You are underrepresenting the scale of the radar modernization in the USAF. The F-15's that will get the AESA upgrade are the ones that are expected to have useful service lives in the short and medium term, and that's both F-15C's as well as F-15E's. The ones that don't are going to be phased out as the F-35A comes on line in the next few years. Same for the F-16. And regarding the SABR AESA, I haven't read anywhere that the USAF has decided not to "go for it". In fact I'm not sure the USAF has said anything either way so far. Do you have a source for your claim? The B-2 is being retrofitted with AESA's. The F-18C/D's are the ones that will be phased out by the F-35C, so it makes sense not to upgrade their radars, but it's interesting that the F-18E/F's that don't have AESA's WILL be getting them. Of course now we are talking about the USN, but the same general principle applies. Non-5th generation fighters are either getting phased out altogether or getting AESA upgrades. In the face of the ubiquitous AEW planes in the USAF and USN, the fighter radar is certainly not being deemphasized.
China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
You are underrepresenting the scale of the radar modernization in the USAF. The F-15's that will get the AESA upgrade are the ones that are expected to have useful service lives in the short and medium term, and that's both F-15C's as well as F-15E's. The ones that don't are going to be phased out as the F-35A comes on line in the next few years. Same for the F-16. And regarding the SABR AESA, I haven't read anywhere that the USAF has decided not to "go for it". In fact I'm not sure the USAF has said anything either way so far. Do you have a source for your claim? The B-2 is being retrofitted with AESA's. The F-18C/D's are the ones that will be phased out by the F-35C, so it makes sense not to upgrade their radars, but it's interesting that the F-18E/F's that don't have AESA's WILL be getting them. Of course now we are talking about the USN, but the same general principle applies. Non-5th generation fighters are either getting phased out altogether or getting AESA upgrades. In the face of the ubiquitous AEW planes in the USAF and USN, the fighter radar is certainly not being deemphasized.
Zahid
Junior Member
From what you have written I can guess two reasons for radar choices:
1. Useful Redundancy.
2. Budget.
Both of the above do not really apply to China or Pakistan, whose needs Londo Molari seemed to be hi-lighting. Having AWACS in air does address radar "shortcoming" to a point where the law of diminishing returns makes itself felt.
1. Useful Redundancy.
2. Budget.
Both of the above do not really apply to China or Pakistan, whose needs Londo Molari seemed to be hi-lighting. Having AWACS in air does address radar "shortcoming" to a point where the law of diminishing returns makes itself felt.
You guess incorrectly. Neither "useful redundancy" nor "budget" are the "reasons" to upgrade to AESA's. The advent of AEW/C does not by any stretch of the imagination imply that fighter radars have become redundant. It is sheer foolishness to assume that these early warning aircraft will be available anytime all the time for any given engagement, especially for the PLAAF and PLANAF. And you seem to have forgotten all the other vital functions a fighter radar serves in addition to threat detection, as well as all the additional capabilities an AESA radar confers. "Redudancy" is not the correct word to use here.
As far as budget, the restraint will be mainly technological capability much more than any budgetary concerns. When Chinese fighter AESA technology matures, you can bet every new Chinese fighter will get an AESA. And most or all J-10B's and J-11B/S's with enough airframe life left with legacy pulse doppler sets will also get AESA. It's too radical an advance in radar technology for China to simply pass up for budgetary reasons.
Zahid
Junior Member
I thought that I made myself clear when I said that I do not see that the US's thinking should apply to China or Pakistan. This observation was in context of Londo Molari when he wrote:
"I think with AWACS and other integrated advances, doctrines of advanced air forces are changing, and we can expect to see similar changes in China and Pakistan in the future. Less emphasis is placed on the capability/range of a fighter's own radar... fighters are vectored in using situational awareness and intelligence provided by ground stations, advanced scouts and AWACS, and fighters only turn on their own radars at the last moment in order to engage. So the fighters' own radar will no longer be the primary means of detecting the enemy."
You did not agree with this statement and gave the example of USAF and USN. I merely observed that the US thinking does not necessarily apply to China or Paksitan. I still stand behind my statement that US is upgrading the radars as you report because they want useful redunduncy and because they have the budget for such upgrades. Should China or Pakistan follow what US does? Not necessarily. Asian thinking is not the same as Western thinking. We Asians like to make more effecient use of resources.
I have been visiting this forum for the last five years and I have only 21 posts. I like to learn and have no pretention of being an expert. I could be wrong and that does not bother me. My sense of self-worth is not connected to participating in online arguments.
Pointblank
Senior Member
Depends on the platform; some platforms can made relevant with extensive upgrades for the foreseeable future, other platforms may have reached the end of their service lives (either through fatigue or lack of upgradeability).
I thought this is a good post on the J-10 vs J-11B debate that I just saw today on Chinese bbs by a very well respected poster. I believe he worked on the Su-30MKK projects and has a lot of connections to PLAAF.
In the past, they believe that when fighters are its under the protection of AWACS, the two sides will just fly toward each other, try to find each other faster and then take less to lock and launch and then hit each other. again, that's a very simple strategy.
air combat is rapidly changing, tactical maneuvers and EW has significant effect on radar's performance. So in order to improve, need to make the system more complete, equip more advanced and more integrated
So, why would they still develop J-11B, why not just continue with J-10.
well, J-11B's largest advantage are in its range and payload, more room with its greater size to make changes. So, J-11B and J-10 make a good compliment basically.
says that both J-10 and J-11B both have very large advantage over 11A, 27 and 30. 11B is theoretically better, but it's hard to say in real combat situation. If we put operating radius aside, it's dependent on the pilot and tactics.
J-11B has certain advantages over J-10 due to its size. For the scenario where AWACS is not involved, he said PLAAF has long abandoned the idea that you can just enter BVR battle by flying toward each other and the winner is dependent on how far each one's radar can track others and then how long it takes each side to lock-on and fire and then at the end how long it takes each one's missiles to strike other side. They abandoned this simple scenario.
From their recent tests/exercises, they believe that turning on the radar early doesn't really help, but just increases the RCS of the fighter and cause it to be tracked earlier, so then the radar will face ECM from opponent and loose tactical advantage.
In the past, they believe that when fighters are its under the protection of AWACS, the two sides will just fly toward each other, try to find each other faster and then take less to lock and launch and then hit each other. again, that's a very simple strategy.
air combat is rapidly changing, tactical maneuvers and EW has significant effect on radar's performance. So in order to improve, need to make the system more complete, equip more advanced and more integrated
in the past, they hoped that something like J-8F equipped with more advanced avionics/FCR can beat 4th generation fighters that are equipped with less advanced avionics/FCR by winning in BVR rather than having to deal with better flight performance WVR.
but from actual air combat exercises, using better tactics and EW, can cause a lot of unpredictability and changes. You can't just use having super long range detection advantage as the basis of air defense, it's not a reliable strategy. Such a radar advantage can loose opposition after a few tactical maneuver. So, can't just rely on having longer ranged missile/radar.
so with something like J-11B and J-10, they both have very strong flight performance + complete system, a lot of it is dependent on the pilot.
So, why would they still develop J-11B, why not just continue with J-10.
well, J-11B's largest advantage are in its range and payload, more room with its greater size to make changes. So, J-11B and J-10 make a good compliment basically.
i agree with you there, getting a radar that can track 100 targets at the same time isnt really a priority for the PLAAF. of course that doesnt mean that they are not trying to improve their own radars, but there is no need for any airforce in the world to fit every single one of its aircraft with the most advanced radar system. if that's what the USAF is trying to do, then i can only say the contractors and lobbyists are doing a damn good job like they are in the F-22 case that was recently exposed.
And yet this is precisely the scenario which the F-22 employs to its advantage.
How exactly does turning on a radar increase your RCS??? A radar's emission can be detected by enemy fighters, but this does not "increase" the fighter's RCS. And this poster is speaking from the perspective of weakness. Modern AESA's are LPI, meaning they can scan you and you have scant little chance of realizing they have just done so. He either does not know enough about AESA's or is (incorrectly) assuming that PLAAF fighters will be forever fighting with pulse doppler radars.
First Look, first shoot, first kill. Have you heard of this? This may not be true every engagement or every missile launch, but the concept should be easy to grasp. This is the point of F-22's massively powered (and massively-ranged) AESA. And you are wrong about missile ranges. A faster and higher altitude J-11B firing the same PL-12 will have a much longer range than one fired by a lower, slower J-10. This is where situational awareness and longer-ranged radars come in.
Certainly tactics, EW, and AEW all play into the success or failure of airborne engagements. Nobody is arguing for relying solely on figher radars. These are all force multipliers. On the other hand, you don't see anyone getting rid of fighter radars either, even in the age of ubiquitious AEW/C aircraft. Not only that, you see a trend towards the exact opposite direction, towards longer and longer ranged fighter radars. This is not debatable. It's happening now.
Who's says any air force is fitting every single aircraft with the most advanced radar system? This is a straw man, not a rational rebuttal.
And yet, the F-22 can only take advantage of such a linear tactic using BVR because of its stealth.
- Status