J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by siegecrossbow, Sep 4, 2017.

  1. jobjed
    Online

    jobjed Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,094
    Likes Received:
    5,581
    Oh, 78278. Another aircraft for your gallery, then.
     
    FishWings and Air Force Brat like this.
  2. Deino
    Offline

    Deino Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    9,275
    Likes Received:
    22,928
  3. A.Man
    Offline

    A.Man Major

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    3,224
    Likes Received:
    4,871
    Oh, my head was flying....

    Should be: 78273-61X1X=17263 17X6X--->176th Brigade XX2X3--->23rd plane of the Brigade
     
    Deino likes this.
  4. Totoro
    Offline

    Totoro Captain
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    Since 176th is test and training brigade and since it has both j16 and j20, it's hard to tell from the "23" figure just how many of those are j20 and how many are j16. Would a 12+12 be a sensible supposition?
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  5. Inst
    Offline

    Inst Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,136
    Likes Received:
    568
    About the underlying claim, it is possible that Chinese AESA development is as problematic as engine technology; i.e, the Chinese have the AESA technology, but have been at pains to make it work reliably. For instance, the Yankeesama claimed that the peolpe who examined the Su-35 noted that the Su-35 PESA was capable of using narrow beam to extend range far beyond 300 km. This should be a basic capability of any ESA; i.e, the ability to form narrow beams to enable tracking at longer ranges than search.
     
  6. Tirdent
    Offline

    Tirdent Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2017
    Messages:
    341
    Likes Received:
    483
    I agree that claims according to which there are no operational AESAs on PLAAF fighters (notably J-10C and J-16) don't stand up to scrutiny, but I wouldn't necessarily dismiss reports of a certain level of Russian input. You don't need to have a fighter AESA (let alone a lower-band naval AESA, the manufacturing requirements for which are significantly different*) in production to know how to develop various aspects of one. Think cooling system or ECCM signal processing algorithms. Even design of the MMICs - some of the most successful chip design companies don't have their own manufacturing capability at all (ARM, for one), they merely license their design to the customer who then commissions a dedicated foundry like TSMC to mass-produce it. Consider also the substantial influence of Russian émigrés on Intel's Pentium processor architecture - industry in Russia had no hope of actually executing such a design, yet they knew just fine what a world-beating CPU *should* be like.

    * Even so, the first Admiral Gorshkov frigate with its AESA radar was transferred to the Northern Fleet and formally commissioned last year, the second is likely to follow soon. Better yet, I suspect a number of Russian fixed-site ABM radars (notably the Don-2N battle management radar outside Moscow) have been AESAs for decades. So is (for a non-Russian example) EriEye which was introduced in the mid-1990s.
     
    Air Force Brat, ougoah and Brumby like this.
  7. plawolf
    Offline

    plawolf Brigadier

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,979
    Likes Received:
    11,769
    Let’s make one thing clear, Russian input does not equal Russian involvement or assistance.

    China could well be engaging Russian experts, but such input could very likely be for consultations and evaluation only, much like the Su35 buy.

    If Russia is willing to share their more advanced technologies with China, China would be foolish to not at least take a close look and evaluate it.

    However, just because China has taken a good look at what the Russians have to offer, and heard out what their experts have to say, it does not necessarily mean the Chinese are having any technical difficulties with their own work, or found anything of value from the Russian input to be worth incorporating into their own assets.
     
  8. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Lieutenant General

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    14,434
    From what I understood, yankeesama was saying that the 300km range touted for the radar was "only" a available for narrow beams.

    I.e. that they were unimpressed because the 300km number was only useful in certain conditions and a reflection of the marketing for the radar
     
  9. Gloire_bb
    Offline

    Gloire_bb Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    617
    It's more about tactical concepts than anything else.
    Narrow scan with the maximum output is a crucial a2a mode for Soviet and Russian fighters for half a century(i.e. since the early 70s).
     
  10. plawolf
    Offline

    plawolf Brigadier

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,979
    Likes Received:
    11,769
    You get more range with a tight beam than with wide beam.

    The Chinese are not passing judgement on Russian fighter doctrine, just unimpressed their advertised max range could only be achieve thus.
     
    taxiya, Yodello, N00813 and 2 others like this.
Loading...

Share This Page