PLA Air Force news, pics and videos

mys_721tx

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hmm, the J-16 is in service, J-15D + J-16D in testing, Sharp Sword already completed development, FC-31 to become the next-gen naval design, Divine Eagle in testing, JH-XX possibly under development as well. So why is this OP disappointed?

View attachment 46551
38yH75L.png

Figure 1 is a technology demonstrator and has not became a official project. Figure 2, 4, and 7 are development prototypes; the user has yet to approve further development. Figure 3 has just became a official project, still far from entering service. Figure 6 has completed development and its quality convinced the user to lower the purchase amount. Figure 8 is in pre-research. The situation about Figure 9 is unclear.

Assuming the figure numbers are from left to right, then top to bottom. According to OP, the quality of J-16 is making Air Force to negotiate a lower purchase amount. That sounds ominous.

EDIT: It could be read as that J-16 is so effective, the Air Force does not need that many. But considering the overall tone of the post, I have my doubts.
 
Last edited:

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Assuming the figure numbers are from left to right, then top to bottom. According to OP, the quality of J-16 is making Air Force to negotiate a lower purchase amount. That sounds ominous.

EDIT: It could be read as that J-16 is so effective, the Air Force does not need that many. But considering the overall tone of the post, I have my doubts.

According to OP, the J-16's radar has trouble distinguishing naval clutter from targets, thus requiring a forward-observer to mark & spot the target before the J-16 can engage it with guided weapons.

If this is true, Shenyang needs a massive purge of its leadership and of whoever thought it would be okay to screw with the backbone of the PLAAF's strike fighter fleet.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
According to OP, the J-16's radar has trouble distinguishing naval clutter from targets, thus requiring a forward-observer to mark & spot the target before the J-16 can engage it with guided weapons.

If this is true, Shenyang needs a massive purge of its leadership and of whoever thought it would be okay to screw with the backbone of the PLAAF's strike fighter fleet.

That would indeed be crazy if true. An attack aircraft that can't designate nor self distinguish between clutter and target is essentially a paper weight.
 

Jiang ZeminFanboy

Senior Member
Registered Member
I believe it could be true in the beginning, thus the long wait since the start of the development and batch 1 and the rumors about problems with AESA radars, right now It should be ok.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
According to OP, the J-16's radar has trouble distinguishing naval clutter from targets, thus requiring a forward-observer to mark & spot the target before the J-16 can engage it with guided weapons.

If this is true, Shenyang needs a massive purge of its leadership and of whoever thought it would be okay to screw with the backbone of the PLAAF's strike fighter fleet.
One big reason to be suspicious. SAC isn’t directly responsible for the radar. That system is handled and developed by a different institute. Also, that rumour sounds a lot like the old story of the J-16’s inital radar being inadequate, which caused the original delay. It seems unlikely to me that the PLA would have proceeded with mass production if the radar was still unsatisfactory, or would have missed or permitted this sort of problem if they were already stringent enough on their requirements to reject production based on radar performance. It also seems unlikely, if these problems are real, that the PLAAF would revise down their purchases based solely on the radar when the radar is modular and these sorts of issues can usually be resolved with updates.

Call me a delusional conspiracy theorist, but a lot of these recent “leaks” about SAC sound like they’re different parts of a coordinated smear campaign. This is shot in the dark speculation on my part, but I wonder if all this noise, real or not, about SAC’s competence is a PR effort to influence decisions over the naval fighter tender.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
One big reason to be suspicious. SAC isn’t directly responsible for the radar. That system is handled and developed by a different institute. Also, that rumour sounds a lot like the old story of the J-16’s inital radar being inadequate, which caused the original delay. It seems unlikely to me that the PLA would have proceeded with mass production if the radar was still unsatisfactory, or would have missed or permitted this sort of problem if they were already stringent enough on their requirements to reject production based on radar performance. It also seems unlikely, if these problems are real, that the PLAAF would revise down their purchases based solely on the radar when the radar is modular and these sorts of issues can usually be resolved with updates.

Call me a delusional conspiracy theorist, but a lot of these recent “leaks” about SAC sound like they’re different parts of a coordinated smear campaign. This is shot in the dark speculation on my part, but I wonder if all this noise, real or not, about SAC’s competence is a PR effort to influence decisions over the naval fighter tender.

There has always been a smear campaign against SAC ever since the J-20 made its first flight; this was worsened by the fact that the FC-31 took four years to evolve into v2.0 and that SAC's fighters were mainly Flanker derivatives. However, it's quite apparent that military folks & industry personnel are quite supportive of the FC-31 and don't really conform to popular opinion just for the sake of being "politically correct".
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
According to OP, the J-16's radar has trouble distinguishing naval clutter from targets, thus requiring a forward-observer to mark & spot the target before the J-16 can engage it with guided weapons.

If this is true, Shenyang needs a massive purge of its leadership and of whoever thought it would be okay to screw with the backbone of the PLAAF's strike fighter fleet.

Pb19980515 has just refuted this rumor and also added that there are hundreds of J-16 radars on order. He lightheartedly said that whoever started the rumor must have been in a "dark state".
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
According to OP, the J-16's radar has trouble distinguishing naval clutter from targets, thus requiring a forward-observer to mark & spot the target before the J-16 can engage it with guided weapons.

If this is true, Shenyang needs a massive purge of its leadership and of whoever thought it would be okay to screw with the backbone of the PLAAF's strike fighter fleet.

First, Shenyang is not responsible for the fighter's radar.

Second, fighter radar will always have problems distinguishing all echoes from the ground. Distinguishing non moving targets from another is not a radar's job. Radar distinguishes only between moving and non moving objects through Doppler effect. That's why ground attack aircraft uses FLIR to "see" targets, hence the second crewman and using a FLIR pod, and land attack missiles also use optical and IR recognition as opposed to radar for targeting, with the second crewman controlling the missile.

Third, you do not use your radar to find targets for air defense suppression. You should not use your radar at all, since it gives you away. Instead, SEAD aircraft are passive, they find the target radars via the target radar's own emissions. They use radar warning receivers to locate the enemy radar's position, through the enemy radar's signals. The missiles they fire home in on the target radar's own emissions.

Fourth, radars for naval aviation are different from land based aviation because naval aviation radars take account of surface water scatter effect. The J-16 is not a naval jet. When the time comes for the J-15D/J-17 whatever you want to call it, the fighter radar would have to be modified to account for surface water scatter.

Fifth. Littoral is the most difficult environment for radar due to having numerous radar targets, including rocks on the water, sea bed, all sorts of boats and ships, islands. Even antiship missiles have problems locking in on targets on this environment. Hence whey antiship missiles specializing on the littoral environment is better using FLIR, thermals, and optics.

Sixth. Modern warships are getting stealthier and stealthier. Whatever they cannot cover with stealth, they make it up with ECM. You used to be able to rely on a massive radar reflection to distinguish a ship. Nowadays that is increasingly gone. You distinguish a ship's radar reflection from surface or rock scatter by the fact that the ship's radar reflection will have a Doppler effect. The faster the vessel is going, the better so long its not in a beam or perpendicular direction. Head on is best. You can also find the ship via its own emitted signals from its radars.
 

by78

General
Hmm, the J-16 is in service, J-15D + J-16D in testing, Sharp Sword already completed development, FC-31 to become the next-gen naval design, Divine Eagle in testing, JH-XX possibly under development as well. So why is this OP disappointed?

View attachment 46551
38yH75L.png

@angadow is a mere military enthusiast who has no connection to the Chinese military that I know of. For the love of God, could you stop indiscriminately transmitting rumors without making an attempt at filtering them?
 
Top