But the quantity of difference between the two for the J-16’s radar, or the difference between the J-16’s look down and the Su-35’s look up, isn’t.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Brumby
Major
Frankly I don't even have to justify this point for the inconsistent argument to be equally valid. The SU-35 look up range is slightly better than the J-16. How then can the SU-35 radar be significantly weaker than the Chinese AESA radar?
No, it is entirely related to rumours that are a credible source. Because you are making it seem like it is reasonable to expect "facts" for PLA watching considering how few "facts" we get for PLA developments. Instead, the most accurate and best sources we have are rumours from credible sources.
Please realize that you are coming to one of the premier PLA watching forums in the English language. We can provide you the basis for which we make conclusions and the sources and the methods we use. But no one here has an obligation to answer your questions or indulge you, if you consider the sources and methods insufficient to meet your standards.
You're free to ignore what we tell you. But then please leave these main threads afterwards because we need them for PLA watching using our methods and sources.
It is still consistent, because it is comparing two different modes.
It is comparing the effective range of Su-35's look up mode with the effective range of J-16's look down mode.
It is written that Su-35's look up mode is "only slightly more" than J-16's look down mode, which logically entails and directly implies that J-16's look up mode effective range is meaningfully greater than the effective range of Su-35's look up mode, which is entirely consistent with the assertion that Su-35's radar is substantially weaker than current Chinese fighter AESAs (of which J-16 is an example).
If the difference between the J-16’s look up range and its look down range is greater than the difference between the Su-35’s look up range and the J-16’s look down range then the Su-35’s radar will be clearly weaker. No assertion was made about the difference between the former and the latter in the source we’re discussing. That the former and latter are equivalent is conjectural on your part.
Furthermore, radars aren’t just measured on range. At least from the source we’re discussing the J-16’s radar has much better resolution.
Last edited:
Yankeesama is a Harbin Institute of Technology graduate with sources in the SAC. His leaks are generally reliable.
As it should have. China's electronics industry is way more advanced than Russia's.
Frankly, I think I said this before, but to think that China, a country which is a world leader in mobile telecoms, couldn't make an AESA radar for their premium air fighter simply beggars belief. Both fields basically are all about microwave emission and reception. The technology that is in your average cell phone tower is basically much the same as that in a modern radar. China has a huge talent pool in that sector they can leverage into conducting AESA work. How can someone still doubt their achievement is quite beyond me.
Most people on this site have to conduct their analysis based on open sources with a couple of exceptions. Of course any such analysis has its limitations but either you accept this, or like others here said, you basically can't conduct a proper analysis at all. What makes the open source analysis credible is that it is supported in sources which have proven themselves with an established track record and structuring the analysis based on well known capabilities with an eye to the intrinsic technological characteristics of that specific weapon system.
People who have a good grasp on the hard technical details of the basic technology of weapon systems are even more valuable. That's why I used to like to read Carlo Kopp's website for example. Quite often a lot of articles you read even at credible sources like Jane's are written by people with a lot more limited technical know how but with insider sources in the industry. Well they don't have those sources in the Chinese weapons industry that's for sure. Hence quite often we see even Jane's flop horribly with regards to Chinese weapons technology. That's why sites which analyze open sources information like this came to be.
Frankly, I think I said this before, but to think that China, a country which is a world leader in mobile telecoms, couldn't make an AESA radar for their premium air fighter simply beggars belief. Both fields basically are all about microwave emission and reception. The technology that is in your average cell phone tower is basically much the same as that in a modern radar. China has a huge talent pool in that sector they can leverage into conducting AESA work. How can someone still doubt their achievement is quite beyond me.
Most people on this site have to conduct their analysis based on open sources with a couple of exceptions. Of course any such analysis has its limitations but either you accept this, or like others here said, you basically can't conduct a proper analysis at all. What makes the open source analysis credible is that it is supported in sources which have proven themselves with an established track record and structuring the analysis based on well known capabilities with an eye to the intrinsic technological characteristics of that specific weapon system.
People who have a good grasp on the hard technical details of the basic technology of weapon systems are even more valuable. That's why I used to like to read Carlo Kopp's website for example. Quite often a lot of articles you read even at credible sources like Jane's are written by people with a lot more limited technical know how but with insider sources in the industry. Well they don't have those sources in the Chinese weapons industry that's for sure. Hence quite often we see even Jane's flop horribly with regards to Chinese weapons technology. That's why sites which analyze open sources information like this came to be.
Last edited:
I think the thread has been derailed by back and forth discussions (seemingly without conclusion) long enough. If you want to discuss AESA radars for Chinese fighter aircraft, used the Chinese radar thread. This thread was s for J-20 only.
Brumby
Major
As I said look up/look down difference is typically marginal. The Zhuk AE is 130/120 kms and the No35E is 200/170kms. In the Yankeesama reference that the No35E is slightly better than the J-16 AESA in look up, I can make a determination that the J-16 AESA is significantly weaker on that score than modern western AESA including TR3, Rafale M, APG-79, APG-82(v)1, APG-77 and APG-81. The only exception is APG-68(v)8. 14th Institute has a lot of work ahead to close the gap.
It is a pity that the overall interest is to operate in a echo chamber environment. Eventually self awareness and perspective suffers.
Sorry siege. I will take my leave now.
You guys can continue here:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinese-radar-developments-klj-series-and-others.t6755/
Right now the discussion has strayed from J-20's radar to that of the J-10C and J-16, which is off topic. Also, the radar thread doesn't get enough love. It could use some new posts.
- Status