crobato1.PESA can not Puls Compresion, therfore use PESA variabel Puls
Retiontion. This has some drawback, with high Puls Retention you can
only detect on near field. With long Puls Retention is your range
resulution bad
There is no reason why PESA cannot do pulse compression. Pulse compression is done with SAW devices and has nothing to do with the antenna and scanning method.
crobatoIt is pretty clear that with AESA radars – with their great range, improvements in resolution, and frequency shuffling that cuts down on their detectability – the hype has reached the point where it is something of a miracle for the next generation of fighters. It almost seems like non-AESA equipped fighters have been written off as obsolete now, well as far as the attitudes around here. I do see where AESA has its advantages and am surprised the idea of mounting them in the tail for something other than as a super RWR hasn’t been brought up yet.
Frequency shuffling does not cut down on detectability. What reduces detectability are either long duration pulses or continious wave emission, where you don’t have sharp power peaks in pulses that would trigger a RWR. True, some RWRs look for a series of the same sharp peaks before they trigger an alarm, but they don’t have to be. Its a matter of software, all they need to see is a range of peaks, even if the peaks occur at different frequencies but it would still be within a range.
And of course, LPI can be inevitably be detected, if you know what you are looking for. The thing is, if you know how LPI works, you should be halfway there already.
One AESA radar in the front could be potentially coupled to one in the tail to provide an incredibly granular picture of battle-space. With AESA having incredible side-scan perspective, on the order of a near perpendicular detection scope, the two radar groups would act in concert to form 360º.
AESA does not give a good side scan perspective. The more the beam shifts and scans to the side, the more interference is used to turn the beam. This creates more heat, and more electrical resistance to the T/R module, and the increased interference increases potential noise. Nothing still beats a mechanically gimballing antenna when it comes to sheer perspective. However, AESA can be made flat, and can be made to side scan without moving the antenna.
coverage at a price much cheaper than a dedicated AWACS platform. Add in the idea that most of the next-generation bvr missiles have command links allowing them freedom to pinpoint targets in any direction and you have a very secure defensive platform. Maybe its too expensive to introduce it into the tail end of all fighters, but I could see it in one or two per wing at first and then filtering down to the squadron level.
Does anyone else think this idea is tenable?
For me it’s really better to just put multispectral (infrared, visual, ultraviolet) optical systems (IRSTs, MAWS) into the tail end, front and side of the fighters. These systems can gimbal rapidly, and offer a much more encompassing FOV. They would also be low and very low RCS resistant, and can be integrated as a part of an overall sensor fusion package to the pilot. The systems can be linked to a point defense laser or maser, which will be used to zap the missile seekers, rendering them useless. It will also have the capability to zap an aircraft radar if the enemy aircraft gets too close.
crobatoThe PLA has their own official website where they put their own official pics.
(and what an obvious name!)
Not to mention they also have their own magazine.
Many pictures are also taken by the state press agencies like Xinhua, though they keep a seperate stache of pics from the PLA.
Many pictures are also taken with official permission of course, by some of the private Chinese military magazines that you often see being sold in the streets and magazine stalls in China. An international magazine, Aviation Now, also now has its own Chinese branch, and they also have their own collection of J-10 pics.
Notice how the pictures come around the middle of the month. That’s because the mags sometimes have a biweekly or twice a month publication. This is about the right time. When the magazines come out, people scan pictures from them, and then post it in the forums.
That has been pretty much the style of the Flanker, J-7, J-8 and JH-7 pics. But until the J-10 became official, we used to rely on the daring, paparazzi photographer taking shots of the Chengdu airfield with his telephoto lens, some of whom are said to have caught and put into jail. But until that happens, these anonymous posters and photographers enjoy a near mystical status to the half a million military enthusiasts in China following the forums and websites. Big EMO factor.
Now, its just magazine sourced pics for the J-10. The internet photo paparazzis are busy taking shots at the shipyards looking for the next being built destroyer, frigate, sub or whatever ship.
crobatoIIRC, the radar is of CETC/Qianlong KLJ-7 (X-band) type.
According to one magazine, the KLJ-7 is supposed for the J-10, and according to yet another magazine, the KLJ-10 is supposed for the JF-17. No one can say who is actually right or wrong, no doubt these designations all point out to a radar of the same design family as those used by the J-10, J-11B and J-8F.
However, the new planes as shown here may be using a radar from a different Chinese manufacturer than those that were used in PT04 and 06. This manufacturer, which we call lab no. 607 as opposed to lab no. 14 responsible for the KLJ-7 above, has been responsible for supplying radars to the J-7 and JH-7 series. This “change” in radar supplier is what strikes me the most about the new JF-17s here, and it raises a lot of questions and speculations.
crobatoI doubt they’re PT04 and 06. This fits well into the news that two new preproduction planes—not prototypes—were already being built late of last year, and fits into the photo of red 02 that was sighted recently with only yellow primer and a grey radome with a short pitot.
This makes me wonder if PT04 and 06 is more of the PLAAF “version” and the new ones would be the PAF “version”.
crobatoEven then that’s still in doubt, since the J-10’s total lift area of wing plus canards should amount anywhere between 38 to 42 square meters, That’s quite a lot over the F-16’s 28 sqm.
crobatoI have to say that the new paint job is far more aesthetically appealing on the aircraft than the darker Chinese job.
I thought the darker colors are much better like the first FC-1. It reminds me of the darker colors used on the F-7PG, which looks a lot better than the light blue greys used on the current J-7Es and J-7Gs.
What I like is the grey radome with low visibility letters and markings. The PLAAF has an obsession for idiot proofing and as a result tries to make their letterings and markings high visible by using red or orange. I don’t really like the black radomes that is recently appearing in many modern PLAAF aircraft as it contrasts against the light blue grey color that seems standard in the smaller jets.
What is that fin that comes out under the nose of the plane?
crobatoWing loading is related to weight divided by wing area. However for carrier landings and takeoffs, you need low speed lift, and wing loading is just one factor that comes into play. Another factor is the wingspan, so yes, you’re correct, wing span does count. Yet another factor is wing sweep. The less the better, though you sacrifice high speed for this. Devices also come into play, such as variable camber in the front edge of the wings.
For canarded aircraft, canards count to the total lifting wing area, whlie elevators on conventional aircraft don’t. That’s because on a climb, canards are on a positive or lift position, pulling the nose up by lifting the nose up, while elevators are on a negative position, trying to push the nose up by pushing the tail down. So wing area + canard area = total lift area.
crobatoWhy are twin-engine aircraft are considered so much better?
Not really. Its something invented by the USN so that they don’t get an F-16 flying off their carrier decks. Just remember, A-4s Skyhawks, A-8 Corsairs and F-7s Crusaders have served just fine.
But the F-16 never had a robust landing gear and its always been living on long concrete strips. Northrop on the other hand, have seen the value of robust landing gears when they exported the F-5s to a whole bunch of countries with less than smooth landing and takeoff facilities. That’s one of the reasons why the Navy went to the YF-17’s direction.
People saw one billion things. Take-off performance is determined by thrust/weight, maximum lift in configuration and wing loading. In neither discipline the J-10 outmperforms an F-16A.
How do you know? The most recent assesement of the J-10’s empty weight is at 8300kg, but internal leaks suggest 7xxx kg. The J-10 has 27,500lbs of thrust vs. the F-16A’s 24,000lbs. In wing area, the J-10 has around at least 38 square meters, while the F-16 has 28.
As far as having seen videos of the J-10 taking off and landing, I can see it can do this on fairly short distances, even landing from relatively steep angles at low speeds, all this suggesting a plane with relatively low wing loading and good TWR. The only time I saw the J-10 needing some distance on the takeoff is when it is fully loaded with tanks and missiles. So I think the J-10 can benefit from a TVC engine with a higher thrust, and that is probably one of the reasons why the AL-31FMN-1 (13,500kg) is seriously looked at or even bought. But even then the local WS-10A at 13,200kg thrust would still give better thrust over the standard AL-31FN at 12,500kg.
I think one of the reasons why a twin engine may be more desirable is that the twin engine can achieve even higher TWR, and that a J-10 even with uprated engines may have trouble lifting off a carrier deck if it got four YJ-83 AshMs under the wings. The ability to carry the YJ-83 would be foremost among PLANAF requirements. Perhaps it can be done with a single engine, but I would think you need an engine around at least 13,500kg to 14,000kg thrust to give you the margin.
In any case, an Su-33 based solution seems like the more obvious and less of a headache approach to this situation.
crobatoI think to make this comparison fair we have to take the most likely tactical situation into account:
J-10 on offensive mission over Taiwan. IDF superior by numbers, vectored in by friendly radar, combat in lower altitude, most probably without any BVR fight. If IDF have a good IR-AAM (most likely latest AIM-9 derivative) and take initiative, they will win in the statistics. If IDF attempt a head-on intercept in high altitude over the Formosa strait, yes, the result is rather different.
An integrated air defence would probably use the ground-based air defence to spread some confusion and then use fighters like IDF to increase losses to the enemy. In such a situation, F-16A, M2000 and IDF all do rather good.
The problem of Taiwan is that it is way too close to the mainland that PLA ground radars can more than cover the island from head to toe and east to west. The PLAAF can vector planes in over the straits no different as if it’s defending its own home territory. Given the advent of stand off weapons, KD-63 and KD-88 SLAM-ER equivalents already operational and the LS-6 satellite positioned glide bomb in training units already, the interception range has to be extended into all of the straits and over the mainland, since it is no longer required for the PLAAF aircraft to be over the island to use such weapons. The KD-63/88 should have a range of 200 to 250km, and once the H-6K comes into service carrying six missiles each based on the YJ-62 airframe, the standoff range extends to 300km or more. The LS-6 glide bombs themselves have a range of 60km when launched from a height.
Currently the ROCAF needs the AIM-9X and JHMCS. The current short ranged AAMs like AIM-9L, Matra Magic 2 and Tien Kung 1 is just outclassed by the latest PL-8 variants and the R-73s. Even a J-7G with HMS and the latest PL-8 would be a major problem even against the Block 20 if the J-7G manages to get into WVR range, which is possible if the J-7s fly low, vectored by ground controllers, and aided by an ECM blanket.
Right now, the ROCAF is seriously worried about the PL-12, which to their assesements is superior over the MICA and TC-2 in kinetic end game performance, and matches that of the AMRAAM C5. Their own computer simulations indicate that ROCAF fighters are facing unfavorable combat loss ratios against PLAAF aircraft using the PL-12, which currently is covered by the J-8F, J-10s and J-11Bs, and potentially by the JH-7A. The ROCAF actually seems more worried about the PL-12 than about the J-10 per se. This is the intention why the ROCAF is seeking to acquire over 200 AMRAAM C7s from the US, though the Block 20s would require an upgrade to use them, and the missile is not usuable with the IDF, unless that too is modified.
crobatoOMG is that where the UFOs land?
crobatoHurrifan,
ABC News aside, you picked three of the most far-left (and I mean FAR left) media outlets in this country with the NY Times being probably the worst of them all. Their idea of normal journalism went out the window years ago. In fact, their agenda and that of others such as the Washington Post is what led to the creation of a more right-leaning (though they don’t lean as far as right as those you mentioned lean left and not by anything close) network in Fox News. More people here watch Fox than any other news channel and it’s not because of some government sponsored brainwashing program (in fact, many of the shows I watch on Fox are just as critical of the president as they are of others in the nation). It’s because networks like NBC have taken such a far-left turn that it’s sickening. I don’t know what the media is like in England or in other parts of Europe, but it has become a disaster here in the United States, and if you want something to criticize us over it’s certainly the joke that our mainstream media has become. Fox News and even more so, the AP, are about the only good sources to get basic news info on here in the States these days. You can ignore me and insult me all you want but for someone who’s lived here his whole life and talking with people much older than me, you’ll see that all of the above I stated is true….sad as it is.
It is interesting that when the Chinese government wanted to find someoen to help run the worldwide English edition of their national CCTV network, they choose a top executive from Fox News.
If you want the best in propaganda and double speak, you must go hire from the best.
crobatoI reposted the pics right here.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1560.0.html
crobatoI should add that for their respective side of the fence, the MiG-19 and the F-100 Super Sabre were also the first operational fighter jets to incorporate an all moving tailplane or elevator, which can provide sufficient control authority for maneuvering at supersonic flight.
crobatoExperimental isn’t worth a damn for me. Proving the technology isn’t the same achievement as honing that technology into a workable reliable weapons system.
For all its faults, the F-4 Phantom was the first plane to make BVR truly workable, although far from perfect. Can you really remember any BVR kill at all before this plane?
The F-14 was the world’s first superfighter in my book, had peer to peer networking like the MiG-31 and Su-27, though someone is claiming that the Viggen got it first.
MiG-19 is certainly revolutionary. It was the first plane in the Soviet bloc to have an AFTERBURNER, and the first plane that can hit supersonic in level flight. It was also the first plane in the Soviet bloc to be an all weather interceptor, meaning it can intercept at day, night or cloudy. Its direct contemporary in time and technical achievement is the F-100 Super Sabre aka the “Hun”.
The MiG-17 is probably the finest MiG to fly. A warbird collector called it God’s gift to pilots, and is probably the apogee of the classic day only fighter. And yes, its a transonic jet that featured among other things, an interesting compound sweep wing, and the first plane to ever introduce a ventral tail fin. Yes. a ventral tail fin.
The F-86 as I said, introduced radar ranging for gunnery, which gave it a decisive advantage over the MiG-15. It also introduced hydraulic flight controls. which makes the plane light to fly at higher speeds. Before it planes use strict mechanical controls that turn heavy like cement once the speeds go up.
Sign In
