J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter crobato
- Start date
- Status
On a typical slotted planar array the "protrusions" you were thinking of are IFF dipoles.
They actually take advantage of mechanical movement of slotte-planar array to interogate the target.
If the designer decides to stick some dipoles infront of the T/R array, so what?
Engineer
Major
First, those are planar array radars and not examples of PESA. Second, the JL-10A, for example, is also a planar array and does not have protrusions:
Protrusions is not a characteristic of PESA radar, and here is an example of the Zaslon radar on Mig-31:
Again, if you can conclude that the new radar is PESA based on the lack of similarities to an AESA, then I can equally conclude the new radar is not PESA based on the lack of similarities with PESA.
Going back to the pictures I posted of APG-77 and APG-79, I see a huge backing. If you think I misinterpret your meaning of backings, then by all means clarify your definition. If I did not misinterpret it, then I would say that the size of the backing is not the determining factor in whether an ESA is active or passive.
Big shrimps on Chinese boards have also said that cost per elements have came down considerably and we would see everything being fitted with AESA not long in the future. This was said a couple of years ago.
Irrelevant. As I have pointed out earlier, the best technologies get fitted to military systems. Your attempt in differentiate civilian and military technologies when I brought up latest technologies is an attempt at grasping at straws. My rebuttal has always been this: latest technologies get fitted, period. If you believe that Chinese semi-conductor industry is 7 years behind the West, then looking at the date of serial production for the APG-77, we can infer that Chinese is perfectly capable of building an AESA radar for fighters.
Engineer
Major
Yes, as when the J-10 was on paper, a decision was made to switch from using WS-10 to AL-31F because WS-10 was not ready.
The official statement is that J-10 first flight took place in 1998, so the rumor is false. The J-10 prototype was also unlikely to have fitted with the WS-10 because one doesn't use an unproven engine for a first flight. Reliability wise, AESA radars have been in service in China for a long time and there are more and more of them, indicating that Chinese produced AESA radars are reliable. Reliability of Chinese engines have zero relevance in this discussion.
What a load of b.s. If you really go by common beliefs on this board, you would have accepted that the new radar on the J-10b is not PESA. It is true that export of J-10 would be easier if it uses Chinese-made engines, but JF-17 showed that is not a prerequisite. And even if Chengdu were to fit a new engine to the J-10, no one ever said it would be a model in the WS-10 series. For all we know, it could be a WS-15.
All of this is off topic. Does China not feel confident with the reliability of its own engines? Perhaps. Does this has any relevance to China's confidence in its AESA radars? Absolutely not.
False. I perfectly understand what you are trying to argue, and I have already pointed out that you have zero proof regarding the cost per module for Chinese AESA radar. Until you have evidence, any statement regarding the economy of Chinese AESA radars is baseless.
Those are planar slotted array radars, not PESA.
Last edited:
This is a bad day. I give. The rumors suggest it's an AESA, including reports on an X-band Fire control AESA certified last year. I still want to see a close-up of the exposed radar, however, so I can see whether or not the modules are AESA or PESA.
The protrusions are part of the covering and thus you can't tell whether it's an AESA or a PESA, although I'd admit it's likely to be AESA.
Regarding cost:
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/strategic-defense/phase-array-radar-theory-operation-2-3956.html
25 times more. You're right, according to challenge's post, the cost should have dropped significantly, but I'm still characteristically between SDF and anti-Chinese trolls on Chinese advancements; for example, the WS-10A is still not deployed onto the J-10.
The protrusions are part of the covering and thus you can't tell whether it's an AESA or a PESA, although I'd admit it's likely to be AESA.
Regarding cost:
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/strategic-defense/phase-array-radar-theory-operation-2-3956.html
25 times more. You're right, according to challenge's post, the cost should have dropped significantly, but I'm still characteristically between SDF and anti-Chinese trolls on Chinese advancements; for example, the WS-10A is still not deployed onto the J-10.
Fair enough, but WS-10 is being fitted on all new sac flankers, even the j-15 which must operate from carriers and withstand corrosion etc. There are a number of reasons why WS-10 could not be or is not being fitted on j-10 and one of them is that it doesnt deliver as much thrust as the latest al-31 variants and the plaaf is just waiting to make a decision because now for once they have choice.
And like plawolf said, the engine situation is irrelevant to the radar discussion.
Last edited:
IIRC, the engine situation came up because the WS-10A was touted as being superior to the AL-31FN, but the WS-10A engine, mainly, took longer to spin up than the AL-31FN and thus would be dangerous if employed in the single-engined J-10. It also had less thrust than the AL-31 engines. I'm just highlighting it as a sign that watching the PLAAF can be frustrating as the PLAAF advances much more slowly than one would like.
Last edited:
- Status