves its 400km range at maximum power and at a very slow scanning rate. When scanning at that power, the F-22 probably doesn't even need the AN/APG-77 and AN/ALR-94 would probably suffice for the pilot to know where the Su-35 is.

Air Force Brat, could you add to this.

Actually I think you have a much better handle on the radar and capabilities than I do Warp, my specialty is really airframes/aerodynamics from a pilots perspective?? I really wish that I could be more specific, but many of you young guns have a pretty good understanding of the avionics/weapons systems and how they stack up.
I will say this, that the F-22 is likely to be very stealthy and operating in a passive detection mode and will avoid "emitting"???? Any Flanker, F-15, EuroFighter, and likely even PAK-FA or J-20 is in a lot of trouble going up against an F-22, which will no doubt be fused with AWACs and soon F-35s, as well as Growlers?
So I believe you are quite right, the F-22 is going to be very quite until he launches a weapon, and depending on the threat? their will be at least two to four Raptors, which communicate very discreetly with one another?

 

[thunderchief]

the 200km for 1m^2 is using LPI mode IIRC. AN/APG-77 has other modes and actual range is classified. I read at Keypublishing MMA forum the Irbis-E achieves its 400km range at maximum power and at a very slow scanning rate. When scanning at that power, the F-22 probably doesn't even need the AN/APG-77 and AN/ALR-94 would probably suffice for the pilot to know where the Su-35 is.

Air Force Brat, could you add to this.

I will not speculate about classified data, I can only comment on publicly stated specifications from manufacturers . IMHO, it is quite logical that radar with larger diameter and similar peak power (20 kW ) has better detection range against same target .

AN/ALR-94 could only alert pilot about the presence of hostile radar (direction) , but it could not give exact range .

 

[latenlazy]

It is unlikely J-16 has more voltage available to power a 400km range radar

Capacitors. Could also reroute power from other systems, design your circuits or software to turn things on and off based on use to maximize available power. (Not all the electricity being generated by your engines go to just one thing) Etc.

Does that make achieving that level of power likely? Not necessarily. If through the design of your circuit you could get that range, would that be as useful or effective as if you had more power available? Maybe not. But it's achievable.

 

[tphuang]

If you have a microwave oven you know just by looking at your electricity bill the amount of voltage it uses; Radars are basically microwave ovens albeit with a receptor, a 400 km range able to detect a 3sqm target radar, it uses a lot of power density, first because distance will reduce the signal and second because the target it self has a RCS, the software will not help you in the same way your eyes can not see with the distance in detail in a dark night, you need a powerful signal, in few words a powerful search light, the material will help if it allows you to reduce heat loss in your circuits, you know your computer needs a fan to cool it off, same a Radar, more power more losses, the only way to increase range is by focusing the signal with a phased array, most old TV antennas have a dipole array to use constructive interference, but Irbis uses an array too, because is a Phased array radar too to do that to but so most AESAs.

It is unlikely J-16 has more voltage available to power a 400km range radar

Well, PLAAF tested Irbis radar a few years ago according to Janes article and also Chinese sources. They got something close to 90 km range vs 0.1 m^2 targets, which is pretty good. If they were able to do this, then clearly have the power needed in J-11B to power something like Irbis.

Also, J-16 is going to use a second generation AESA radar, so getting something to power a radar of similar range to Irbis is not a problem. Whatever range they get with J-16's radar shouldn't be the only concern here. A modern AESA radar can be used to be able to target aerial/ground targets, have high resolution ground mapping, EW capabilities and be hard to pick by opposing radar. You are not going to have your radar turned on too early, that will just get you picked up faster.

 

[b787]

Well, PLAAF tested Irbis radar a few years ago according to Janes article and also Chinese sources.

Honestly do you believe that?

China has never ever gotten a single Irbis set for their own, all what they have ever gotten is demonstrations and Information by Sukhoi via Su-35, and Tikhomirov NIIP, in Russia at MAKS or in airshow China.


Can China have a very powerful radar, yes they can but airborne on a Flanker, it is unlikely, if you know a bit of History you will notice radars had increased range, but this has been done by increasing engine power, just compare the power available to a MiG-21 and one to an F-15, and the other factor has been more complex arrays than the basic parabolic plate used on early aircraft like MiG-23 or F-4Es or the dipoles arrays used in WWII.

A German fighter like the Me-262 with four dipole arrays and and Jumo 004 can not compare to an F-15 or a F-18 with AESAs with many embedded arrays in the hundreds and better computer power plus much more powerful engines.

But China has no engine on J-16 to power an Irbis, neither China has a time gap in technology of 2 or 3 decades with Russia in radar technology.

But any radar modern or old use the same principle of a dipole Alternating current to generate microwaves, the only difference is the computer power to calculate and thus give better discrimination on the image

Electromagnetic waves are produced whenever electric charges are accelerated. This makes it possible to produce electromagnetic waves by letting an alternating current flow through a wire, anantenna. The frequency of the waves created in this way equals the frequency of the alternating current. (The light emitted by a light bulb is caused by thermal motion that accelerates the electrons in the hot filament sufficiently to produce visible light.) The inverse effect also happens: if an electromagnetic wave strikes a wire, it induces an alternating current of the same frequency in the wire. This is how the receiving antennas of a radios or television sets work. As one might expect, an antenna is most efficient when its length is of the order of the wavelength of the waves emitted or received. (The waves used for TV transmission, for example, have wavelengths of the order of one meter, which is also the size of a typical TV antenna.)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This basically shows you than an AESA is no more different to a WWII radar in physics, is the computer power that allows better images, what makes an AESA like an EYE is the hundreds of TR modules that similarly to the cones and rod of an eye and a powerful computer (human brain) will give you a detailed image and better search and tracking capability.

J-16 with Al-31s or even WS-10s will need enough power to get 400 km of range something unlikely using those engines or then will need additional electricity generators to the ones used in regular flankers adding extra weight.

 

[Brumby]

Actually I think you have a much better handle on the radar and capabilities than I do Warp, my specialty is really airframes/aerodynamics from a pilots perspective?? I really wish that I could be more specific, but many of you young guns have a pretty good understanding of the avionics/weapons systems and how they stack up.
I will say this, that the F-22 is likely to be very stealthy and operating in a passive detection mode and will avoid "emitting"???? Any Flanker, F-15, EuroFighter, and likely even PAK-FA or J-20 is in a lot of trouble going up against an F-22, which will no doubt be fused with AWACs and soon F-35s, as well as Growlers?

This radar range thing is over rated in my view. The consistent messages I have read is that in a threat situation as you described, the plane will go dark and actually default to other sensors including passive rather than active. In co-operative engagements, the sensor platform is not necessarily the shooter.

 

[Brumby]

Honestly do you believe that?

China has never ever gotten a single Irbis set for their own, all what they have ever gotten is demonstrations and Information by Sukhoi via Su-35, and Tikhomirov NIIP, in Russia at MAKS or in airshow China.


Can China have a very powerful radar, yes they can but airborne on a Flanker, it is unlikely, if you know a bit of History you will notice radars had increased range, but this has been done by increasing engine power, just compare the power available to a MiG-21 and one to an F-15, and the other factor has been more complex arrays than the basic parabolic plate used on early aircraft like MiG-23 or F-4Es or the dipoles arrays used in WWII.

A German fighter like the Me-262 with four dipole arrays and and Jumo 004 can not compare to an F-15 or a F-18 with AESAs with many embedded arrays in the hundreds and better computer power plus much more powerful engines.

But China has no engine on J-16 to power an Irbis, neither China has a time gap in technology of 2 or 3 decades with Russia in radar technology.

But any radar modern or old use the same principle of a dipole Alternating current to generate microwaves, the only difference is the computer power to calculate and thus give better discrimination on the image



This basically shows you than an AESA is no more different to a WWII radar in physics, is the computer power that allows better images, what makes an AESA like an EYE is the hundreds of TR modules that similarly to the cones and rod of an eye and a powerful computer (human brain) will give you a detailed image and better search and tracking capability.

J-16 with Al-31s or even WS-10s will need enough power to get 400 km of range something unlikely using those engines or then will need additional electricity generators to the ones used in regular flankers adding extra weight.

The issues with radar technology and AESA in my view is more complex.

There are some good articles written on it in APA. I probably only understand 10 % of what is written but it doesn't sound like what you have described.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Zool]

This radar range thing is over rated in my view. The consistent messages I have read is that in a threat situation as you described, the plane will go dark and actually default to other sensors including passive rather than active. In co-operative engagements, the sensor platform is not necessarily the shooter.

That's generally the case in modern engagements.

More often than not, fighters are now guided toward target by tracks from AWACS and SIGINT aircraft or Surface Radar. In the case of 5th Gen systems they will also rely on their passive sensors. On-board radar and range is still a factor for a fighter to establish a lock and guide missile to target, but the fighter is ideally not running active prior to contact in a search mode and giving away it's position through emission, therefore ahead of the game.

You can almost relate it to submersible warfare in that the sub running active sonar pings to search for a target is going to be the first casualty in most cases.