Shenyang / Chengdu "6th Gen" Aircraft - News and Analysis

[Elysium]

"Concrete source" is the operative word phrase here.

The information that is from would not be something that would be accepted by a thinktank publication or deemed a worthy citation for a wikipedia article, either because the prerequisite assumptions and knowledge base just doesn't exist in "formal literature" or "established media" or because some information is simply too recent (think only existing within the last 5 or so years) and being RF data would not be shared publicly to begin with.


The flip side of the question also exists -- beyond the brochures and marketing, we generally don't know accurate details of the important metrics for contemporary US or European or Russian subsystems and electronics either.

I tried to do some amateur sleuthing, and immediately got confusing info. I found this article on the J-10CEs radar, which claims
an 50km improvement over the F-16 Block 52's radar, the AN/APG-83 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-83), which has an alleged 370km range (no mention of probability of intercept or target RCS).

Pakistan’s J-10CE fighter brings new radar and long-range missiles

Pakistan’s J-10CE fighter brings new radar and long-range missiles

armyrecognition.com

AN/APG-82(V) - Radartutorial

www.radartutorial.eu

If I assume the J-16 radar has a similar tech level to the J-10CE's, I could extrapolate its performance, by roughly doubling its radiating power, and accounting for the difference in antenna size.
I downloaded a blueprint for the J-10 and Su-35(used as a proxy for the J-16), and was suprised to see these 2 have approximately similar diameter radomes. So with a doubling in engine power, it's reasonable to assume we get a 19% increase in range, compared to the J-10.

Here's the site I used for blueprints.

Fighter Blueprints - Download free blueprint for 3D modeling

Fighter blueprints

drawingdatabase.com

Once again I was surprised to find the F-15's radome is not bigger than the F-16, but both are bigger than the Chinese ones by appx 10cm in diameter (might be measurement error). Again considering the F-15 has two of the same engines as the F-16, we can apply this 19% bonus

However according to this

AN/APG-82(V) - Radartutorial

www.radartutorial.eu

The F-15EX radar is apparently the AN/APG-82(V), which has a stated range of just 185km (again circumstances are not stated), which is baffling to me, I'd be suprised if they indeed have less range than a late block F-16 radar.

However #2:

On other source(https://www.deagel.com/Components/ANAPG-68/a001560), it was stated the the F-16 has the AN/APG-68 radar, which has just 85km range (https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/08.airborne/karte024.en.html).

So my conclusion is that there's no conclusion, internet sources suck (And ChatGPT is a BS machine I'm reluctant to use in any domain where I can't tell if it's right or wrong) Very few of them go into concrete detail, and even then, they probably get it wrong, which is surprising considering just how many people are actually discussing these jets, so feel the need to have accurate info on them.

So if we assume the Block 52, used as a basis of comparison has the APG-83, that means the Chinese radars are on par or slightly better than US ones.

If we assume the stated (85km range +50km)*1.19=160km against the F-15s AN/APG-82 s 185km range, it means Chinese radars are slightly worse in this metric.

But I think it's reasonable to assume Chinese and US radars are +-15% of within each other, with my added assumption being that US radars benefit from better jam resistance, and more useful operating modes, due the US's lead in experience in this field.

 

[BillRamengod]

I tried to do some amateur sleuthing, and immediately got confusing info. I found this article on the J-10CEs radar, which claims
an 50km improvement over the F-16 Block 52's radar, the AN/APG-83 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-83), which has an alleged 370km range (no mention of probability of intercept or target RCS).

Pakistan’s J-10CE fighter brings new radar and long-range missiles

Pakistan’s J-10CE fighter brings new radar and long-range missiles

armyrecognition.com

AN/APG-82(V) - Radartutorial

www.radartutorial.eu

If I assume the J-16 radar has a similar tech level to the J-10CE's, I could extrapolate its performance, by roughly doubling its radiating power, and accounting for the difference in antenna size.
I downloaded a blueprint for the J-10 and Su-35(used as a proxy for the J-16), and was suprised to see these 2 have approximately similar diameter radomes. So with a doubling in engine power, it's reasonable to assume we get a 19% increase in range, compared to the J-10.

Here's the site I used for blueprints.

Fighter Blueprints - Download free blueprint for 3D modeling

Fighter blueprints

drawingdatabase.com

Once again I was surprised to find the F-15's radome is not bigger than the F-16, but both are bigger than the Chinese ones by appx 10cm in diameter (might be measurement error). Again considering the F-15 has two of the same engines as the F-16, we can apply this 19% bonus

However according to this

AN/APG-82(V) - Radartutorial

www.radartutorial.eu

The F-15EX radar is apparently the AN/APG-82(V), which has a stated range of just 185km (again circumstances are not stated), which is baffling to me, I'd be suprised if they indeed have less range than a late block F-16 radar.

However #2:

On other source(https://www.deagel.com/Components/ANAPG-68/a001560), it was stated the the F-16 has the AN/APG-68 radar, which has just 85km range (https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/08.airborne/karte024.en.html).

So my conclusion is that there's no conclusion, internet sources suck (And ChatGPT is a BS machine I'm reluctant to use in any domain where I can't tell if it's right or wrong) Very few of them go into concrete detail, and even then, they probably get it wrong, which is surprising considering just how many people are actually discussing these jets, so feel the need to have accurate info on them.

So if we assume the Block 52, used as a basis of comparison has the APG-83, that means the Chinese radars are on par or slightly better than US ones.

If we assume the stated (85km range +50km)*1.19=160km against the F-15s AN/APG-82 s 185km range, it means Chinese radars are slightly worse in this metric.

But I think it's reasonable to assume Chinese and US radars are +-15% of within each other, with my added assumption being that US radars benefit from better jam resistance, and more useful operating modes, due the US's lead in experience in this field.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872790885102190645

View: https://twitter.com/tphuang/status/1872790885102190645

By tphuang from SDF. Hope it can help you with you conclusion.

 

[Scott Kenny]

But I think it's reasonable to assume Chinese and US radars are +-15% of within each other, with my added assumption being that US radars benefit from better jam resistance, and more useful operating modes, due the US's lead in experience in this field.

That's certainly where I tend to fall.

 

[Sintra]

I tried to do some amateur sleuthing, and immediately got confusing info. I found this article on the J-10CEs radar, which claims
an 50km improvement over the F-16 Block 52's radar, the AN/APG-83 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-83), which has an alleged 370km range (no mention of probability of intercept or target RCS).

Pakistan’s J-10CE fighter brings new radar and long-range missiles

Pakistan’s J-10CE fighter brings new radar and long-range missiles

armyrecognition.com

AN/APG-82(V) - Radartutorial

www.radartutorial.eu

The radar of the F-16 Blocks 52´s is not the AESA AN/APG-83, all of those vipers use/used variants of the much older MSA APG-68.
The Pakistani ones use the AN/APG-68(V)9.
There are Block 50/52´s that are being upgraded with the AN/APG-83, but not the Pakistani ones.

You might find this useful (pages 4 and 5):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337985199_On_the_use_of_AESA_Active_Electronically_Scanned_Array_Radar_and_IRST_InfraRed_SearchTrack_System_to_Detect_and_Track_Low_Observable_Threats

The F-15 radome is vastly bigger than the one on the F-16

 

[Deino]

....

Pakistan’s J-10CE fighter brings new radar and long-range missiles

Pakistan’s J-10CE fighter brings new radar and long-range missiles

armyrecognition.com

...

Please refrain from posting anything from or even quoting Armyrecognition.nonsense! It's just a shitty site.

 

[paralay]

The air intake inlet in this form is twice as large as the compressor area.

 

[djfawcett]

So what does that tell us about its mission? Is it a Backfire.cn Or a Tu-128 2.0?

I also see that the RAES assume the supersonic capability per se (naming here the bump of the dorsal inlet a supersonic inlet bump) but, as they have a 3D model in hand, did they try to extract the volume profile along the flight axis to see if there is some supersonic cruise drag reduction in the design?

At this stage, it can as well be as fast as an F-117...

In all honesty, any type of Sears Haack plot analysis would be meaningless because the 3d model is pure supposition. Moreover, without the design Mach, a substantive Sears Haack analysis can not be conducted.

 

[TomcatViP]

It will show quickly if there was an optimization for any given mach. See for example here.

 

[SK2]

The radar of the F-16 Blocks 52´s is not the AESA AN/APG-83, all of those vipers use/used variants of the much older MSA APG-68.
The Pakistani ones use the AN/APG-68(V)9.
There are Block 50/52´s that are being upgraded with the AN/APG-83, but not the Pakistani ones.

To make it simpler those used AN/APG-83 can be called as F-16V after the upgrade

 

[djfawcett]

The air intake inlet in this form is twice as large as the compressor area.

Hi Paralay, Wouldn't you want to diffuse the airflow to the face of the compressor? That would effect you area upstream. Actually, it would probably give you more volume for weapon bays.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I tried to do some amateur sleuthing, and immediately got confusing info. I found this article on the J-10CEs radar, which claims
an 50km improvement over the F-16 Block 52's radar, the AN/APG-83 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-83), which has an alleged 370km range (no mention of probability of intercept or target RCS).

[....]

But I think it's reasonable to assume Chinese and US radars are +-15% of within each other, with my added assumption being that US radars benefit from better jam resistance, and more useful operating modes, due the US's lead in experience in this field.

You went completely wrong right near the beginning. The J-10/F-16 radar comparison is with the AN/APG-68(V)9 fitted to Pakistan's F-16C Block 52. This had a 30 percent increase in detection range over the AN/APG-68. So the claim from Pakistan is a minor advantage in range for a modern AESA over an updated 40 year old mechanical scan radar.

Ultimately the methodology is pretty flawed. It assumes capability = maximum range, and ranges can be compared without knowing target size.

The F-22 radar AN/APG-77 for example tries to minimise power used for stealth reasons while giving good range. The Su-35's Irbis pumps out power like a power station. If the Irbis has a maximum range that is longer, does that make it better? "Comparable"?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Hi Paralay, Wouldn't you want to diffuse the airflow to the face of the compressor? That would effect you area upstream. Actually, it would probably give you more volume for weapon bays.

Yes, you do. Diffusing the airflow slows it down and increases pressure.

 

[djfawcett]

Yes, you do. Diffusing the airflow slows it down and increases pressure.

That is what I said, yes you want to diffuse the air. As I think you know, reducing the Mach is good, increasing it is bad.

 

[djfawcett]

It will show quickly if there was an optimization for any given mach. See for example here.

Hi Tomcat, I didn't say it couldn't be done. Of course an analysis can be done. What I was original conveying is BS in, BS out. So what do you have at the end of the day, more supposition.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That is what I said, yes you want to diffuse the air. As I think you know, reducing the Mach is good, increasing it is bad.

Wasn't sure from how you'd phrased that line I quoted.

Now, there may be some reason why the inlets are not as small as you'd expect, using a deeper throat inside to deal with some shocks to get the airflow subsonic before it enters the diffuser ahead of the compressor. This requires spilling extra air out, though.

But I think @paralay has made the inlets not match up to the engines. I wouldn't expect them to be massively larger like he's done here.

So either there's a scaling goof on the assumed dimensions (edit) and the engines are correct, or the assumed dimensions are correct and the engines are a lot bigger.

 

[VTOLicious]

Here is my latest 3D guesswork in comparison to the RAeS sketch...

Length: 21,5 m
Wingspan: 22 m
Solid Body Volume: 180 m³
Intake Area (3x): 0,655 m²

After the IWBs I found some time to model the engine ducts. Same as the IWBs this is pure speculation of course!

The serpentine ducts are designed to hide the compressor face of the two lateral engines. However, to simplify modelling I kept a constant cross section from intake to compressor face on each duct. The three ducts use up about 15m³ of internal volume, which is about 8,3 % of total volume. Whereas the IWBs use up 21m³, which is about 11,7% of total aircraft volume (180m³).

It is interesting to note that there is a huge volume above the main weapons bay available, which would most likely be used for fuel. But this section would also easily accommodate a deeper weapons bay or even a rotary launcher, instead of fuel...