You are right, it use VHF.
However the US still insist that it is capable to detect Russian/Chinese stealth aircrafts.
Actually, these radars are operate in the meter wavelength, and that is the borderline between VHF/UHF.
Last edited:
Chinese Radar Developments - KLJ series and others
- Thread starter indochina
- Start date
You are right, it use VHF.
However the US still insist that it is capable to detect Russian/Chinese stealth aircrafts.
Actually, these radars are operate in the meter wavelength, and that is the borderline between VHF/UHF.
I'm honestly not sure if you we are reading the same text.
Here is the text again:
"The N035E is an excellent PESA radar. It's pretty much the best PESA radar you can practically develop.
- However, it's substantially weaker than the current generation of Chinese AESAs."
"The N035E's look-up range is only slightly more than the J-16 radar's look-down range, and the former is not as effective as the latter in anti-surface mode"
It is comparing the N035E's look up range with the J-16's radars look down range.
The post does not mention J-16's radars look up range at all.
The best way to compare the performance of two different radars would of course be to compare their performance when operating in the same mode. E.g.: comparing the performance of both radars in look up mode or both radars in look down mode. Apples must be compared with apples, and oranges with oranges.
However, what this post is obviously saying is that J-16's radar is so much better than N035E that its look down range is almost as long as N035E's look up range.
Considering the post also says that N035E is substantially weaker than the current generation of Chinese AESAs, then it's pretty clear that the direct implication of comparing J-16's look down range vs N035E's look up range is to demonstrate that J-16's look up range is superior to N035E's look up range.
I honestly do not comprehend how you could interpret that post any other way.
The only way your logic works is if the look up range of a fighter radar is equal to or very approximate to the look down range of a fighter radar.
However, I don't know why you would claim that because the look up effective range of fighter radars is greater than that of the effective range of look down modes.
We obviously don't have specifications for many more recent radars systems, but here is a brochure for the APG-66 radar with a few variants listed.
On page 2 you can see the look up vs look down range of the APG-66V1 and V2.
APG-66V1's look down range is listed as 20-30 nm, its look up range is listed as 25-40 nm
APG-66V2's look down range is listed as 24-36 nm, its look up range is listed as 29-48 nm
The difference in effective range for look up vs look down is obviously significant. So for N035E's look up range to only be slightly better than J-16's look down range, means J-16's look up range would be significantly greater than that of N035E's look up range.
Other considerations when measuring radar performance:
1) When provided a "maximum range" for a radar, is it the detection or tracking range? Is it against fighter or AWAC sized targets?
2) How well could the radar pick up the target against background noise? How well against EW interference?
3) How many targets can the radar engage simultaneously?
Without answers to those questions, comparisons are pointless.
1) When provided a "maximum range" for a radar, is it the detection or tracking range? Is it against fighter or AWAC sized targets?
2) How well could the radar pick up the target against background noise? How well against EW interference?
3) How many targets can the radar engage simultaneously?
Without answers to those questions, comparisons are pointless.
Obviously all of those factors are important when considering the overall performance of a radar, but in this case we are specifically talking about the performance domains made by yankeesama, i.e.: effective range/power. I think we can safely assume that it is talking about effective range of both radars against equivalent targets and in equivalent environments. This is yankeesama, not the manufacturer's marketing teams.
I've re-read those points highlighted by Brumby over and over again and I can interpret it no other way apart from yankeesama is saying:
1. N035E is less powerful than the current generation of Chinese AESAs, it's pretty black and white.
2. comparing J-16's look down range as being almost as great as vs N035E's look up range is a way of saying that J-16's look up range is meaningfully better than N035E's look up range, and is an example of point 1.
The idea that point 2 could mean anything else is ludicrous because obviously it would be logically inconsistent with point 1.
I agree with what you've said.
Another way to potentially extrapolate the J-16/J-20 radars' performance is to look at KLJ-7A's official specs and maybe compare them with those of radars with similar size/power. I think we can gain more insights once JF-17 block III becomes a mature platform.
P.S. Does anyone remember how long it took for China to release the specs for the radars used by J-10A and J-11B? Maybe we can use it to estimate when China will officially unveil J-20/J-16 radars. In addition, marketing for J-10C may offer a glimpse into its radar as well.
I'm not sure about that, because as an export product KLJ-7A likely doesn't use equally representative technology that would be present in domestic in service fighter AESAs.
To be honest I'm pretty content with leaving the exact numbers of fighter AESAs as an unknown at this stage. In time we might get more firm numbers, but trying to extrapolate or estimate using technical comparisons in absence of insider guides (like what yankeesams provided in his J-16 and Su-35 comparison) will just be difficult.
Even in the case of J-16's radar range, all we know is that it is superior to N035E's range, but we don't know the actual numbers of either. I think that's fine.
Afaik , NRIET is the only institute devoted to fighter jet radars and produces the KLJ series radar. This is quite odd as there ought to be some competitor institute. NRIET surely isn't the only institute for AESAs. Which institute handles the Ship borne AESAs ? Do they have separate institutes for naval AESA solutions ? Or does NRIET produce the Naval AESAs too ( under a subsidiary or offshoot) ? Surely, NRIET wouldn't have been the only AESA provider for J-20 4th gen fighter program. I am forced to ask this as I distinctly remember reading about another institute ( or AESA Radar ) competing against NRIET , one year ago.
broadsword
Brigadier
The 607 institute, officially known as the China Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute (LETRI).
607 institute/LETRI has supplied fighter AESAs (for J-16 at present) as well as other radar types to the PLA and they offered their LKF601E fighter AESA for export last year at the airshow.
38th institute is also a PLA radar supplier.
So yes, there are definitely serious competitors in the radar domain. 14th institute is very strong however.
38th institute is also a PLA radar supplier.
So yes, there are definitely serious competitors in the radar domain. 14th institute is very strong however.
I think the entire structure of how research institutes, designers, and manufacturers are set up is quite a bit different to how things usually operate in the West. It may appear that there is a lack of competition in having these key overlapping groups operating under one umbrella whether it is some well defined government institute or private corporation. I sometimes feel (pure conjecture) that the modern day Chinese method in high end hardware research, design, development, and manufacturing, is undertaken by a plethora of people working in and for different groups and interests. This is all credited to one facility/institute/whatever eventually to simplify the "ownership" question but many stakeholders have been involved through the product's lifecycle.
It also seems to me that individual talents are often traded and re-positioned according to some authority's decision. Forced sharing of knowledge and technology almost definitely takes place in the military field at least. We've even seen this sort of stuff in supposed private companies where innovative ideas seem to be shared. Reverse engineering and copying takes time but all of a sudden, heaps of Chinese producers can come out with identical technology that only differs in superficial design and marketing. This cannot be a coincidence or a natural consequence of technological progress made by similarly capable people and organisations.
None of this is factual just my speculation based on personal observation and experiences but it won't surprise me that this "socialising" of resources and rewards is done in such a way. Not easily understandable for someone who's used to western methods that spend way too much time and resources of litigation to define exactly what is who's etc. But there are definitely issues with this hypothetical model. Encouraging productivity becomes a slightly different model even though the financial reward system is still relatively in place.
It also seems to me that individual talents are often traded and re-positioned according to some authority's decision. Forced sharing of knowledge and technology almost definitely takes place in the military field at least. We've even seen this sort of stuff in supposed private companies where innovative ideas seem to be shared. Reverse engineering and copying takes time but all of a sudden, heaps of Chinese producers can come out with identical technology that only differs in superficial design and marketing. This cannot be a coincidence or a natural consequence of technological progress made by similarly capable people and organisations.
None of this is factual just my speculation based on personal observation and experiences but it won't surprise me that this "socialising" of resources and rewards is done in such a way. Not easily understandable for someone who's used to western methods that spend way too much time and resources of litigation to define exactly what is who's etc. But there are definitely issues with this hypothetical model. Encouraging productivity becomes a slightly different model even though the financial reward system is still relatively in place.