we cannot say this for sure, as there are no air cooled X band jet radar in service anywhere.AGI wrote: It is indisputable that a liquid cooling system will always carry a higher maintenance cost and weight penalty than an air cooling system.
It depends upon performance requirements, and how exactly you define air-cooled. There are radars, like the F-16's APG-83, for example that primarily use air-cooling, have a local heat exchanger or other embedded cooling solution, but do not require any addition of liquid cooling plumbing on the aircraft. This was a design requirement, as the USAF did not want to go through the expensive modifications of introducing plumbing for liquid cooling and overhauling the F-16's unlike the UAE's blk'60 aircraft, where they had to basically create a bespoke system. Northrop and Lockheed have met all performance requirements with this approach but had to upgrade the radar to include the latest generation components to do so (it isn't a recycled AN/APG-80 from the UAE bid). I believe the APG-83's main rical from Raytheon (RACR) also is primarily air-cooled and does not require plumbing for liquid cooling to be provisioned. These sets were designed to be drop in replacements on the F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft.nam wrote: If they are using GaN, then may be, it might have reduced cooling needs. If that is the case, then it is a achievement to get a X band GaN, jet radar.
Regular AESA with air cooling method, is a downgraded AESA.
You switch to GaN in order to drive more power, get better performance (or overcome performance deficiency) and achieve performance not possible with GaAs devices. It is a major cost driver to do so both from industrial capability and capacity perspective and from a pure acquisition cost perspective so you do not make that decision lightly. While there are reliability advantages even without tapping into higher performance they do not really matter much when you are dealing with a 6-8,000 hr fighter. Case in point - ON the F-35, the radar aperture is sealed shut as the GaAs T/R modules have demonstrated reliability far exceeding the expected life of the aircraft.nam wrote:For the same power rating , GaN are more power efficient ( reduced heating), hence will need lower cooling.
If for the same power rating, if GaN thermal properties are bad compared to GaAS, then no one will move towards GaN.
They’ve turned the corner on the WS-10 and on engines. When you can put an experimental TVC nozzle on a single-engined aircraft in front of a crowd at an airshow then you are making a statement about its reliability.AGI wrote:Chengdu Aerospace Corporation would have definately have had to improve the existing FCS on the J10C to integrate a TVC engine. Pics and video from the WS10 TVC display at the manufacturer's pavilion:Austin wrote:So far the best video showing J-10B TVC performed Cobra maneuver, J-turn, Falling leaf maneuver. Video by @ChinaAvReview
https://twitter.com/dafengcao/status/10 ... 1364423682
Computer generated video of how the nozzle works and actual footage of the test rig:
https://twitter.com/OedoSoldier/status/ ... 0908170241
The J20 also demonstrating its no slouch. Many tight high G turns in this long display. Much less sedate than the 2016 demo:
https://mobile.twitter.com/OedoSoldier/ ... 1377346560
Nice High res pics from that display:
Maybe we'll get to see a demo from a TVC equipped J20 at Zhuhai 2020
I agree. There are various parameters.brar_w wrote:
It depends upon performance requirements, and how exactly you define air-cooled.
While identifying many general attributes of the company-funded SABR, company officials were light on specifics at the Singapore Airshow 2008 in February, where the unit was launched.
It is an X-band radar and will cost "much less than existing AESA radars", according to Chris Sheppard, in charge of F-16 developments at Northrop Grumman.
He noted that it would be flexible to install, require no external aircraft modifications and use existing aircraft power. SABR's transmit/receive/processing unit incorporates integral cooling.
ZHUHAI, China—An AVIC-owned J-10B testbed demonstrated in a Nov. 6 flying display showed China’s new mastery of extreme aerial maneuverability aided by an experimental thrust vectoring control system.
Over a crowd of thousands attending Airshow China here, the J-10B’s axisymmetric vectoring engine nozzle enabled several aerial stunts associated with the most agile combat fighters.
Thrust vectoring allows a pilot to control an aircraft in an aerodynamic stall condition caused by a low speed and a high angle of attack. By using the vectoring nozzle to rotate the thrust produced by the engine, the pilot can perform tightly controlled maneuvers in a condition that would cause most aircraft to depart controlled flight.
In the most dramatic stunt, the J-10B’s pilot pulled the nose back almost 90 deg., then used thrust-vectoring control to rapidly reverse direction in a maneuver known as a “J-turn.”
The J-10B also performed a familiar air show stunt by Russian fighters. Pulling the nose back beyond 90 deg. at a very low speed, the thrust vectoring system kept the aircraft in firm control.
Such stunts, while popular at air shows, have limited value in modern combat against another fighter. Post-stall maneuvering, however, can help a fighter pilot in other ways, such as by avoiding detection by flying with a forward speed lower than the threshold velocity required for being spotted on an airborne early warning radar.
Thrust vectoring technology has been available to Russian and U.S. pilots since the 1990s, but has entered China’s aerial arsenal only recently. The delivery of the first batch of Sukhoi Su-35S fighters earlier this year introduced thrust vectoring control technology to the People’s Liberation Army’s Air Force fleet. Around the same time, pictures surfaced of AVIC’s J-10B testbed equipped with a thrust vectoring nozzle.
True, our model makers are way behind theirsPhilip wrote:Wuhai air show on.Check out the range of items that China has developed indigenously. Impressive.
We are way behind in several areas.
- Country’s leading aviation expo was expected to be showcase for purpose-built WS-15 Emei but performance problems force rethink.
- PLA relies on Russia for engines for its most advanced stealth fighter.
No joke this.hnair wrote:True, our model makers are way behind theirsPhilip wrote:Wuhai air show on.Check out the range of items that China has developed indigenously. Impressive.
We are way behind in several areas.
Please change your username to a more human sounding one. Thank You.AGI wrote:Their second carrier has returned from its third sea trial
I'd be happy to sir. Kindly instruct me as to how that is done..? I can't find the option on the user control panel nor am I authorized to send private messages to inquire on itAGI wrote:Thanks for the warm welcome mate. I'd be happy to comply if you'd send a PM explaining how to edit my user name...The only option I see on the edit account settings page is the password change option...Rahul M wrote:Hi AGI, welcome to BRF.
please choose a human sounding username since your current one violates forum rules.
Thanks mate. "Kingsley". Feel free to add anything to it if just "Kingsley" is already taken...Rakesh wrote:What name do you want? Pick one and we will change it.
Saar, the forum software will not permit Kingsley, due to the term F***King, so it has been changed to Kengsley. Thanks.Kengsley wrote:Thanks mate. "Kingsley". Feel free to add anything to it if just "Kingsley" is already taken...Rakesh wrote:What name do you want? Pick one and we will change it.
The first part came from FDI from Japan and the Asian Tigers while the second part beginning in 2001 coincided with their entry into WTO and the rise of their private sector.Austin wrote:Explains China Rise in Economy since 80's till now , At one point we were ahead and till 2000 almost on par with them on PPP
Few get into operational use, even the PLA can’t afford and use the vast majority of that chit. So they hawk to an international audience for exports.nam wrote:One thing about Chini weapon development is we cannot make out if some of these were developed for the sake of selling or there have been requirement from PLA/N/AF.
Some of these kit are fundamentally from eager companies wanting to get in to weapon sale or existing arms manufacturer extending their portfolio.
DRDO does weapon development, based on service requirement. However the drawback is the ecosystem is limited to what DRDO could get the funding for.
Chini development looks massive, however not sure many are getting in to operational use.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11- ... show-chinaIn particular, what caught our attention on Thursday morning, is that China has developed an autonomous boat that can conduct reconnaissance missions and fire up to four image-guided missiles, said China Daily.
a carrier would swamp this in its wake 
like a sedate hathi pissing on a defiant jackal.Russian miilitary exports does not make up more than 3 % of their total exports earning , so its minuscile and Indians dont make for more than 20 % of that MIC export on averagenam wrote:More than anyone else, it would the Russian who would be quite nervous at these "startups". They are eating in to Russian sales. And given the size of their economy, they cannot pour in resources.
India is probably their true large market, in a way funder of their MIC. We need to squeeze out tech from Russian to the max.
