J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[Engineer]

This is this Two Seater?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I posted that a few pages ago.

Yeah, it's a two seater.

 

[Engineer]

PLAAF doesn't need to replace all legacy J-7x with J-10x, it is absolutely unnecessary and too expensive. Perhaps in the next 5 years when FC-1 more mature and more modern and able to be fitted with PESA/AESA (small version), PLAAF may be interested to buy 500 of them, perhaps it will be called FC-1C or JF-17C, if the cost go up to $25M with indigenous engine WS-13A/B, it is still cheap, 500 of them is only $12.5B, it is only 0.4% of her $3T FX reserve or only 2 months interest income, very cheap. And being 100 % indigenous, including engine and avionic, actually the purchase will create more jobs and stimulate Chinese economy (and somewhat Pakistan as well)

That's just not going to happen. It isn't just about cost of the planes. There's an entire logistic support that needs to be built up for the plane. Plus PLAAF always demand their planes to have longer range, and JF-17 simply doesn't meet that requirement. The gain vs. cost just isn't worth it.

 

[Inst]

However, I don't see apparent T/R modules. I see holes on the radar exterior, behind which are likely receive modules.

On the Israeli radar, there are no holes on the array; instead, the physically square modules are apparent on the exterior. On the radar array image we're seeing, you have round holes and horizontal spaces.

I don't think there's any AESA with obvious cavities.

 

[Blitzo]

What do you mean by holes on the j-10s array?

All I see are gaps between the supposed individual TR modules?

 

[antiterror13]

That's just not going to happen. It isn't just about cost of the planes. There's an entire logistic support that needs to be built up for the plane. Plus PLAAF always demand their planes to have longer range, and JF-17 simply doesn't meet that requirement. The gain vs. cost just isn't worth it.

Not all planes need to have long range, being high end interceptors don't need long range and PLAAF need a lot of it

 

[siegecrossbow]

Huzhigeng just said that J-10B will use AESA radars. Note that he didn't say anything about the "radar" currently featured on the J-10B.

 

[Inst]

On the radar, we see two sets of features. One is a set of circular objects, the other is a set of lines.

I'm assuming the lines are holes, because we've never seen any AESA radars with these kinds of lines. The circular objects, since they're the same color, are consequently also holes.

For the picture you're assuming the circular objects are part of the T/R modules; but I'm asserting that they're instead holes for the PESA, instead of AESA T/R modules.

As far as irregular goes, compare the external features to the Irbis-E:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

I'm not assuming the circular objects are part of the TR modules -- I'm saying they're gaps between the yellow, square/rectangular TR modules.

But I'm gonna agree to disagree here, I don't think either of us are going to get convinced by the other. I will say again though, that it's awkward to compare whether a radar is AESA or PESA depending on appearance, given how similar they can appear.

AESA or PAK FA:

Su-35's PESA

Mig-35's AESA, which has round(?) TR modules(?)

 

[Hyperwarp]

PAK-FA AESA covered and exposed

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Engineer]

Not all planes need to have long range, being high end interceptors don't need long range and PLAAF need a lot of it

You are confusing what your want of PLAAF's needs to justify induction of JF-17 with what PLAAF actually needs.