People's Liberation Army Air Force : News & Discussions

Honestly, you're like a little child, wanting to believe that everything about the little toy aircraft your dad bought you is better than the real thing.

APG-77V1 is a different radar to the 240km you quoted. Besides 1700/2000 ^ 3/4 = 0.885. 0.885 x 240 = 212km.

1690363142166.png


That link says nothing about the APG-81 or electrical generation.

Yes, I'm using a PC I built right now.

A decade is what it will take before you need to flush your entire Rafale fleet.
 

How Dangerous is China's J-20 5th-Gen Stealth Fighter?

Its fuselage shape, engine intake shape, exhaust nozzle shape, and even the paint design mirror the F-22 and F-35

China’s J-20 stealth fighter, a short explainer – The Chengdu J-20 “Mighty Dragon” jet represents a major breakthrough for Chinese military development. This stealthy twin-engine fighter aircraft is only the fourth 5th generation fighter in the world, with capabilities making it at the very least a near-peer to America’s F-22 and F-35, as well as Russia’s Su-57. Although it entered service in 2017, the aircraft started to serve in large numbers by 2018. The Chinese military began to deploy the J-20 in hotly contested regions in the East and South China Seas in April, indicating its confidence in the full operational capabilities of the jet.

The stealth technology behind the Mighty Dragon appears to rival the U.S. 5th generation fighter jets. Its fuselage shape, engine intake shape, exhaust nozzle shape, and even the paint design mirror the F-22 and F-35. Before the J-20, China primarily used Russian parts and designs to construct its military equipment. Initially, the Chinese military relied on Russian-made engine systems for the new jet, but it eventually nixed these and produced its own engines, the WS-15. This marked a major improvement for China’s aircraft development capabilities as the J-20 is truly a homegrown technology.

The depth of the Mighty Dragon’s avionics suite and electronic capabilities is unknown, yet it is possible that technology was stolen from the U.S.’s Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program to enhance it. Specifically, there is potential for the J-20 to perform Airborne Early Warning and Command & Control missions using the same technology employed by F-35. Typically, Airborne Early Warning and Command & Control aircraft – like the U.S. E-2 Hawkeye – are big and lumbering targets. Enhanced software enables stealthy and maneuverable fighter jets to perform those missions, which is a major advantage.

While some speculate the J-20 is faster than the F-22, it is unclear whether or not the jet has its super cruise capabilities. However, the U.S. is confident the J-20 is capable of beyond visual range (BVR) engagements, meaning they could lock on to an enemy aircraft, launch a missile a hundred miles away and then leave the air space instead of dogfighting.

It is clear the J-20 represents major advancements for the Chinese military, yet significant drawbacks do exist. The engine systems that power the jets remain the most controversial aspect of the aircraft. The People’s Liberation Army initially used Russian engines but switched to domestic production once they were underperforming. It is unclear whether this production is on schedule or how efficiently they run.

According to an analyst from the Yuan Wang military think tank in Beijing, the American XA100 engine that powers the F-35 remains at least ten years ahead of the WS-15. The analyst elaborated that “China has so far just matched the American engines in some areas, but not in overall performance. It’s also not meaningful to emphasize one area because military confrontation is about a competition of systems and a contest of joint operational capabilities.”

Overall, the J-20 is a capable, 5th generation multirole aircraft challenging the best the U.S. has to offer. While its full potential is as yet unknown, it remains a major threat to U.S. designs in the Western Pacific. Furthermore, it is solid proof of a competent and growing domestic Chinese aerospace defense industry that will no doubt rival the West in the near future.
 
Honestly, you're like a little child, wanting to believe that everything about the little toy aircraft your dad bought you is better than the real thing.

APG-77V1 is a different radar to the 240km you quoted. Besides 1700/2000 ^ 3/4 = 0.885. 0.885 x 240 = 212km.

View attachment 29252

That link says nothing about the APG-81 or electrical generation.

Yes, I'm using a PC I built right now.

A decade is what it will take before you need to flush your entire Rafale fleet.

The 1676 number is wrong, as confirmed by the guy who counted it. He counted the crests instead of the troughs. It's also why he's drawn his lines on the troughs, instead of the crests, like he should have. He later counted the troughs and posted that, it was lower than 1676. All you have to do is count the crests along the edges and substract from the bigger number, easy. Much closer to 1600. For example, where it says 420, it's actually 389. It's 13x30-1, whereas he counted 14x30. So that alone eliminates 62 TRMs. Try it for yourself.

So, if we assume 1600 (very generous) vs 1956, for both 200 and 240Km, we get 172 and 206Km. So it's pretty close to the advertised >162Km we see in the Korean document.

In reality, if we assume 62 were taken out of 840, and the remaining 836 lose 70, 'cause there are more edges, then we get 1544. Let's round it off to a decent 1550.

So 1550 vs 1956 gives us 168Km and 201Km... Wait what!!! Funny how that worked out.

Yeah, okay, APG-77(V)1 is a different radar from the older APG-77(V)1, then. Better inform the USAF they are flying with the wrong radar.

The link clearly explains the engine is running twice as hot, so it requires more air for cooling the airframe, thereby less cooling for electronics, and running hotter also means running the CSD at lower efficiency. Anyway, LM has officially stated that the current engine cannot power B4 avionics. While P&W is proposing an upgrade, LM is proposing an engine change. So the F-35 quite literally requires a flushing.

Anyway, you learnt something today about the F-35's overstated TRM count.

@Picdelamirand-oil
 
  • Love
Reactions: Picdelamirand-oil

How Dangerous is China's J-20 5th-Gen Stealth Fighter?

Its fuselage shape, engine intake shape, exhaust nozzle shape, and even the paint design mirror the F-22 and F-35

China’s J-20 stealth fighter, a short explainer – The Chengdu J-20 “Mighty Dragon” jet represents a major breakthrough for Chinese military development. This stealthy twin-engine fighter aircraft is only the fourth 5th generation fighter in the world, with capabilities making it at the very least a near-peer to America’s F-22 and F-35, as well as Russia’s Su-57. Although it entered service in 2017, the aircraft started to serve in large numbers by 2018. The Chinese military began to deploy the J-20 in hotly contested regions in the East and South China Seas in April, indicating its confidence in the full operational capabilities of the jet.

The stealth technology behind the Mighty Dragon appears to rival the U.S. 5th generation fighter jets. Its fuselage shape, engine intake shape, exhaust nozzle shape, and even the paint design mirror the F-22 and F-35. Before the J-20, China primarily used Russian parts and designs to construct its military equipment. Initially, the Chinese military relied on Russian-made engine systems for the new jet, but it eventually nixed these and produced its own engines, the WS-15. This marked a major improvement for China’s aircraft development capabilities as the J-20 is truly a homegrown technology.

The depth of the Mighty Dragon’s avionics suite and electronic capabilities is unknown, yet it is possible that technology was stolen from the U.S.’s Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program to enhance it. Specifically, there is potential for the J-20 to perform Airborne Early Warning and Command & Control missions using the same technology employed by F-35. Typically, Airborne Early Warning and Command & Control aircraft – like the U.S. E-2 Hawkeye – are big and lumbering targets. Enhanced software enables stealthy and maneuverable fighter jets to perform those missions, which is a major advantage.

While some speculate the J-20 is faster than the F-22, it is unclear whether or not the jet has its super cruise capabilities. However, the U.S. is confident the J-20 is capable of beyond visual range (BVR) engagements, meaning they could lock on to an enemy aircraft, launch a missile a hundred miles away and then leave the air space instead of dogfighting.

It is clear the J-20 represents major advancements for the Chinese military, yet significant drawbacks do exist. The engine systems that power the jets remain the most controversial aspect of the aircraft. The People’s Liberation Army initially used Russian engines but switched to domestic production once they were underperforming. It is unclear whether this production is on schedule or how efficiently they run.

According to an analyst from the Yuan Wang military think tank in Beijing, the American XA100 engine that powers the F-35 remains at least ten years ahead of the WS-15. The analyst elaborated that “China has so far just matched the American engines in some areas, but not in overall performance. It’s also not meaningful to emphasize one area because military confrontation is about a competition of systems and a contest of joint operational capabilities.”

Overall, the J-20 is a capable, 5th generation multirole aircraft challenging the best the U.S. has to offer. While its full potential is as yet unknown, it remains a major threat to U.S. designs in the Western Pacific. Furthermore, it is solid proof of a competent and growing domestic Chinese aerospace defense industry that will no doubt rival the West in the near future.

The J-20 seems to be a capability copy of the F-22. And any insufficiency against the F-22 can be compensated by its additional range and sheer numbers. Perhaps better weapons as well.
 
400 km against a 1m2 target is useless, but it can be useful against a stealthy opponent.
Using this formula:

400*((0.0001/1)^(1/4))

Detection for a -40dBsm target would be around 40kms for a radar that detects a 1m2 target at 400kms. By that time VLO jet would have launched its BVR and left the field.

QWIP and later QDIP IRST is the perfect stealth equalizer in my opinion. And of course once quantum radar tech with bi-static ability is mastered, stealth becomes redundant.

How Dangerous is China's J-20 5th-Gen Stealth Fighter?

Its fuselage shape, engine intake shape, exhaust nozzle shape, and even the paint design mirror the F-22 and F-35

China’s J-20 stealth fighter, a short explainer – The Chengdu J-20 “Mighty Dragon” jet represents a major breakthrough for Chinese military development. This stealthy twin-engine fighter aircraft is only the fourth 5th generation fighter in the world, with capabilities making it at the very least a near-peer to America’s F-22 and F-35, as well as Russia’s Su-57. Although it entered service in 2017, the aircraft started to serve in large numbers by 2018. The Chinese military began to deploy the J-20 in hotly contested regions in the East and South China Seas in April, indicating its confidence in the full operational capabilities of the jet.

The stealth technology behind the Mighty Dragon appears to rival the U.S. 5th generation fighter jets. Its fuselage shape, engine intake shape, exhaust nozzle shape, and even the paint design mirror the F-22 and F-35. Before the J-20, China primarily used Russian parts and designs to construct its military equipment. Initially, the Chinese military relied on Russian-made engine systems for the new jet, but it eventually nixed these and produced its own engines, the WS-15. This marked a major improvement for China’s aircraft development capabilities as the J-20 is truly a homegrown technology.

The depth of the Mighty Dragon’s avionics suite and electronic capabilities is unknown, yet it is possible that technology was stolen from the U.S.’s Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program to enhance it. Specifically, there is potential for the J-20 to perform Airborne Early Warning and Command & Control missions using the same technology employed by F-35. Typically, Airborne Early Warning and Command & Control aircraft – like the U.S. E-2 Hawkeye – are big and lumbering targets. Enhanced software enables stealthy and maneuverable fighter jets to perform those missions, which is a major advantage.

While some speculate the J-20 is faster than the F-22, it is unclear whether or not the jet has its super cruise capabilities. However, the U.S. is confident the J-20 is capable of beyond visual range (BVR) engagements, meaning they could lock on to an enemy aircraft, launch a missile a hundred miles away and then leave the air space instead of dogfighting.

It is clear the J-20 represents major advancements for the Chinese military, yet significant drawbacks do exist. The engine systems that power the jets remain the most controversial aspect of the aircraft. The People’s Liberation Army initially used Russian engines but switched to domestic production once they were underperforming. It is unclear whether this production is on schedule or how efficiently they run.

According to an analyst from the Yuan Wang military think tank in Beijing, the American XA100 engine that powers the F-35 remains at least ten years ahead of the WS-15. The analyst elaborated that “China has so far just matched the American engines in some areas, but not in overall performance. It’s also not meaningful to emphasize one area because military confrontation is about a competition of systems and a contest of joint operational capabilities.”

Overall, the J-20 is a capable, 5th generation multirole aircraft challenging the best the U.S. has to offer. While its full potential is as yet unknown, it remains a major threat to U.S. designs in the Western Pacific. Furthermore, it is solid proof of a competent and growing domestic Chinese aerospace defense industry that will no doubt rival the West in the near future.
J-20 with WS-15 should have F-22 like kinematics and F-35 like sensors with very inpressive endurance(11ton+ internal fuel load).

It's a real headache for both IAF and USAF.
 
Using this formula:

400*((0.0001/1)^(1/4))

Detection for a -40dBsm target would be around 40kms for a radar that detects a 1m2 target at 400kms. By that time VLO jet would have launched its BVR and left the field.

BVR missiles used at long range have a low pk against LO aircraft with a high level electronic suite. This is why the Rafale is optimized for medium distances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
The 1676 number is wrong, as confirmed by the guy who counted it. He counted the crests instead of the troughs. It's also why he's drawn his lines on the troughs, instead of the crests, like he should have. He later counted the troughs and posted that, it was lower than 1676. All you have to do is count the crests along the edges and substract from the bigger number, easy. Much closer to 1600. For example, where it says 420, it's actually 389. It's 13x30-1, whereas he counted 14x30. So that alone eliminates 62 TRMs. Try it for yourself.

So, if we assume 1600 (very generous) vs 1956, for both 200 and 240Km, we get 172 and 206Km. So it's pretty close to the advertised >162Km we see in the Korean document.

In reality, if we assume 62 were taken out of 840, and the remaining 836 lose 70, 'cause there are more edges, then we get 1544. Let's round it off to a decent 1550.

So 1550 vs 1956 gives us 168Km and 201Km... Wait what!!! Funny how that worked out.

Yeah, okay, APG-77(V)1 is a different radar from the older APG-77(V)1, then. Better inform the USAF they are flying with the wrong radar.

The link clearly explains the engine is running twice as hot, so it requires more air for cooling the airframe, thereby less cooling for electronics, and running hotter also means running the CSD at lower efficiency. Anyway, LM has officially stated that the current engine cannot power B4 avionics. While P&W is proposing an upgrade, LM is proposing an engine change. So the F-35 quite literally requires a flushing.

Anyway, you learnt something today about the F-35's overstated TRM count.

@Picdelamirand-oil
Where is it confirmed that the number is wrong? 240km was the range for the original APG-77.

The Rafale's radar is tiny, around 1,000 modules at best. Based on the 212km I calculated for the F-35, that gives <145km for the Rafale AESA.

The APG-77V1 is different from the APG-77.

The electronics and the engine are too separate things.

I learnt something? You were claiming that a radar only 60% the area (both with GaAs) had 10% better range (148km vs 160km). This was a poo-eater of a post:


APG-81 = 148Km for now... Could cross 200Km with the TR-3 upgrade.
RBE2 AESA = 160Km... Double that of PESA, as per advertisement.
Yeah, right.... :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

The Rafale radar is of such a small size that it would need GaN just to equal the APG-81 with GaAs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Innominate
Where is it confirmed that the number is wrong? 240km was the range for the original APG-77.

I'm referring to the TRM count being wrong. Count it yourself, I did.

The range stated for the F-22 is 125-150mi. So I provided calculations for both numbers, ie 168 and 201Km. And it meets the criteria for the Korean document. I used your pic and your calcuations to prove it.

The Rafale's radar is tiny, around 1,000 modules at best. Based on the 212km I calculated for the F-35, that gives <145km for the Rafale AESA.

Not the same TRMs. Not the same cooling or efficiency. Can't compare 2 entirely different radars from different companies like that.

The APG-77V1 is different from the APG-77.

Sure.

I learnt something? You were claiming that a radar only 60% the area (both with GaAs) had 10% better range (148km vs 160km). This was a poo-eater of a post:

The APG-81 isn't running at max efficiency. Which is also why I stated that once everything gets going for the F-35, the range could increase to as much as 200Km for it. And my calculations also met the mark.

The Rafale radar is of such a small size that it would need GaN just to equal the APG-81 with GaAs.

I thought you said range would double with GaN?

So 160Km would become 320Km... Your argument.
 
I thought you said range would double with GaN?

So 160Km would become 320Km... Your argument.
Normally, its range should be improved by 42% with GaN, but we decided to make the multichannel radar first because in an environment of intensive jamming, it should have a better range than GaN radar, and for stealth detection we are relying more on the multistatic radar. So we'll be doing it fairly quickly, but it will be in addition to these two developments.
 
I'm referring to the TRM count being wrong. Count it yourself, I did.
You think there was a pro-Russian majority in Ukraine in 2013 though, so your count is worthless. I checked one of the 420 sections and it seems roughly correct, although difficult to see.

Not the same TRMs. Not the same cooling or efficiency. Can't compare 2 entirely different radars from different companies like that.
Right, so you're saying the Rafale's GaAs TRMs are 8x better to make up for the size difference. The APG-77 and APG-81 TRMs don't look the same in the picture either TBH, likely because the APG-81 had updated TRMs, which were later added on the APG-77V1.

1690385871614.png

Sure.

The APG-81 isn't running at max efficiency. Which is also why I stated that once everything gets going for the F-35, the range could increase to as much as 200Km for it. And my calculations also met the mark.

I thought you said range would double with GaN?

So 160Km would become 320Km... Your argument.
The electronics are separate to the engine cooling issues. They will fix the latter, the former remains the same.

Depends on the quality of the modules. GaN alone normal gives 5-8^(0.25), which barely makes up for the size difference, the rest is maybe processing. Based on the image of the RBE2-AA, which is all we have to go on without further evidence, the difference in modules count is 2:1. Say the 'final version' (remains unproven as to whether there is any difference in count) has 1,000. 1.676^(0.75) = 1.47 For 838 it's 2^(0.75) = 8^(0.25) = maximum likely difference with GaN.

1690386054741.png
 
You think there was a pro-Russian majority in Ukraine in 2013 though, so your count is worthless. I checked one of the 420 sections and it seems roughly correct, although difficult to see.


Right, so you're saying the Rafale's GaAs TRMs are 8x better to make up for the size difference. The APG-77 and APG-81 TRMs don't look the same in the picture either TBH, likely because the APG-81 had updated TRMs, which were later added on the APG-77V1.

View attachment 29255

The electronics are separate to the engine cooling issues. They will fix the latter, the former remains the same.

Depends on the quality of the modules. GaN alone normal gives 5-8^(0.25), which barely makes up for the size difference, the rest is maybe processing. Based on the image of the RBE2-AA, which is all we have to go on without further evidence, the difference in modules count is 2:1. Say the 'final version' (remains unproven as to whether there is any difference in count) has 1,000. 1.676^(0.75) = 1.47 For 838 it's 2^(0.75) = 8^(0.25) = maximum likely difference with GaN.

View attachment 29256

At least now we know you are more blind than dumb.
 
Normally, its range should be improved by 42% with GaN, but we decided to make the multichannel radar first because in an environment of intensive jamming, it should have a better range than GaN radar, and for stealth detection we are relying more on the multistatic radar. So we'll be doing it fairly quickly, but it will be in addition to these two developments.

42%, yes. But our man thinks 100%.

Anyway, is there a difference? You can make GaN multichannel too, it's about the design of the antenna rather than the material used.
 
42%, yes. But our man thinks 100%.

Anyway, is there a difference? You can make GaN multichannel too, it's about the design of the antenna rather than the material used.
It's just a problem of budget : It's better to wait until the price of GaN drops further.

And even the front antenna will be quite different: it thickness will be 5 cm instead of 30 cm, which means it will be 25 cm further back, which will increase its diameter, which will make it possible to add 160 T/R, but the cone will have to be different, at the front of the aircraft, with a wider opening to the radar signals...

With all these modifications plus the GaN, the range should be 235 km, not counting the improvements due to the multi-channel.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: randomradio
It's just a problem of budget : It's better to wait until the price of GaN drops further.

And even the front antenna will be quite different: it thickness will be 5 cm instead of 30 cm, which means it will be 25 cm further back, which will increase its diameter, which will make it possible to add 160 T/R, but the cone will have to be different, at the front of the aircraft, with a wider opening to the radar signals...

With all these modifications plus the GaN, the range should be 235 km, not counting the improvements due to the multi-channel.

The switch to tile arrays will definitely be an improvement.

Do you know how the Swedes have improved PS-05/A to such an extent though? That upgrade can be applied to other radars too.
 
At least now we know you are more blind than dumb.
You are both when it suits you.

42%, yes. But our man thinks 100%.

Anyway, is there a difference? You can make GaN multichannel too, it's about the design of the antenna rather than the material used.
42% (~5^0.25) is based on the lower figure of 5x. 68% is for the higher figure of 8x. The rest is SNR, radar modes and processing.
The switch to tile arrays will definitely be an improvement.

Do you know how the Swedes have improved PS-05/A to such an extent though? That upgrade can be applied to other radars too.
210km is likely based on GaN but also mixed reporting sources. I.e. did it say 'fighter-sized' or 1m2 etc.
 
Last edited:
42%, yes. But our man thinks 100%.

Anyway, is there a difference? You can make GaN multichannel too, it's about the design of the antenna rather than the material used.
Thales would commit to a 70% range improvement for the RBE2 XG, and as Thales is always very careful in its commitments due to the characteristics of French contracts with the DGA, it is possible that the final performance will be 100%.
 
Thales would commit to a 70% range improvement for the RBE2 XG, and as Thales is always very careful in its commitments due to the characteristics of French contracts with the DGA, it is possible that the final performance will be 100%.

Are they planning on the same radar design, ie, in the nose, or something else?