*New J-10 Thread*

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Please note the J-8I is not the first Chinese designed indigenous fighter that ever flew or even attacined supersonic speed. The honor belongs to the original J-12, which is day only fighter built from a single Wopen-6 engine from the J-6, which uses two.

I know;)

The differences between the J-7 and the late model J-8s are still so different that it should earn it's own generation. J-8II is a third generation plane by western standarts (at least almoust) but J-7 isen't...
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Su-35 and Su-30 not that much of a difference really, especially in close combat.

It is understandable how the J-10 can have a few advantages.

Canards do have an advantage in close in fights, but the result does not change with the Su-35 which has canards on its own, as you can see against the Rafale and Typhoon.

Size does matter a lot, in close combat, he who sees the other first has won half the battle. Big planes are clearly in a disadvantage against small planes. Dark grey paint job on PLAAF Flankers don't help a bit, while light blue grey on the J-10s are almost perfect against the sky.

Slotted array radar on J-10s may have superior aperture (azimuth and elevation) against the radars on the Flankers. I'm not talking about the range, but the field of view, which is extremely important in close range fighting. Mechanically scanning slotted array radars are very difficult to beat when it comes to FOV, even against PESAs and AESAs. These radars can nearly gimbal for ninety degrees.

Quality of RWR. There is some that say the J-10's is better but the degree of better I don't believe to be that far. The Pastel RWR on the MKKs are pretty good, and the Beryoza RWR on the Su-27SKs/J-11s is still more than good enough to deal with any modern radar except for those with LPI.

At 31 degrees instantaneous turn rate, that certainly exceeds the Su-27 at 28 degrees and the MiG-29 at 26 degrees. That's right up there with the Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale, all canarded planes. The 300 degrees roll rate per second is right there with the F-16 and the MiG-21, the two fastest rolling aircraft you see today. I expect the J-10 to roll faster than a Flanker, by the virtue that a single engined fighter will roll faster than a fighter with seperated twin engines. This has to do with the concentration of spinning mass in the plane's bore line.

I don't believe missiles play any part in this, as the wargames may be radar locking or gun/missile camera contests. I'm surprised that IRST and HMS dont play much of a factor in this; many of the J-10 pilots are not flying with HMS, though a J-10 test pilot has been shown to have HMS attachments on his helmet.

J-10 pilots may be highly experienced Flanker pilots by themselves. They would know all the ins and outs of their former steeds. Those flying the Flankers are already in an informational disadvantage. The ones on the 44th Division may have come from a J-7 background, but the J-10 pilots on the 3rd Division may have been those that once flew the MKKs which are still assigned in that division.
I think we shouldn't put much emphasis in that study. This was conducted at a time when su-35 capability was really unknown. Even now, it's still an unknown, because it's not really out yet. I would think that with the changes they made in su-35bm, it should be quite a bit more maneuverable than su-30mkk. Although if the latter gets the more advanced AL-31FM1 engine, it would close the gap. The difference is obviously in the radar and avionics. In addition, there is a difference between the AA-12 the Russians use and the export R-77 AAM. So I do believe in quite a capability difference between su-30 and su-35.

It's interesting that you mentionned the RWR, because they were saying that RWR and EW suite are two areas that gave J-10 the advantage of su-30mkk. If you think about the avionics suite for JF-17, especially with the MAW. Chinese planes probably can detect the Russian missiles the best, because they have used Russian missiles for so long. They would be able to pick up on the seeker of R-77 more easily than the seeker of AMRAAM for example.

Also, I'm quite surprised that none of the J-10 pilots had HMS on in the video. Maybe it's just the exercise that they doing? It's hard to imagine in combat situation, they would not have HMS on the helmet.
 

araz

New Member
Re: J-10 database: prototypes, pre-serial & serial machines ...

hehe ... I was just playing around again as crobato posted this one picture of a J-10 carrying the number 50150 ... maybe from the 130th Regiment/44th Fighter division I decided to change the numbers from the 131st Regiment to 51252 !!

Cheers, Deino :rofl:

The only thing that I dont like about the J10 is the space above its air inlet.I dont know what purpose it serves and is it not a source of resistance. I am a aviation novice so do not know the significance of it. Would not a DSI like arrangement be better at diverting air into the inlet. Thanks in advance for a response
Araz
 

mehdi

Junior Member
Hey I just found this photo. It's a CG but wow it looks so sexy.:china:
 
Last edited:

challenge

Banned Idiot
I think we shouldn't put much emphasis in that study. This was conducted at a time when su-35 capability was really unknown. Even now, it's still an unknown, because it's not really out yet. I would think that with the changes they made in su-35bm, it should be quite a bit more maneuverable than su-30mkk. Although if the latter gets the more advanced AL-31FM1 engine, it would close the gap. The difference is obviously in the radar and avionics. In addition, there is a difference between the AA-12 the Russians use and the export R-77 AAM. So I do believe in quite a capability difference between su-30 and su-35.

It's interesting that you mentionned the RWR, because they were saying that RWR and EW suite are two areas that gave J-10 the advantage of su-30mkk. If you think about the avionics suite for JF-17, especially with the MAW. Chinese planes probably can detect the Russian missiles the best, because they have used Russian missiles for so long. They would be able to pick up on the seeker of R-77 more easily than the seeker of AMRAAM for example.

Also, I'm quite surprised that none of the J-10 pilots had HMS on in the video. Maybe it's just the exercise that they doing? It's hard to imagine in combat situation, they would not have HMS on the helmet.

aesa RF signal uses low power wide spectrum frequency,that can not be pick up by conventional RWR.
to date the most advance mechanical radar (by air international) was Castor radar carry by EF-2000.able to performed high resolution SAR mapping and air to air search and track simultaneosly. the radar is even more advance than APG-65 and Russian PESA base radar.
 

Chengdu J-10

Junior Member
Re: J-10 database: prototypes, pre-serial & serial machines ...

The only thing that I dont like about the J10 is the space above its air inlet.I dont know what purpose it serves and is it not a source of resistance. I am a aviation novice so do not know the significance of it. Would not a DSI like arrangement be better at diverting air into the inlet. Thanks in advance for a response
Araz
This was answered earlier on in this thread.
As Crobato mentioned:
It serves an aerodynamic purpose. Rather than have air pressure build up between the intake plate and the bottom of that fuselage, it is allowed to leak sideways. The struts are there to break that incoming airflow.

Note the red parts near on "top" of the inlet. These are actually covering some bypass openings near the intake. If the diverter plate is fully up, it opens those holes, allowing the air to bleed through them, and reduce pressure build up inside the intake.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
I know;)

The differences between the J-7 and the late model J-8s are still so different that it should earn it's own generation. J-8II is a third generation plane by western standarts (at least almoust) but J-7 isen't...


Not really. The direct technological equivalent even exists. Comparing a J-7 to a J-8II is like comparing the first generation MiG-21F to the third or fourth generation MiG-21MF and MiG-21bis.

The MiG-21 qualifies as a third generation plane in Western standards as it satisfies the main criteria. One of this is the move to the low aspect delta wing away from the high aspect sweep wings that dominated the fighters of the previous generation. All 3rd generation fighters are characterized by low aspect wings, designed to maximize speed performance.

The second is the motivation of design. Starting the sixties, the predominant doctrine is supersonic interception. You can see that every fighter from the MiG-21 to the F-4 Phantom had this as one of the most important roles for a fighter.

The third is that it uses the third generation of turbojet designs. R-11 Tumansky is in the same level as the Atar or J-79, and away from the engines that powered F-86s or even MiG-19s.


Suffice to say the changes between the J-8II and the J-7 or MiG-21 is more evolutionary than generational.

Look at what distinguishes fighters of the fourth generation.

Aerodynamic design: LERXes and canards intended to generate vortices for high angles of attack.

Doctrine: Subsonic maneuverability over supersonic interception.

Engine: Low bypass turbofans over turbojets.

Other characteristics: Following of Col. John Boyd's EM theories; Fly by wire controls; introduction of composite use; angled or lower engine intakes to allow more air to enter into turns.

You can see that the J-8II, even in its most modernized form, do not conform to all the criteria and simply do not have the mentioned technologies that satisfy the criteria for a generational leap.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
I think we shouldn't put much emphasis in that study. This was conducted at a time when su-35 capability was really unknown. Even now, it's still an unknown, because it's not really out yet. I would think that with the changes they made in su-35bm, it should be quite a bit more maneuverable than su-30mkk. Although if the latter gets the more advanced AL-31FM1 engine, it would close the gap. The difference is obviously in the radar and avionics. In addition, there is a difference between the AA-12 the Russians use and the export R-77 AAM. So I do believe in quite a capability difference between su-30 and su-35.

It's interesting that you mentionned the RWR, because they were saying that RWR and EW suite are two areas that gave J-10 the advantage of su-30mkk. If you think about the avionics suite for JF-17, especially with the MAW. Chinese planes probably can detect the Russian missiles the best, because they have used Russian missiles for so long. They would be able to pick up on the seeker of R-77 more easily than the seeker of AMRAAM for example.

Also, I'm quite surprised that none of the J-10 pilots had HMS on in the video. Maybe it's just the exercise that they doing? It's hard to imagine in combat situation, they would not have HMS on the helmet.


Should not be hard to pick up the signals of any ARH missile, regardless whether it is AMRAAM or R-77. There are certain bands that are most ideal for the purpose of a guidance missle, and you can always design an RWR to cover all these bandwidths.

Frankly a missle seeker that has a higher terminal seeker range and greater resistance to ECM or jamming is also likely to have a stronger emitter for the obvious reasons, which also makes it easier to detect. And besides, missle radar seekers work on the CWI or Continious Wave Illumination principle. Wont' be hard to catch as its quite different from the pulse repetition patterns used by pulse dopplers.

In wargames, missiles are simulated, so they're not real. You won't have RWRs toning because an ARH missile is nearby. Most likely, in a mock fight, fighters are trying to lock on to each other via their radars, then get a snapshot from the gun camera or a camera within a training or dummy missile. So this can be as a result of the radar within the J-10 to be just better than used in any of the PLAAF Su-27s or Su-30s, and that won't be surprising.

The easiest way to beating EW is to overpower the jamming signal with the sheer strength of your radar beam. This means among other things, your emitter is simply more powerful. But bigger radars tend to have more powerful emitters and that should be the Flanker's advantage. But there are other factors too, one being having a more focused, better "shaped" mainlobe beam with less radar energy wasted on sidelobes. One of the main advantages, which even now isn't really beat by AESA or PESA, is that slotted arrays have pretty low sidelobs over older designs, plus the fact that the servos behind the antenna gives the radar a much greater gimballing flexibility.

Actually ESA type radars have a way of losing signal strength as the lobe scans to the side, mainly because more energy is used by phase shifters in order to shift the beam to the side. Something that MSA designs does not use.

So it would be interesting once the J-11B powers up, because I expect the radar to be bigger, more powerful version of the radar used on the J-10.

Also it is not encouraging to the PLAAF to say the least if their Flankers are up against opponents with better radar and EW suites. Read: ROCAF Mirage 2000-5s.
 
Last edited:

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
To Crobato:

The "Seccond generation" in common western practice is the "starfighter generation" which covered the first radar/AAM supersonic fighters like the MiG-21, Mirage III, F-104 Starfighter and J35 Draken. Third generation is described as the "phantom generation" which was clearly the next step from these (but not as big step as the on between third and fourth). Planes included to the third generation are F-4 Phantom, Mirage F1, MiG-23 and J37 Viggen and ofcourse J8II.
The differences between various generations cannot to be determine just blindly focusing on some design features without thier context. For example Mirage III and Mirage F1 features alot of similar aerodynamical features and even the same genration engine but are still considered to belong to different generation. Draken had 1st gen. Engine (Avon from Hunters) but was still the best 2nd generation fighter ever existed.

Altough J8II may be one of the lesser third generation planes, it still is a third generation and there is clear and logical step in chinese aviation industry when it moveed from direct copies to somewhat indegenious design. All factors favours that J-8 and J-7 belongs to different generation.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
a new J-10 article from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

歼-10战机试飞过程揭秘 海军型研制全面推进

2007-01-04 文章来源: 南方周末

01样机从零诞生

歼-10自研制起就雄心勃勃,也因此备受关注——比如,它一开始就锁定当时最盛行的“鸭式”气动布局。作为国产第三代战斗机,它的任务是赶超世界先进水平。

1980年代初,航空工业重新制定了“更新一代、研制一代、预研一代”的发展方针,即用较先进的歼-7、歼-8 替代部分老式战机;研制歼-7、歼-8的后继改进型;以米格-29、苏-27为主要作战目标,预研能够满足2000年前后作战需要的先进战斗机。

中国一航直属的成都飞机工业(集团)公司原副总经理许德介绍,1982年,时任中央军委主席的邓小平听了邹家华(时任国防科工委副主任)汇报后,提出要搞一个新的具有自主知识产权的飞机,投资5个亿。

研制任务交给成都飞机设计研究所(也称611所)。

1986年1月,国务院、中央军委联合下发文件,批准歼-10立项研制,代号为十号工程——“当时定位F16 ,差距很大。”许德说。

在当时国内一些专家看来追赶F16“望尘莫及”。当时中国最先进的歼-8战机,也只是二代机,而先进的第三代战机美国的F15、F16和苏联米格-29,已经开始装备并应用实战。

时年56岁的宋文骢领衔担任歼-10总设计师,他此前曾担纲设计歼-7C,名义上是国产,不过技术仍是仿制苏联的米格-21战机。

经过在全空军范围内反复筛选,24人进入试飞员的考核。

第一次上课,飞行员们全都目瞪口呆。“这样的飞机从来没见过!”歼-10全部使用计算机操纵,这对早已习惯第一二代飞机拉杆、蹬舵的飞行员来说,是一个全新的领域。

在歼-10的设计中,中国首次采用现代飞机设计理念,把人和系统放到一起进行研究,以达到人机一体。“以前都是飞行员适应飞机,现在设计理念变了,设计更人性化,飞行员一进座舱,没有不舒服的地方。”试飞员雷强说。

1993年,雷强等5人脱颖而出,被确定为“首席试飞员小组”成员——这也是与国际接轨。这一年,品质模拟试验台建成,上面的模拟器操作逻辑、灯光照明和座舱内所有设备都跟真飞机完全一样,试飞员还可以演练不同气象条件、不同特情的飞行状态。

从第二代机械传动战机,到第三代数字电传飞机,跨越非常大。从气动外形布局,到数字式电传飞控系统,从综合化航电系统,到计算机辅助设计,歼-10完全“脱胎换骨”,仅新成品率高达60%。

一切从零开始

试飞员成为飞机研制的重要参与者。仅就新型战机的座舱、起落架等方面改进,他们就提出近千条建议。不仅如此,他们还直接参与设计,飞机的手柄、油门杆等,都是他们用橡皮泥一点一点捏出来的。

设计人员没有空中感觉,只能依靠飞行员反馈信息,反复改动,不断完善。

1997年11月,歼-1001架样机,终于停在起跑线上。雷强被确定为首飞飞行员。

“这才叫真正的战斗机!”

1998年3月23日,歼-1001样机首飞。

成都军区温江机场,人头攒动。停机坪上,一架黄色涂装、具有鸭式结构布局的新型战机悄然站立——它就是歼-10 。

一二代战机属于静安定飞机,第三代战机属于静不安定飞机。

“通俗地讲,静安定,好比一颗钢珠放进碗里,不管怎么滚动,它最后都能找到一个稳定的支撑点;静不安定,则好比把一颗钢珠放到另一颗钢珠上,理论上讲应该有一个点能放得住,实际上总要掉下来。”成飞公司副总工程师苗文中解释。

国外首飞三代飞机,一般都采用加配重的办法,使其变成传统的静安定飞机,待试飞员完全熟练后再改回来。开始,设计人员也想采用国际惯例,但这样一来,周期至少延长半年。

总设计师征求雷强的意见,雷强说:“我们不能跟在人家后头,也等不起。”他天天泡在飞行模拟器上演练,而不仅仅是胆子大。

雷强身穿特制的橘红色飞行服,走向战机。他像喝了酒,满脸通红。陪同他的大队政委抓住他的手,一把脉,150 !雷强默默地爬上悬梯,跨进机舱,一回头,发现为他送行的试飞局局长脸上挂满泪水。

点火、滑出、加速、拉杆,飞机跃出地平线,刺向蓝天。

战机绕着机场飞了三圈后,雷强发现油料还有剩余,就请示再飞一圈。20分钟后,新型战机在空中划过一道弧线,平稳降落在跑道上,整个机场一片沸腾。“这才叫真正的战斗机!”走下飞机的雷强无比兴奋。

首飞仅仅是成功的第一步。试飞员们接下来的工作,是对战机进行反复检验,使设计缺陷逐一得到暴露、修改,为战机定型做准备,也为以后飞行员的操作提供依据。

1999年,何斌斌等第二批四名试飞员进入型号调整试飞,这是更大强度的试飞——只有飞出极限值,新型战机的性能才能得到拓展,战斗力才能得到提升;因为是极限情况,在第三代飞机的研制过程中,国外无一例外都摔过飞机。

何斌斌在一次返航时遇到黄沙袭击,地面风速达到14米/秒,“飞机像喝醉酒的汉子”,摇摇晃晃,方向也跟着往一边倾斜。这时,他把速度加到280公里,用集团法、航向法判断飞机姿态,接地瞬间,“在场的人腿都软了”。何斌斌写了《大侧风飞行方法》,“歼-10的抗侧风性能成倍数增加”。

“低空大表速”试飞,考验飞机结构强度的可靠性和颤振特性。低空大气稠密,飞机速度越快,速压越大,一旦越过临界点就会导致飞机解体。“低空大表速”就是要飞出在飞机不解体的前提下,飞机速度所能达到的最大逼近值。

据统计,国外试飞这个课目解体摔掉的飞机不下50架。俄罗斯第一架苏-27试飞,就发生机毁人亡惨剧。

每次李中华驾机升空,科研人员都会默默地帮他整理飞行装具,满脸悲壮地目送他登上飞机。为了探索极限值,他一点点增加速度。在此过程中,先后出现过前起落架护板发生扭曲变形、机翼前沿的铆钉因为载荷太大而被吸出等问题。“再往下飞会产生什么后果,谁心里都没有底。”l

2003年12月1日,李中华向“低空大表速”极限值发出挑战。他从万米高空以向下25度角度,全加力、超音速状态向下俯冲。随着飞机加速,他感到血往上涌,身体承受的压力越来越大。当速度达到120米/秒时,“就像坠入无底的深渊,被丢在了无边的黑暗寂静世界。”

地面监控室里,当监视器显示飞机速压已超过了9000公斤时,时任中国飞行试验研究院院长的沙长安形容他当时头发一根根都竖了起来。世

油料往发动机里倾泼,大气与机身急剧磨擦产生的刺耳噪音盖过了发动机的轰鸣。李中华咬紧牙关,到距地面不到千米时,他扫视了一下显示屏:速度完全达到并超过了飞机的设计值。他拉起杆,飞机机头瞬间扬起,重新驶入天空。

这一飞,创造了国产飞机在大气层最快飞行速度的纪录——超过了运载“神六”的火箭在大气层中1300公里/小时的速度。

此外,歼-10还实现了空中启动和空中对接加油。

发射空-空导弹

德国一名专家用作战指标来判断飞机:飞机的作战性能与飞机的基本关系成一次方,与机动性能成二次方关系,与航电综合成三次方关系,与配备的武器系统成四次方关系。

空中实弹打靶试验风险性极强,就“像试飞员坐在了火药桶上,如果导弹点火后发射不成功,将对试飞员和飞机构成严重威胁”。空军某飞行大队副大队长梁万俊执行歼-10飞机第一枚导弹发射的试飞任务。

他曾以万米高空空滑迫降惊天一搏的创举,成为央视2004年度“感动中国”十大新闻人物。人们知道他是枭龙战机试飞员,但不知道他也试飞歼-10。

新型战机飞到靶场上空。一颗照明弹倏然发射,在空中变成一团火球。运用先进的机载雷达搜索,梁万俊很快截获并锁定目标,判断时机后按下发射按钮。导弹挟着一股白烟直扑目标,耀眼的火球顿时凌空爆炸,散成点点碎片。

一年之后,我国新型空空导弹研制成功,试飞员徐勇凌负责驾驶新型战机进行靶试。

发射前,试飞员徐勇凌信心百倍。他给试飞总师发短信:“靶试成功,误差5米以内。”然而,事情一开始就不顺利:导弹相继发生引导头问题和信号衰减问题,在通电检查时还把导弹部件烧掉了。经过一番周折才决定进行发射。首发成功,第二枚却脱靶。

2003年12月21日和23日,徐勇凌两次升空,导弹发射成功。25日,剩下最后一枚导弹,目标是我国自行研制的超音速靶机。发射按钮一按,导弹喷吐着长长的火舌,直接钻进靶机尾喷管里,凌空爆炸。

国产第三代战机的定型试飞划上句号。

成飞公司副总工程师苗文中介绍,歼-10试飞一个架次的综合花费是27万元。歼-10飞机定型前一共试飞了3000 多个起落。李中华试飞“大迎角特性测试”课目,原定30个架次的试飞任务,经过优化编排,只用17个架次就完成了任务,为国家节约经费300多万元。

“18岁,参军了”

定型不久,中国第三代新型战机正式装备部队,歼-10双座机、歼-10改进型、海军型正全面推进。

已经74岁的设计师宋文骢院士动情地说:“从1986年的第一张草图,到今天喷上‘八一’军徽,我们的歼-10 18岁了,长大了,参军了,交给部队了……”

2004年11月的一天,西北大漠深处,“新兵”歼-10迎战我国引进的某型先进战机:侧转、爬升、盘旋、俯冲……发现目标,飞行员迅速将其锁定,发射导弹,“敌机”瞬间“灰飞烟灭”。接着,第二轮、第三轮……对抗演练结束,歼-10以10∶1的绝对优势获胜。

2006年12月29日,就在歼-10“揭秘”的这一天,国务院新闻办公室发表《2006年中国的国防》白皮书指出,中国空军着眼于建设一支攻防兼备的信息化空中作战力量,减少作战飞机总量,重点发展新型战斗机、防空反导武器,加强指挥控制系统建设。

歼-10研制成功显然意义非凡。在研制之初,它就被列为国家重大专项国防重点装备,并作为“我空军未来战争夺取空中优势、实施战役突击的战略性武器”。

军方人士称,歼-10已经成为现役我国最先进的主力战斗机,是制敌取胜的“杀手锏”。它实现了中国空军武器装备从数量规模型到质量效益型的跨越,为未来在高科技条件下,夺取制空权,打赢局部战争创造条件。

“歼-10定型后,空军首长说歼-10飞机原则上优于同代国外战机,飞行员反映,原来是坐吉普车,现在是坐上了奔驰。”许德说。

按照“公开一批,研制下批”的原则,有人士预计,中国空军更先进的新一代战机将问世。(王洁清 空军军事代表局干部)

(记者 苏永通)


This is from CDF. Now, I highlighted the most important part there, it basically stated that J-10 beat an advanced and imported fighter (so either 27 or mkk) 10:1 in the large military exercise in North West.

Should not be hard to pick up the signals of any ARH missile, regardless whether it is AMRAAM or R-77. There are certain bands that are most ideal for the purpose of a guidance missle, and you can always design an RWR to cover all these bandwidths.

Frankly a missle seeker that has a higher terminal seeker range and greater resistance to ECM or jamming is also likely to have a stronger emitter for the obvious reasons, which also makes it easier to detect. And besides, missle radar seekers work on the CWI or Continious Wave Illumination principle. Wont' be hard to catch as its quite different from the pulse repetition patterns used by pulse dopplers.
my point is that R-77 seeker is a well known one, whereas PL-12 was not available when su-27 was developed, so J-10's RWR would be able to pick it up at a greater distance.
In wargames, missiles are simulated, so they're not real. You won't have RWRs toning because an ARH missile is nearby. Most likely, in a mock fight, fighters are trying to lock on to each other via their radars, then get a snapshot from the gun camera or a camera within a training or dummy missile. So this can be as a result of the radar within the J-10 to be just better than used in any of the PLAAF Su-27s or Su-30s, and that won't be surprising.
not sure about what were simulated exactly, but according to some of the people on Chinese forums, RWR and EW suite is one huge advantage for J-10.
The easiest way to beating EW is to overpower the jamming signal with the sheer strength of your radar beam. This means among other things, your emitter is simply more powerful. But bigger radars tend to have more powerful emitters and that should be the Flanker's advantage. But there are other factors too, one being having a more focused, better "shaped" mainlobe beam with less radar energy wasted on sidelobes. One of the main advantages, which even now isn't really beat by AESA or PESA, is that slotted arrays have pretty low sidelobs over older designs, plus the fact that the servos behind the antenna gives the radar a much greater gimballing flexibility.

Actually ESA type radars have a way of losing signal strength as the lobe scans to the side, mainly because more energy is used by phase shifters in order to shift the beam to the side. Something that MSA designs does not use.
that's obviously an advantage to large fighters in general in BVR, but considering that J-10's radar is more advanced than that of mkk, it could very well be much more powerful. For example, APG-77 is far more powerful than Bars.
So it would be interesting once the J-11B powers up, because I expect the radar to be bigger, more powerful version of the radar used on the J-10.

Also it is not encouraging to the PLAAF to say the least if their Flankers are up against opponents with better radar and EW suites. Read: ROCAF Mirage 2000-5s.
I think su-27 would be in real trouble against ROCAF Mirage 2K5.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top