People's Liberation Army Air Force : News & Discussions

The canards aren't a problem during level flight, but when a missile's fired at it, the dance of the J-20 will see massive canard deflections and make the J-20 visible to the missile's seeker. That's the main problem with the canards.
You get a stronger reflection from any plane once it turns.
So corrected...

Against 1m2:
APG-66 detection range is 68Km.
APG-68 = 80Km
RBE2 PESA = 80Km
RBE2-AA = 106Km
APG-83 = 116Km
Bars-1 = 126Km
Uttam Mk1 = 126Km design goal
APG-80 = 132Km
KLJ-7A V2 (Type 1478) = 134Km
APG-79 = 150Km
Irbis-E = 151Km
APG-81 = 148Km for now... Could cross 200Km with the TR-3 upgrade.
RBE2 AESA = 160Km... Double that of PESA, as per advertisement.
APG-77 = 255(?)Km

May not have the same detection probability.

Uttam Mk1 makes sense to have Bars as the benchmark. APG-83 was calculated from the advertised 370km range.

Type 1475/A could be a family of radars meant for the J-10C and/or J-11BG, J-15B and J-16. Perhaps even the J-20.

@LX1111 Are there much details about Chinese radars?
APG-81 is more than 148km and certainly more than RBE2 AESA, which is a lot smaller. APG-85 will be 400+km.
 
APG-81 is more than 148km and certainly more than RBE2 AESA, which is a lot smaller. APG-85 will be 400+km.

Picdel's APA graph shows that the APG-77 has a range of 203Km. One report claimed 201-241Km. So, if the APG-81 is at 150Km, then it makes sense to have the APG-77 at 203Km, much more realistic than 255Km. 50Km less range for 400 less TRMs makes sense, given both jets have the same radars basically.

Nothing's known about APG-85, so there's no point in speculating. We don't know what sort of numbers can be achieved with GaN either for any radar.
 
It's not according to the advertising, it's during the operational tests of the radar at CESTA, that it was reported that the radar had a range double that of the PESA. This was in an official report that was circulated at the time, but can no longer be found. It was probably released inadvertently.
But at the time, on the other website where we all were, I gave the link. And that's why it has stayed in the memory of the forumers here.

I mean to say there's no third party verification. We are just taking French figures at face value. The same for pretty much all other figures.
 
Updated again...

Against 1m2:
APG-66 detection range is 68Km.
APG-68 = 80Km
Zhuk-ME = 80Km
PS-05/A Mk3 (2014 version) = 80Km
RDY-2 = 80Km
RBE2 PESA = 80Km
RBE2-AA = 106Km
APG-83 = 116Km
Bars-1 = 126Km
Uttam Mk1 = 126Km design goal
APG-80 = 132Km
KLJ-7A V2 (Type 1478) = 134Km
PS-05/A Mk3 (2017 version) = 145km
APG-63(v)2 = 145Km
APG-79 = 150Km
Irbis-E = 151Km
APG-81 = 150/160Km(?)
RBE2 AESA = 160Km...
APG-77 = 200/240Km(?)
PS-05/A Mk4 = 210Km(?)

Added more radars.

PS-05A Mk4 is really special.
2.png


The 2014 version is supposed to be 120Km vs 5m2. So that's 113Km against 4m2. But it seems to have seen some massive improvements since then. Now it apparently does 315Km vs 5m2 or 210 vs 1m2.

So it's at the same level as the APG-77 now. And the best part is it's mechanical scan, not AESA. The GaN version called Mk5 uses the same Mk4 backend, so it must be some sort of beast.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Picdel's APA graph shows that the APG-77 has a range of 203Km. One report claimed 201-241Km. So, if the APG-81 is at 150Km, then it makes sense to have the APG-77 at 203Km, much more realistic than 255Km. 50Km less range for 400 less TRMs makes sense, given both jets have the same radars basically.

Nothing's known about APG-85, so there's no point in speculating. We don't know what sort of numbers can be achieved with GaN either for any radar.
The APG-81 is a newer radar than the -77 and frankly any comparison between Lockheed fighters and Rafales that Picdel makes should be taken with a salt mine.

The 150 miles (241km) was for the initial version of the APG-77, not the one with updated GaAs modules.


The F-35s came with the updated modules from the off and it will be replaced by the APG-85, which presumably uses GaN modules to give a 2x range improvement, which implies ~16x the power.


1690208116361.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Innominate
So corrected...

Against 1m2:
APG-66 detection range is 68Km.
APG-68 = 80Km
RBE2 PESA = 80Km
RBE2-AA = 106Km
APG-83 = 116Km
Bars-1 = 126Km
Uttam Mk1 = 126Km design goal
APG-80 = 132Km
KLJ-7A V2 (Type 1478) = 134Km
APG-79 = 150Km
Irbis-E = 151Km
APG-81 = 148Km for now... Could cross 200Km with the TR-3 upgrade.
RBE2 AESA = 160Km... Double that of PESA, as per advertisement.
APG-77 = 255(?)Km

May not have the same detection probability.

Uttam Mk1 makes sense to have Bars as the benchmark. APG-83 was calculated from the advertised 370km range.

Type 1475/A could be a family of radars meant for the J-10C and/or J-11BG, J-15B and J-16. Perhaps even the J-20.

@LX1111 Are there much details about Chinese radars?
Klj-7A is j20's radar?
May not be as capable as the F-22's radar.

APG-63(v)2, 3, APG-79 and APG-82 are all from Raytheon and mostly for refits and exports, so they are not as capable as Northrop Grumman's APG-77 and 81.

APG-82 is basically a renamed APG-63(v)4. The difference between 3 and 4 is the addition of APG-79's processor to the 3.

APG-63(v)2's range is 145Km against 1m2. So 82 may at least be 200Km.
So its just comes second only to F22. We will not regret if we choose the same in mmrca2
 
The APG-81 is a newer radar than the -77 and frankly any comparison between Lockheed fighters and Rafales that Picdel makes should be taken with a salt mine.

The 150 miles (241km) was for the initial version of the APG-77, not the one with updated GaAs modules.


Doubt there's much of a difference between the two.

The F-35s came with the updated modules from the off and it will be replaced by the APG-85, which presumably uses GaN modules to give a 2x range improvement, which implies ~16x the power.



View attachment 29218

Doesn't really mention range, it's a bit too general. I don't believe brute forcing power is the answer. Plus I doubt the F-35 can provide that much power. Signal processing is the answer, no different from the PS-05/A Mk4. Gotta wait for the answer.
 
Doubt there's much of a difference between the two.
Newer modules would be the difference to the original APG-77.
Doesn't really mention range, it's a bit too general. I don't believe brute forcing power is the answer. Plus I doubt the F-35 can provide that much power. Signal processing is the answer, no different from the PS-05/A Mk4. Gotta wait for the answer.

Following the latest trends in radar technology, the AN/APG-85 will most likely use TRMs (Transmit/Receive Modules) based on GaN (Gallium Nitride) materials. The advantage of radars made with GaN TRMs is that they have better performance, especially in terms of electronic counter counter-countermeasures (ECCM), small target detection and higher bandwidth, than most current AESA sensors employing gallium arsenide (GaAs) TRMs, such as the AN/APG-81. Another key advantage is that they have better thermal efficiency, so they can operate at much higher power, allowing the radar to function as a powerful offensive electronic warfare device.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Newer modules would be the difference to the original APG-77.

The "new" modules are basically the serial production version of the APG-77, it was contracted in 2005. The F-35 came after this radar. So both radars use the same TRMs.


Operating at much higher power and 16 times more power aren't the same.

Why don't you try calculating the power requirements for 16 times more power first?
 
It's old by today's industry standards, at least by 20 years.
How jf17 blk3 radar is old?. Its having higher defection range than mirage, mig29 & current MKI. I would rate Blk 3 definitely over mig, mirage any day. MKI, i dont want to listen my brain, instead going with heart.
It's irrelevant, 'cause we have chosen Uttam Mk3 for MKI MLU.
What will be uttam MK3 range?
 
The "new" modules are basically the serial production version of the APG-77, it was contracted in 2005. The F-35 came after this radar. So both radars use the same TRMs.
The APG-77 was updated, wiki page.
Operating at much higher power and 16 times more power aren't the same.
You need 16x the power for twice the range theoretically.
Why don't you try calculating the power requirements for 16 times more power first?
GaN modules are much more efficient relative to size, so you can use more modules on the same area. The advantage is a combination of higher power, greater efficiency and more space efficiency over the same radar area, giving more modules and greater gain. It's equivalent to a GaAs with 16x the power overall.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
How jf17 blk3 radar is old?. Its having higher defection range than mirage, mig29 & current MKI. I would rate Blk 3 definitely over mig, mirage any day. MKI, i dont want to listen my brain, instead going with heart.

The radar is old tech, 'cause its challengers are more advanced with digital antennas and perhaps even GaN.

The jets you named are too old for comparison. They are getting upgrades or will be phased out.

What will be uttam MK3 range?

Astra Mk3 is being designed for 300Km range. So you take a guess.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion
The APG-77 was updated, wiki page.

Yeah, it was. And it was introduced in 2007. And the same updated radar was introduced in the F-35.

What you are referring to is a more recent development which the USAF did not go for.

You need 16x the power for twice the range theoretically.

GaN modules are much more efficient relative to size, so you can use more modules on the same area. The advantage is a combination of higher power, greater efficiency and more space efficiency over the same radar area, giving more modules and greater gain. It's equivalent to a GaAs with 16x the power overall.


You are missing the point. You can output a lot of power through it as long as you can feed it, but the feeding bit is the problem. The engine does not produce that much electricity, where it can double range purely by increasing power alone.

Double range is not impossible, but it has to come through fixing the sensitivity of the antenna and performing better signal processing, using AI, even. You don't need more power if you can extract your own signals from noise more efficiently. Which is probably what was achieved by the PS-05/A Mk4. They were probably able to lower the clutter rejection threshold that way. So more junk came in, but they could make sense of it up to 1.5x times the original range. Perhaps they could lower receiver sensitivity by a magnitude that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Yeah, it was. And it was introduced in 2007. And the same updated radar was introduced in the F-35.
The update increased the range.
What you are referring to is a more recent development which the USAF did not go for.
Nope.
You are missing the point. You can output a lot of power through it as long as you can feed it, but the feeding bit is the problem. The engine does not produce that much electricity, where it can double range purely by increasing power alone.
As I mentioned some of the range comes from the increased size efficiency of the modules and therefore increased gain, some from increased power transmission and some from increased power.
Double range is not impossible, but it has to come through fixing the sensitivity of the antenna and performing better signal processing, using AI, even. You don't need more power if you can extract your own signals from noise more efficiently. Which is probably what was achieved by the PS-05/A Mk4. They were probably able to lower the clutter rejection threshold that way. So more junk came in, but they could make sense of it up to 1.5x times the original range. Perhaps they could lower receiver sensitivity by a magnitude that way.
There are lots of factors, but the main improvement of GaN is increased power density, size efficiency and power efficiency.