J-15 carrier-borne fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Posted a year ago.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Henri K take on the new J 15 radar . I am no radar expert he said a digital array radar
The new J-15 Chinese on - board fighter aircraft will acquire a new active electronic scanning radar (AESA), which suggests an article published by a subsidiary of the AVIC group.
In this text last Sunday on the Weixin of the Institute 607 - one of the three main radar research offices in China and the sole radar entity of the AVIC group - we are talking about a new AESA radar under development Since July 2016, by a young team whose average age is 31 years.
The current J-15 is equipped with a mechanical scanning radar.
Designing an "ultra-thin" and "ultra-light" AESA radar is the goal of the project that can be read between the lines. There is also an AESA radar of all new generation, and the breakthrough in many "revolutionary" technologies, particularly in the architecture of the concerned systems that would be highly integrated.
Although no technical details have been provided, it is virtually certain that this is not yet another active electronic scanning radar that the 607 Institute is developing. It is assumed that it would be at least one AESA radar (DAR: Digital Array Radar), see a Sofatware Defined Radar (SDR).
Compared to standard AESA radars, a DAR allows for a larger receiver field, faster beam scanning and a much better ability to combat jammers and noises. It is also better able to amplify the weak signals and filter the parasitic waves.
DAR technologies do not stem from today, however, theoretical research began elsewhere as early as the 1980s. If CETC Institute 14, another Chinese radar expert, has already succeeded in designing a DAR for the all-new AWACS KJ-500, eventually replacing, the four KJ-2000s based on the IL-76® platform , We have not yet seen the evidence that the Institute 607 has already developed similar radar in the past.
The new Chinese AWACS KJ-500 at the Zhuhai 2016 Fair (Photo: situ)
The fixed DAR radar with 3 flat faces of KJ-500 (Photo: situ)
And we can also understand the importance of this new EASA project for the 607 Institute - the latest (shooting range?) radars chosen by the new Chinese fighter aircraft programs are predominantly designed by the CETC group, and the word " Competition "again appeared in the article of the subsidiary of AVIC. The Chinese navy would therefore most likely have launched a new tender to equip the upgraded version of its J-15 with an AESA radar from an internal competition, to ensure its performance and quality.
Knowing that the AVIC aircraft manufacturer is still developing catapult able CATOBAR , for the 3rd Chinese aircraft carrier by 2022 to 2023, it is that it could have a Intermediate version between the current J-15 and the catapult able J-15, integrate some updated radar and increase the capacity of the embedded naval air forces
To be continued.
Henri K.
Appendix: the original text
2017-04-16 研究 部
The new J-15 Chinese on - board fighter aircraft will acquire a new active electronic scanning radar (AESA), which suggests an article published by a subsidiary of the AVIC group.
In this text last Sunday on the Weixin of the Institute 607 - one of the three main radar research offices in China and the sole radar entity of the AVIC group - we are talking about a new AESA radar under development Since July 2016, by a young team whose average age is 31 years.
The current J-15 is equipped with a mechanical scanning radar.
Designing an "ultra-thin" and "ultra-light" AESA radar is the goal of the project that can be read between the lines. There is also an AESA radar of all new generation, and the breakthrough in many "revolutionary" technologies, particularly in the architecture of the concerned systems that would be highly integrated.
Although no technical details have been provided, it is virtually certain that this is not yet another active electronic scanning radar that the 607 Institute is developing. It is assumed that it would be at least one AESA radar (DAR: Digital Array Radar), see a Sofatware Defined Radar (SDR).
Compared to standard AESA radars, a DAR allows for a larger receiver field, faster beam scanning and a much better ability to combat jammers and noises. It is also better able to amplify the weak signals and filter the parasitic waves.
DAR technologies do not stem from today, however, theoretical research began elsewhere as early as the 1980s. If CETC Institute 14, another Chinese radar expert, has already succeeded in designing a DAR for the all-new AWACS KJ-500, eventually replacing, the four KJ-2000s based on the IL-76® platform , We have not yet seen the evidence that the Institute 607 has already developed similar radar in the past.
The new Chinese AWACS KJ-500 at the Zhuhai 2016 Fair (Photo: situ)
The fixed DAR radar with 3 flat faces of KJ-500 (Photo: situ)
And we can also understand the importance of this new EASA project for the 607 Institute - the latest (shooting range?) radars chosen by the new Chinese fighter aircraft programs are predominantly designed by the CETC group, and the word " Competition "again appeared in the article of the subsidiary of AVIC. The Chinese navy would therefore most likely have launched a new tender to equip the upgraded version of its J-15 with an AESA radar from an internal competition, to ensure its performance and quality.
Knowing that the AVIC aircraft manufacturer is still developing catapult able CATOBAR , for the 3rd Chinese aircraft carrier by 2022 to 2023, it is that it could have a Intermediate version between the current J-15 and the catapult able J-15, integrate some updated radar and increase the capacity of the embedded naval air forces
To be continued.
Henri K.
Appendix: the original text
2017-04-16 研究 部
Last edited:
I remember that discussion concerning what catapult-track at Huangdicun is the EM or the steam-version ... first images from late 2016 hinted (and reports said so too) that the J-15 was tested already off the EMALS.
In the end it seemed as if these first test in fact were done at the steam catapult (on top or left) and only the lower one or on the right is the EM-version.
Anyway, now the J-15A was also spotted on both !
1. 17. October 2016 (IMO steam-catapult):
2. 16. March 2017 (IMO EM-catapult):
In the end it seemed as if these first test in fact were done at the steam catapult (on top or left) and only the lower one or on the right is the EM-version.
Anyway, now the J-15A was also spotted on both !
1. 17. October 2016 (IMO steam-catapult):
2. 16. March 2017 (IMO EM-catapult):
nonononono
First of all, at this stage we don't know which catapult is which.
Second of all, please remember that the satellite photos we have of the J-15s "behind" each catapult does not mean that they were tested then.
Third and most important, is to remember that the satellite photos we have of a J-15 "behind" each catapult doesn't mean that that was the only time they were there -- it just means that we have satellite photos of the J-15 there -- in other words it shows us a single snapshot of a single moment on a single day, where the J-15 happens to be behind a catapult. What the photos don't show us is every other moment of every other day where tests of J-15A with the catapults likely occurred, but which we do not have photos of it.
After all, remember that the catapult competition is rumoured to have been finished, meaning both likely would've been tested with J-15A and possibly even the UAV and of course test sleds many, many times. In other words, it is very likely if not virtually assured that there are dozens if not hundreds of instances and "photos" of J-15A/UAV/test sleds attached to the catapult or behind each catapult and launched, but which the satellite did not pick up because we do not have 24/7 coverage of the Huangdicun facility.
So remember that just because we have photos of something, does not mean that it is the "maximum" of something, but rather it is the "minimum" of something.
I've noticed this with your "production rate" discussion in the other thread a week or so ago as well, where you talked about the lack of photos of production aircraft from various SAC, CAC etc -- but the problem is that photos do not show us a "maximum" of a number of aircraft which have been produced but rather it is only a "minimum" and there are likely many events such as newly produced aircraft which we do not have photos of.
Similarly, for the catapults, we literally only have three or four satellite photos of the huangdicun catapults over the last year or so, of which only two or so show pictures of J-15 near the catapults -- but that doesn't mean that J-15 was only near the catapults twice over the last year, it just means that we happened to get photos of it at that time by the satellite passing overhead. It does not tell us what happened there at every other moment over the past year that the satellite was not over the facility.
Yes I know that this only proves "a J-15 was standing behind the left catapult track in October '16 and behind the right track in March '17", but given the reports, that these tests at least from one of them were already done it is highly likely - at least not impossible - that they are now testing them in comparison. They surely can move the J-15 also only behind that track in order to fool us ... also possible.
Concerning which catapult is which one I also agree with You but from what I read I tend to say, the left one is steam and the right one EM:
But as always, I'm eager to learn and if You have other arguments for the other/reverse designation I more than willing for more....
Concerning which catapult is which one I also agree with You but from what I read I tend to say, the left one is steam and the right one EM:
But as always, I'm eager to learn and if You have other arguments for the other/reverse designation I more than willing for more....
Deino, what I'm saying is that the satellite photos of J-15s behind the catapults tell us nothing about whether they were tested on the catapult or not, and they tell us nothing about how many tests were done.
Remember, the information from fzgfzy says that the catapult competition had already concluded and that the EM cat was considered superior. More importantly, the construction of both catapults were visually completed about a year or so ago, which likely meant both would have been ready for the competition.
In other words, my belief is that the pictures are essentially useless if we are trying to judge how the catapult competition and aircraft+catapult testing have been, because for all we know there has been zero launches, or there could have been thousands of launches, between when the catapults were completed up to now, but that the satellites just happened to catch a few instances where the aircraft was near the catapults!
I have no opinion as to which one may be EM catapult and which one is steam catapult, however I do strongly believe that with the information we have, both the EM catapult and the steam catapult have likely undergone substantial number of launches with aircraft over the last year or so for the catapult competition to have been concluded by the Navy.
With the latest information about a "new" J-15 variant with AESA strongly suggested/virtually confirmed, I'd like to consider the designation of the various aircraft.
Previously, we had various designations of J-15s:
-J-15: baseline STOBAR J-15 with J-11B level avionics and basic multirole capabilities, currently in production
-"J-15A" or "J-15T": CATOBAR J-15 variant with modifications for catapult compatibility launch, avionics unknown
-"J-15D": supposed J-15 EW variant, photo yet to be released but maiden flight rumoured to have occurred last year.
Now, with the latest info, and including huitong's latest update to his J-15 entry: "The latest rumor (April 2017) suggested that the production of J-15 will end after 3 batches of 24 units for the Type 001 aircraft carrier. It is expected to be followed by the improved J-15B (?) which will feature a new AESA radar developed by the 607 Institute."
I want to propose a reorientation of J-15 designation:
-J-15: prototypes J-15s
-"J-15A:" current STOBAR J-11B level in production J-15s (similar to J-10A; that is, the first production variant of J-15)
-"J-15B": CATOBAR J-15 variant with modifications for catapult compatibility launch, as well as with AESA and likely additional improved avionics
-"J-15D": same as above
I think such a variant designation makes some sense, especially for "J-15A" referring to the first production variant of J-15.
However what we do not yet know is whether "J-15B"/"J-15T"/"J-15A (old)" will have AESA or not to confirm whether it is actually the J-15 variant that the recent news about a J-15 with AESA is talking about, or whether that recent news might have been talking about some other new variant of J-15 instead "after" the current CATOBAR variant of J-15.
Personally I think it would make a lot of sense for the CATOBAR variant of J-15 to be developed straight up with a full suite of enhanced avionics such as AESA radar and others, instead of developing a CATOBAR variant of the J-15A/current production J-15, and then developing another further variant of the CATOBAR J-15 with AESA and improved avionics... however things don't always turn out as optimally as we would like because of various factors.
What are people's thoughts on this proposal?
Previously, we had various designations of J-15s:
-J-15: baseline STOBAR J-15 with J-11B level avionics and basic multirole capabilities, currently in production
-"J-15A" or "J-15T": CATOBAR J-15 variant with modifications for catapult compatibility launch, avionics unknown
-"J-15D": supposed J-15 EW variant, photo yet to be released but maiden flight rumoured to have occurred last year.
Now, with the latest info, and including huitong's latest update to his J-15 entry: "The latest rumor (April 2017) suggested that the production of J-15 will end after 3 batches of 24 units for the Type 001 aircraft carrier. It is expected to be followed by the improved J-15B (?) which will feature a new AESA radar developed by the 607 Institute."
I want to propose a reorientation of J-15 designation:
-J-15: prototypes J-15s
-"J-15A:" current STOBAR J-11B level in production J-15s (similar to J-10A; that is, the first production variant of J-15)
-"J-15B": CATOBAR J-15 variant with modifications for catapult compatibility launch, as well as with AESA and likely additional improved avionics
-"J-15D": same as above
I think such a variant designation makes some sense, especially for "J-15A" referring to the first production variant of J-15.
However what we do not yet know is whether "J-15B"/"J-15T"/"J-15A (old)" will have AESA or not to confirm whether it is actually the J-15 variant that the recent news about a J-15 with AESA is talking about, or whether that recent news might have been talking about some other new variant of J-15 instead "after" the current CATOBAR variant of J-15.
Personally I think it would make a lot of sense for the CATOBAR variant of J-15 to be developed straight up with a full suite of enhanced avionics such as AESA radar and others, instead of developing a CATOBAR variant of the J-15A/current production J-15, and then developing another further variant of the CATOBAR J-15 with AESA and improved avionics... however things don't always turn out as optimally as we would like because of various factors.
What are people's thoughts on this proposal?
The first production J-10s were just J-10s, not J-10As. The J-10A upgrade introduced PL-12 ARH capability to the J-10s, which employed SARH PL-11s until then. IIRC, Deino's table of J-10 production showed the first couple of batches being J-10s, then J-10As, then Bs and Cs.
Well that is news to me, but if that is the case then it throws my idea out of kilter slightly.
However, we do currently call the first batch of J-20s under production right now and being delivered to the air force as "J-20A" as well, do we not?
I suppose in that case, "J-15A" could potentially refer to a J-15 CATOBAR variant using current J-15 level avionics, while "J-15B" refers to a J-15 CATOBAR variant using aesa and improved avionics, though I feel like such a span of development would be rather sluggish even for SAC, especially considering all recent Flanker variants should be AESA equipped (J-16, J-11D despite being cancelled, J-16D etc)