People's Liberation Army Air Force : News & Discussions

[randomradio]

Well, I mean the average power of the radar, not the peak power, which is commonly used in war. At the same time, the PESA system of N011M determines that its noise is very high. There is public information, antenna gain 36db, first sidelobe -25db, average sidelobe -48db. In comparison, the APG63 radar with a more backward system has a gain of 37db, and the first sidelobe level is less than -27db, which is better than N011M in all aspects.

Average power is peak power that reduces over time.

And which APG-63? The AESAs are way ahead, the MS radar is way behind. Even the Americans admitted to that in 2004 when they brought the F-15C to India. They had to argue that their AESA radar is better.

According to the radar range formula, when all other conditions remain unchanged, the radar range is proportional to the fourth root of the radar transmission power. It can be calculated that the detection range of N011M for a target of 3 square meters is about 120 kilometers, which is consistent with the 110KM figure given by India's HAL.

Yes. So against a Flanker-sized target, 15 square meters, it is 180 km. Tracking range is just a general "100+" km, it's not the actual figure. We can assume a Flanker will be tracked at 140-160 km.

Well, many satellite photos of Tibet show that the J-10 appears frequently. Similarly, if it is facing the J-11B, the better PD radar and the worse PESA can still be compared equally, but in front of the J-16/J-11BG, the Su-30 faces an absolute disadvantage.

If the J-11BG and J-16 are equipped with digital radars, then it's possible. If the radars are analog, like pretty much all of the USAF fighters today, then it's less of a problem. The reason being a hybrid PESA like N011M acts like an analog AESA when it's performing one function at a time. A regular PESA has one or two centralized receivers, but N011M has 1700+ receivers, so the received signal is processed like it's done in any analog AESA radar.

 

[randomradio]

My god, it's so complicated. Currently I can only see the 160KM (MK2)figure quoted by most Indian media.

I'll make it simple. Officially it was stated that above 15 km altitude Mk1 will do 80 km and Mk2 will do double of that, ie, 160 km. This is a program goal.

Actual range achieved by Mk1 at 15 km is 110(?) km. So we can assume that Mk2 could achieve 220 km.

What this means is the IAF will induct the missile if it manages 160 km at 15 km. But whether the missile will achieve 200+ or 250+ km is unknown.

In any case, people misunderstand the meaning of dual pulse. Only the range achieved by the first pulse matters. The second one is meant to make the kill once the seeker turns on. If it misses, then it just meaninglessly keeps flying. You can program it to use the second pulse to boost range, but it will lose energy over time no different from a single pulse motor.

 

[LX1111]

If the J-11BG and J-16 are equipped with digital radars, then it's possible. If the radars are analog, like pretty much all of the USAF fighters today, then it's less of a problem. The reason being a hybrid PESA like N011M acts like an analog AESA when it's performing one function at a time. A regular PESA has one or two centralized receivers, but N011M has 1700+ receivers, so the received signal is processed like it's done in any analog AESA radar.

This has nothing to do with analog or digital signals. You are wrong, about all the design features of these Russian PESA radars.
The receiving system uses a similar AESA architecture design, with each unit module directly connected to a low-noise amplifier, avoiding the disadvantage of the traditional PESA architecture receiving branch loss being 5~6db greater than that of AESA.
But there are the following disadvantages

1.The use of electric vacuum device traveling wave tubes as transmitters instead of all-solid-state devices requires high voltage operation and a large number of isolation and protection devices, resulting in a large volume and weight of the radar system. For example, the N011M radar weighs 650kg.Solid-state devices have better reliability and are easier to change waveforms. Solid-state transmitters are more likely to obtain long pulse signals, such as quasi-continuous wave and continuous wave signals, which is beneficial to radar LPI performance. Solid-state devices have better operating bandwidth and instantaneous bandwidth, which is beneficial to radar anti-interference ability.
2.
The radar transmitter still uses the traditional PESA architecture, and its transmission power conversion efficiency is low, and the transmission waveform transformation control accuracy and effective aperture, gain, sidelobe and other characteristic deviations are not conducive to the radar's electronic warfare confrontation and LPI realization to improve detection power.

 

[randomradio]

I think many people have deified the ramjet engine. Its shortcomings are obvious. First, the missile's maneuverability is not as good as that of traditional missiles in order to ensure the air intake efficiency. Second, the resistance is too large in the gliding phase when the fuel is exhausted, and the range is limited. Third, the RCS is large and it is easy to be detected in advance.
For this reason, many countries have given up on ramjet missiles. For example, China had experimental photos of ramjet missiles in 2014, but there was no subsequent news.
View attachment 35377

The primary advantage of ramjet is time to target and range. Solid rocket doesn't give that advantage. At least dual pulse provides acceleration during kill, similar to ramjet.

If you do not want a faster missile, then stick to solid rocket. That's about it.

When the Israelis were advertising the I Derby-ER, they claimed that the AIM-120D is 50% less capable than Meteor whereas I Derby-ER is 80% less capable than Meteor. So at least this way we know that Meteor is superior to any existing Western BVR missile.

 

[LX1111]

Average power is peak power that reduces over time.

And which APG-63? The AESAs are way ahead, the MS radar is way behind. Even the Americans admitted to that in 2004 when they brought the F-15C to India. They had to argue that their AESA radar is better.

Are you kidding me? The peak value and average value of electromagnetic waves are not the same thing. This is the simplest thing that will be taught in junior high school physics class.
I am talking about the earliest APG63 radar. PESA is inherently inferior to PD antenna and AESA antenna in terms of directional performance.
Of course, N011M is better than APG63 in other aspects. After all, it is an old product from the 1970s.

I'll make it simple. Officially it was stated that above 15 km altitude Mk1 will do 80 km and Mk2 will do double of that, ie, 160 km. This is a program goal.

Actual range achieved by Mk1 at 15 km is 110(?) km. So we can assume that Mk2 could achieve 220 km.

What this means is the IAF will induct the missile if it manages 160 km at 15 km. But whether the missile will achieve 200+ or 250+ km is unknown

These are all speculations. The key lies in the official figures released by India.

The primary advantage of ramjet is time to target and range. Solid rocket doesn't give that advantage. At least dual pulse provides acceleration during kill, similar to ramjet.

If you do not want a faster missile, then stick to solid rocket. That's about it.

Of course, this is the advantage of the ramjet engine, its fuel specific impulse is higher than that of traditional rocket engines, and its acceleration is faster. But can it offset its disadvantages? This is not clear.

In any case, people misunderstand the meaning of dual pulse. Only the range achieved by the first pulse matters. The second one is meant to make the kill once the seeker turns on. If it misses, then it just meaninglessly keeps flying. You can program it to use the second pulse to boost range, but it will lose energy over time no different from a single pulse motor

This idea is too simple. For example, a common tactic of a dual-pulse engine missile is to dive after climbing to a certain height, turn on the second stage engine, and achieve the maximum speed when hitting the target, reaching the maximum no-escape zone.

 

[randomradio]

Where did you come to this conclusion? The PL15 is about 2 meters long, 205mm in diameter, and weighs 210 kg, which is smaller than many missiles, such as the R27 series commonly used by India, and is similar to the Japanese AAM5 missile.

2 meters? It's 4 meters.

K-77 is also similar to that. They increased the length for greater range.

R-27 is very old. It cannot defeat a 12G target. But its value comes from salvo attack, where the enemy has to defeat the fighter's radar to avoid the RF missile as well as manage an IR missile.

AAM-5 is a dogfighting missile. I think you're referring to AAM-4, which has standard length, similar to AMRAAM. It is a design compromise over the shorter range AIM-120A/B. They wanted more range, so they increased the diameter of the missile. At the time it was the limit of their design capabilities.

Most Western missiles, including Meteor, are 3.6 meters or shorter. This matters in terms of G performance. MICA goes one step forward with just 3.1 meter length.

The length matters so much that the USAF is developing LREW to be multi-stage, which signifcantly reduces the size and weight of the kill vehicle.

 

[LX1111]

When the Israelis were advertising the I Derby-ER, they claimed that the AIM-120D is 50% less capable than Meteor whereas I Derby-ER is 80% less capable than Meteor. So at least this way we know that Meteor is superior to any existing Western BVR missile.

You know, this is Israeli propaganda. Besides, is Israel's Derby-ER really better than AIM120D? I doubt it. After all, even the most conservative estimate is that AIM120D has a range of more than 160 kilometers. Derby－ER is only about 100 kilometers.

 

[randomradio]

This has nothing to do with analog or digital signals. You are wrong, about all the design features of these Russian PESA radars.
The receiving system uses a similar AESA architecture design, with each unit module directly connected to a low-noise amplifier, avoiding the disadvantage of the traditional PESA architecture receiving branch loss being 5~6db greater than that of AESA.
But there are the following disadvantages

1.The use of electric vacuum device traveling wave tubes as transmitters instead of all-solid-state devices requires high voltage operation and a large number of isolation and protection devices, resulting in a large volume and weight of the radar system. For example, the N011M radar weighs 650kg.Solid-state devices have better reliability and are easier to change waveforms. Solid-state transmitters are more likely to obtain long pulse signals, such as quasi-continuous wave and continuous wave signals, which is beneficial to radar LPI performance. Solid-state devices have better operating bandwidth and instantaneous bandwidth, which is beneficial to radar anti-interference ability.
2.
The radar transmitter still uses the traditional PESA architecture, and its transmission power conversion efficiency is low, and the transmission waveform transformation control accuracy and effective aperture, gain, sidelobe and other characteristic deviations are not conducive to the radar's electronic warfare confrontation and LPI realization to improve detection power.

1 is irrelevant to the discussion. It's a matter of system design, which was solved on the Su-30 long ago.

2 has been resolved by the fact that it's working fine in a European theater, which currently has high electronic density and is able to lock on to targets at max range.

 

[LX1111]

2 meters? It's 4 meters.

K-77 is also similar to that. They increased the length for greater range.

R-27 is very old. It cannot defeat a 12G target. But its value comes from salvo attack, where the enemy has to defeat the fighter's radar to avoid the RF missile as well as manage an IR missile.

AAM-5 is a dogfighting missile. I think you're referring to AAM-4, which has standard length, similar to AMRAAM. It is a design compromise over the shorter range AIM-120A/B. They wanted more range, so they increased the diameter of the missile. At the time it was the limit of their design capabilities.

Most Western missiles, including Meteor, are 3.6 meters or shorter. This matters in terms of G performance. MICA goes one step forward with just 3.1 meter length.

The length matters so much that the USAF is developing LREW to be multi-stage, which signifcantly reduces the size and weight of the kill vehicle.

I have corrected my mistake later, but the maneuverability of missiles comes more from aerodynamic design, otherwise, can't longer anti-aircraft missiles shoot down aircraft? And the butterfly wing of R-27 actually gives it excellent maneuverability, and its backwardness is mainly due to the poor guidance head ability. The improvement of R-77 is actually to cancel the grid rudder. And what is the logic that Mika has made progress before Meteor and AIM120? You said it the other way around.

 

[randomradio]

Are you kidding me? The peak value and average value of electromagnetic waves are not the same thing. This is the simplest thing that will be taught in junior high school physics class.
I am talking about the earliest APG63 radar. PESA is inherently inferior to PD antenna and AESA antenna in terms of directional performance.
Of course, N011M is better than APG63 in other aspects. After all, it is an old product from the 1970s.

This is not taught in school. The way it works in a radar is different than you think. For example, if you run a fan at top speed and then switch the power off, it won't stop abruptly, it will continue spinning but slows down gradually. That's the average.

APG-63 is from the 70s, and N011M is from the 80s. And the N011M is better at pretty much everything, so I don't see the problem.

 

[randomradio]

These are all speculations. The key lies in the official figures released by India.

These are the official figures.

Goal = 80 km and 160 km at 15 km altitude
Achieved = 110 km and ??? km

 

[LX1111]

1 is irrelevant to the discussion. It's a matter of system design, which was solved on the Su-30 long ago.

2 has been resolved by the fact that it's working fine in a European theater, which currently has high electronic density and is able to lock on to targets at max range.

How does the Su-30 solve this problem? High-power solid-state components are still a problem for Russia.
Stop kidding, does Ukraine have any aircraft that can interfere with Russia? NATO aircraft are far away from the war zone, and the interference distance is too far to be effective.

 

[randomradio]

Of course, this is the advantage of the ramjet engine, its fuel specific impulse is higher than that of traditional rocket engines, and its acceleration is faster. But can it offset its disadvantages? This is not clear.

The goal is to have a longer stick. Meteor provides range via ramjet, PL-15 provides range via more rocket fuel.

But the difference is while both can be detected upon launch, the Meteor is less detectable by IR sensors during cruise, and it can change directions more frequently.

Finances are primarily the determining factor.

This idea is too simple. For example, a common tactic of a dual-pulse engine missile is to dive after climbing to a certain height, turn on the second stage engine, and achieve the maximum speed when hitting the target, reaching the maximum no-escape zone.View attachment 35378

Missiles can be lobbed for more range but less accuracy or can follow a more direct path with less range but more accuracy. It's no different from anti-tank missiles, with top attack and direct attack modes. Even rajmet can do this.

 

[randomradio]

How does the Su-30 solve this problem? High-power solid-state components are still a problem for Russia.

All that you stated simply have no relevance to the current performance of the N011M due to its use in a combat zone. What you said would constitute improvements or upgrades, whereas we are referring to what the radar can do today without solid state transmitters.

Stop kidding, does Ukraine have any aircraft that can interfere with Russia? NATO aircraft are far away from the war zone, and the interference distance is too far to be effective.

Ground-based EW for one, most of them are NATO delivered truck-mounted systems. Ukrainian Mig-29s carry NATO-supplied EW suites.

We do not know the extent of EW deliveries from NATO.

Many of their successes against fighter jets has been done via jamming.

 

[randomradio]

I have corrected my mistake later, but the maneuverability of missiles comes more from aerodynamic design, otherwise, can't longer anti-aircraft missiles shoot down aircraft? And the butterfly wing of R-27 actually gives it excellent maneuverability, and its backwardness is mainly due to the poor guidance head ability. The improvement of R-77 is actually to cancel the grid rudder. And what is the logic that Mika has made progress before Meteor and AIM120? You said it the other way around.

Longer missiles tend to be less agile, so they mainly rely on speed to make the kill, like Meteor.

R-27 is not agile compared to smaller missiles.

The improvement of the R-77 is much more than the grid fins. They have increased the length to 4 meters from 3.6 meters. The R-77-1 is 3.7 meters.

MICA is a translation error. I said that they used short range missile specifications to make a BVR missile. This is due to their multirole nature. As I said before, among P5 + India, only France and India concentrate on multirole capabilities the most. So France has developed their weapons and tactics to reflect that. That experience was transferred over to the LCA and AMCA too. While other countries focus more towards high altitude combat, France concetrates on medium and low altitude. India does both, Flanker + Rafale/Mirage. So the MICA is much more effective at low altitude than these longer and heavier missiles.

 

[Rajput Lion]

You may think that dual-pulse missiles have a longer range than single-pulse missiles, and ramjet engines are larger than dual-pulse missiles. However, the world is not that simple. Last year, AIM120D3 shot down an F16 target at 205 kilometers in an experiment. Although the experimental conditions are unknown, this range has reached the level of Meteor and PL15.

Single-pulse or dual-pulse missiles can match ramjets only in lofted trajectory. In a direct shot, they have no chance against SFDRs like Meteor or Astra 3. And why would USAF expedite AIM-260 JATM if AIM-120D3 sufficed?

Well, according to the display board you gave me, the range is 190 km at 8 km altitude, while the PL15 and Meteor missiles have a range of more than 200 km at 10 km altitude. The three missiles are at least similar in data.

At 10kms, Astra 3/SFDR would reach over 240kms while maintaing full energy. PL-15 would be quite low on energy when chasing fighter jets at 200+kms. No such problem for Astra 3.

Hell, Russians are even developing Scramjet missiles which would be simply game-changing.

 

[Rajput Lion]

PL-15 is too long and too heavy. That comes with design compromises that will make it less effective compared to smaller missiles.

The goal behind this missile is not to kill but to force the enemy to retreat.

PL-15 is fully designed to pull 40G maneuvers. So though it is big(4m long) and heavy(over 200kgs), it's still an air-dominance missile designed to swat enemy fighter jets using a combination of speed + maneuverabiliity. All our current missiles except Meteor are simply outclassed by it.

The missile that PLAAF will use to force enemy fighters, tankers and AWACS back is PL-17 which is super long and heavy. Russians are doing the same with their R-37M.

N011M's lower power is compensated with lower noise. Also, for power to make a difference, it needs to be 16 times higher for double the range. N035 is just 4 times more powerful in comparison. In any case, peak power is rarely used, and N011M's cooling is sufficient for 1.2 KW versus 5 KW on N035.

Plus, as I said, the main competition over Tibet is Flankers, J-11 and J-16. The higher RCS makes up for the difference compared to Ukraine's Mig-29. As long as the MKI is able to pick up Flankers from long range, most of the work is done.

Russia is using a Bars derivative called N011M-R on its Su-30SMs. It's pretty much the same radar but uses a more powerful TWT. Upgrade to N035 is still pending.

The Chinese claim that they have significantly reduced J-16s RCS. So, using Ukrainian ancient Flankers/Fulcrums as a benchmark of RCS for PLAAF 4++ gen Flankers like J-16 could be a mistake for us.

Here is what the Chinese say about J-16:
"The silver-gray painting covering the J-16 is a kind of cloaking coating that gives the warplane a certain stealth capability, making it nearly invisible to the naked eye and electromagnetic devices," the official Global Times reported, citing a recent interview with Chinese aviation brigade commander Jiang Jiaji conducted by state broadcaster CCTV.

Link: China claims its advanced J-16 strike fighter just went stealth with nothing more than a new paint job | Business Insider India

Old Su-27/J-11's RCS as per leaked Chinese report(against Gripen-C) was reported at 12m2. Su-35S/MKI's RCS could be between 2.5m2 - 4m2. That could reduce 160kms tracking range to around 100kms. However, if the Chinese claim has any ounce of veracity and J-16's RCS(for air-to-air load) is sub -10dBsm or say around 0.5m2, then 160kms tracking range would convert into just 72kms tracking range for advance Chinese Flankers like J-16.

PLAAF has plenty of advantages at the moment against us. We need more Rafales, Su-60MKI, MKI UPG. and MK1A/MK2/AMCA along with operationalised Astra 2/3 ASAP just for parity.

 

[Tatvamasi]

At 10kms, Astra 3/SFDR would reach over 240kms while maintaing full energy. PL-15 would be quite low on energy when chasing fighter jets at 200+kms. No such problem for Astra 3.

Produce source for your claims. The poster you presented showing something different.

Astra mk3 is 5 years away from the service if you go by the track record. Yet you talk like its some proven system.

Overenthusiastic numbnuts like you are the reason for giving the nationality a bad name across the forums.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Produce source for your claims. The poster you presented showing something different.

Astra mk3 is 5 years away from the service if you go by the track record. Yet you talk like its some proven system.

Overenthusiastic numbnuts like you are the reason for giving the nationality a bad name across the forums.

190kms at 8 km altitude and 340kms at 20km altitude. BVRs travel for even longer distance when launched at high supersonic speeds vs subsonic. Do the math. Plus, real range is always more than what is claimed. There is nothing overenthusiatic about my claims. Astra 3 can even reach 80+kms at sea-level launch. It's going to be a real game-change once it becomes operational.

 

[randomradio]

PL-15 is fully designed to pull 40G maneuvers. So though it is big(4m long) and heavy(over 200kgs), it's still an air-dominance missile designed to swat enemy fighter jets using a combination of speed + maneuverabiliity. All our current missiles except Meteor are simply outclassed by it.

The missile that PLAAF will use to force enemy fighters, tankers and AWACS back is PL-17 which is super long and heavy. Russians are doing the same with their R-37M.

Some capabilities of the PL-15 may have been exaggerated at the time of its official release, and it's stuck. Only that AESA seeker is a special trait, although it should be old by today's standards, at least compared to whatever the Japanese will introduce with JNAAM.

It still does not compare well with Meteor, which the Japanese plan to use on their F-35, which they decided will be their primary AAM after the PL-15 underwent tests.

The Chinese claim that they have significantly reduced J-16s RCS. So, using Ukrainian ancient Flankers/Fulcrums as a benchmark of RCS for PLAAF 4++ gen Flankers like J-16 could be a mistake for us.

Here is what the Chinese say about J-16:
"The silver-gray painting covering the J-16 is a kind of cloaking coating that gives the warplane a certain stealth capability, making it nearly invisible to the naked eye and electromagnetic devices," the official Global Times reported, citing a recent interview with Chinese aviation brigade commander Jiang Jiaji conducted by state broadcaster CCTV.

Link: China claims its advanced J-16 strike fighter just went stealth with nothing more than a new paint job | Business Insider India

Old Su-27/J-11's RCS as per leaked Chinese report(against Gripen-C) was reported at 12m2. Su-35S/MKI's RCS could be between 2.5m2 - 4m2. That could reduce 160kms tracking range to around 100kms. However, if the Chinese claim has any ounce of veracity and J-16's RCS(for air-to-air load) is sub -10dBsm or say around 0.5m2, then 160kms tracking range would convert into just 72kms tracking range for advance Chinese Flankers like J-16.

PLAAF has plenty of advantages at the moment against us. We need more Rafales, Su-60MKI, MKI UPG. and MK1A/MK2/AMCA along with operationalised Astra 2/3 ASAP just for parity.

That's a very general claim meant for a non-technical audience.

In the end, the J-16 is still a Flanker and its main survival tactic will require ECM and kinetic performance.

Furthermore, J-16 is centered around multirole/strike capabilities, so pilot training and avionics will primarily cater to that role. It's not as multirole as the MKI in terms of design. Its performance should much more closely mimic the Su-30MKK instead, which had trade-offs in the air to air domain for more strike and range.

In a 1v1, the J-16 will have an advantage due to the better radar, but both sides have to rely on off-board surveillance anyway.

Only if MKIs are not equipped with some I Derby-ER today will the J-16 have a significant advantage. Or we have to wait until Astra Mk2 is ready.