China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
That is a photoshopped picture of a J-16, posted a few pages back by Deino.
janjak desalin
Junior Member
that's what i get for not comparin'!
btw, i'm very interested in those black lines and spaces on this platform. are these placements of radar absorbing material, or could they be sensory devices? the black space on the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer is particularly interesting.
Hmmm ... I can't help myself, but why do I still have that strange feeling that the new radome does not follow the external lines of the original one but has indeed a new shape ?? :what: It looks much more J-10B-sytlish than flankerish ???
Also ... if the J-11D's radar is said be derived from the J-16's radar, then why are both said to be from different institutes ??
So, could it be that similar to the J-10B's radar there was originally a "contest" between both systems and the J-16 received one of them (607 Institute), while now the J-11D received the final J-10B's (or in fact J-10C's AESA from the 14th Institute). Since however that AESA was not ready in time, the first block of J-10B serials also received a PESA-type developed from the 607 Institute). This however could also be a hint that the J-16 in fact also "only" has a PESA and this could also explain its protracted development, since similar to the J-10B its main avionics is not ready.
If that theory will be correct, I don't know, but it will be interesting to see, if the next J-16s will also feature the J-11Ds canted radome ...
Just two cents,
Deino
Also ... if the J-11D's radar is said be derived from the J-16's radar, then why are both said to be from different institutes ??
So, could it be that similar to the J-10B's radar there was originally a "contest" between both systems and the J-16 received one of them (607 Institute), while now the J-11D received the final J-10B's (or in fact J-10C's AESA from the 14th Institute). Since however that AESA was not ready in time, the first block of J-10B serials also received a PESA-type developed from the 607 Institute). This however could also be a hint that the J-16 in fact also "only" has a PESA and this could also explain its protracted development, since similar to the J-10B its main avionics is not ready.
If that theory will be correct, I don't know, but it will be interesting to see, if the next J-16s will also feature the J-11Ds canted radome ...
Just two cents,
Deino
Last edited:
I believe that the J-10B and the J-16 and now the J-11D are all using an AESA radar from the very beginning. Because if there is a PESA radar then what's its name/type ? Where is it build ? Who is building it ? We have zero information about this PESA radar while there are articles even photo's of the AESA radar. We know the names/type and we know the builders. Wasn't there a article posted earlier on the J-10 thread that the ASEA radar of the J-10B won an award way back in 2008 ? It could be that there is now a new uprated version of that AESA radar in the works and that the "J-10C" will recieve and improved version of that AESA radar from the current one. There is simply no publication about the PESA radar for these planes aside from the rumors on Chinese BBS. On the other hand the Chinese media have publicized about the AESA radar for these planes.
Could it be viable to assume that because of their supposedly different roles J-11D and J-16 have different radars with a differing capability focus? One optimized for long range search / track of (V)LO targets, and the other on high-res ground mapping, GMTI and so on.
Or are modern AESA radars at a point were best application is no longer a result of physical design?
Or are modern AESA radars at a point were best application is no longer a result of physical design?
The issue is whether J-11D's radar is a variant derived from J-16. If it is, then naturally it makes sense for J-11D to be more optimized for some missions than others compared to J-16's radar.
But what Deino is getting at is that both radars are not only entirely different, but also products of different entities.
I think I actually got that point.
What I inteded is that if there's different missions requirements for these radars, and if those still result in software (I'm fairly certain here), or even physical layout differences, I think it would be logical that there might have been two different competitions with different winners. (Yet the radars may still be really close to each other.)Or maybe it's just a policy to keep different institudes in buiseness.
Based on just visually looking at that picture I agree it is definitely not the traditional Flanker radome but a smaller canted one similar to the J-10's.
Really ??? Do You know the designation of these radars ???
And again my point is that it simply does not make sense to say the J-11D uses a derivate of the J-16's AESA, when both are from different institutes !
Deino
- Status