J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[i.e.]

They also used rockets... Ardent was destroied by an unguided rocket attack made by one MB339.

Thank you! didn't know that before.

 

[SinoSoldier]

There was a rumor that the J-10B AESA has 2000 modules.

It is apparently a smaller variant of the one on J-20, J-15, and J-11B, and a larger variant of the one on JF-17 Block II.

 

[paintgun]

yeah, rumor that is

even the AESA on F-22 is at 1500 T/R modules count
or the likes of Phazotron Zuk and APG-63

Rafale's RBE2 AESA has even less, will it be comparable with J-10B's AESA, no?

 

[challenge]

the article (like the russian) still using 3m RCS as standard measurement.most countries in the west already switch 1m RCS as new standard .

 

[Hyperwarp]

2000 T/R modules? Yikes!!! No way. Maybe an AESA for the J-11B/J-20 would come close to 2000, but for the J-10B 1000 - 1200 is about right. To compare :

AESA
AN/APG-63V2 (F-15C) : N/A - 1m^2 @ 145 km
AN/APG-80 (F-16E/F) : ~1000 modules - 1m^2 @ ~115km
AN/APG-79 (F/A-18E/F) : 1100 modules - 1m^2 @ ~130km
AN/APG-81 (F-35) : 1200 modules - 1m^2 @ ~160km
AN/APG-77 (F-22) : 1500 modules (some say 2200) - 1m^2 @ ~230km
Zhuk-A (MiG-35) : N/A - 1m^2 @ ~100 km (original), 1m^2 @ ~190 km (improved)

PESA
N011M (Su-30 MKI/MKM/MKA) - 1m^2 @ 140km
N035 (Su-35) - 1m^2 @ ~305km

So for the J-10B RADAR, 3m^2 @ 160km - 180km would mean 1m^2 @ 120km - 140km. If the article is accurate, it would be better than the AN/APG-80 and even the AN/AGP-79.

 

[latenlazy]

That 2000 T/R Modules sounds like BS. They'd have to get the T/R modules really small, and to my knowledge China simply doesn't have nanofabrication abilities of that caliber yet.

 

[Quickie]

That 2000 T/R Modules sounds like BS. They'd have to get the T/R modules really small, and to my knowledge China simply doesn't have nanofabrication abilities of that caliber yet.

The size of the module is determined by the module spacing which is in turn determined by the Radar bandwidth. Building the module any smaller than the max size allowed by the spacing limit doesnt exacly bring additional benefit as it would by making more powerful and efficient modules.

 

[latenlazy]

The size of the module is determined by the module spacing which is in turn determined by the Radar bandwidth. Building the module any smaller than the max size allowed by the spacing limit doesnt exacly bring additional benefit as it would by making more powerful and efficient modules.

Would that imply that we should expect the module size and spacing for a certain band radar to be relatively fixed, and therefore imply that the number of TR modules would depend on the size of the array itself? Would it also imply that more is not necessarily better?

 

[Quickie]

Would that imply that we should expect the module size and spacing for a certain band radar to be relatively fixed, and therefore imply that the number of TR modules would depend on the size of the array itself?

Basically, yes.

Would it also imply that more is not necessarily better?

Not really. More TR modules by increasing array size and modules that are also, additionally, more powerful, are obviously better as that would add up to the total radar transmit(receive) power.

 

[latenlazy]

Not really. More TR modules by increasing array size and modules that are also, additionally, more powerful, are obviously better as that would add up to the total radar transmit(receive) power.

But the nose of an aircraft has limited space though, so there's a real array size limit as well.