China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

[chola]

no doubt it carries all the current buzzwords like ML, AI, autonomous, deep learning and has hadoop FS and kubernetes on board for rapid swing role plays using containers and docker

Spoken like a true IT wallah! lol

[chola]

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.

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 average

Chinese dont have a battle proven system , Russian are moon miles ahead there infact there is nothing in Chini system that battle proven except for armed UAV used by Iraq army .....so its apples and oranges comparision .......Customers know this fact and even proven system like J-10 has no buyers not even PAF. Reason why Japan cannot sell much in export market

But having said that these new system should help the Chinese army and their MIC to build an indiginous modern MIC ....they dont really need to export too as Chinese have other things to export in commercial world

I think it is price points more than anything. The UAVs were not proven until they were — by the customers themselves. The J-10 had not sold but the J-7, K-8 and L-15 have. Even the FC-1/JF-17 had sold from a chini perspective — Pakiland, Burma and Nigeria. This new MiG-21 development the FTC-2000 had sold to Sudan and others in darkest Africa and will probably be popular.

Those nations that can afford the J-10 are middle income nations who tend to be Amreeki allies (ASEAN and South America) and Arab states that are traditional Russki buyers. That said, the drones sales to the Arabs can pave the way for the more expensive chini aircraft in the future like the FC-31. That will eat into the Russian share.

[Austin]

Most of Chinese export till date are small numbers with generous credit offered , Chinese does not need export of mic due to huge internal market in that sense they are like US MIC.

But making inroads into west Asia like the drone sale won’t do any harm , as China is the largest importer of OPEC oil many opec nation will also look at Chinese Mala as alternative to US one .

EIA predicts Chinese energy demands will be high till 2035 the highest in fact they have a ace of spade in dealing with opec

[SaiK]

China clinches multi-billion-dollar strategic port deal with Myanmar

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... aign=cppst

[Zynda]

Airshow China 2018: Upgraded Z-10ME attack helicopter breaks cover

The Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) has unveiled an improved version of its Zhishengji-10ME (Z-10ME), an export-oriented variant of the People's Liberation Army Air Force's (PLAAF's) Z-10K all-weather multirole attack helicopter, for the first time in public at the Airshow China 2018 exhibition in Zhuhai.

Developed by AVIC's helicopter division Changhe Aircraft Industries Corporation (CAIC), the tandem-seat Z-10ME initially surfaced as a conceptual model at Paris Air Show 2017, but the first production-ready helicopter - with serial number Z-10ME001 - was already flying by September 2018.

The latest variant incorporates several enhancements over the in-service Z-10K, with active and passive survivability modifications including a comprehensive airborne countermeasures suite comprising an indigenously developed missile approach warning system (MAWS) and radar warning receiver (RWR), which can be configured to automatically dispense chaff or flares from two box-shaped 6×4 dispenser systems on either side of the fuselage.

Meanwhile, passive defences include a revised engine nozzle layout that is upturned to channel hot exhaust gases upwards to reduce the helicopter's infrared (IR) signature, as opposed to the baseline People's Liberation Army (PLA) army aviation Z-10 and PLAAF Z-10K's conventional sideways exhaust configuration. The Z-10ME is also outfitted with inlet particle separators (IPS) for the twin intakes to reduce sand, dust, and other harmful solid particulate damage to critical engine and propulsion components resulting in power loss.

The Z-10ME on display also featured appliqué armour panels - widely reported to be manufactured from extremely light but robust graphene super material - that have been attached to the helicopter's fuselage just immediately under and slightly forward of both cockpit's side windows, with the front-most armour panel wrapping around the MAWS sensor module.

[Kengsley]

This radar's manufacturer, LETRI is competing with another Chinese manufacturer, NRIET (Nanjing Research Institute of Electronics Technology) for the integration of an AESA on block 3 JF17's. NRIET's offer, the KLJ-7A has been tested extensively on an airborne test platform since last year.

The two J-7s serving as targets in the KLJ-7A radar test (Image; CCTV-2)

You can read Henri Kenhmann's article on the KLJ-7A here:

http://www.eastpendulum.com/klj-7a-1er- ... est-en-vol

NRIET's display of the KLJ-7A. They have adopted a mechanical/Electrical scanning array ala the CAPTOR-E, with a move-able re-positioner providing a wider field of regard:





Considering:

1. the investment in the development effort of this radar(Y-7 test bed, use of actual Chengdu J-7's as test targets etc)
2. NRIET's insistence on not displaying it's T/R module count at consecutive Zhuhai airshows (2016 and 2018)
3. that NRIET already produces the KLJ-7 mechanically scanned PD array the JF17 is equipped with currently
4. that the KLJ-7A is reportedly a development of the existing KLJ-7 PD radar

I would bet that the KLJ7-A will win out over LETRI's offer, or that the JF17 development/production partners (ie PAC and PAF) have already selected it to equip Block 3 JF17's.

[Kengsley]

THe HK-5000G carrier-borne UAV. It's being developed by a unit under the China Shipbuilding Industry Corp (or CSIC).







A company representative has placed its weight at 5-tonnes (roughly 2 more than the Wing Loong II and CH-5 MALE UCAV's) and its endurance at 12 hours. It's designed as a persistent, long range reconnaissance asset for carriers at both high and medium altitudes.

The same deputy manager of the company's R&D unit is quoted as saying landing and take-off tests have been performed, which suggests that this is the same UAV captured on satellite images being launched from the catapults installed at the PLAN's Huangdicun naval airbase:

[chola]

^^^Damn, Kengsley. You are putting me out of business as the local chini expert. If you are not desi then I'm keeping the title. Good in depth posts.

Why no western option for JF-17 radar? They are using the Grifo on their J7PGs. Chinis not cooperating on the JF-17? No sharing code for weapons so only the two PRC companies?

The carrier UAV is by a shipbuilder? That’s bizarre since they already have more appropriate aviation firms with drone or carrier aircraft experience.

This free-for-all in their MIC looks a bit wasteful especially as a nation they are nowhere near as wealthy as the US — and even the US don’t have that many prototypes coming in from every sundry company in barely related fields.

But overall, I like their approach. Firms developing and pitching prototypes create a competive eco-system where the industry is not waiting around for some screwdriver giri JV to sustain them. They are forced to hustle for business against others.

[nam]

notice the era placement. makes the turret look bigger than it actually is. Trying to defeat tandem warhead?

Are they expecting atgm to hit at the flat face?



The turret side has weak armor

[chola]

notice the era placement. makes the turret look bigger than it actually is. Trying to defeat tandem warhead?

Are they expecting atgm to hit at the flat face?

Had to cut and paste link to see image, Namji.

But that is old technique to protect turret.

German used it on the Panzerkamfwagen IV in WWII to protect against shaped charges (and magnetic mines.)

With spaced turret armor:


Without:

[nam]

If i have a laser beam riding ATGM, i will paint it right behind the ERA of those chinese tank. Compare this with Arjun or our T72 upgrade ERA MK2 placement. No such gaps.

[nam]

Just saw some picture of probably our defence attache in chini taking out photos using his phone.. of SD10 sam spec...

[Kengsley]

^^^Damn, Kengsley. You are putting me out of business as the local chini expert. If you are not desi then I'm keeping the title. Good in depth posts..

Thanks mate. And no, I'm not Desi so your title is safe.

I'm African, from Botswana to be exact. Following the Chinese defense sector has been a hobby/addiction since my college years. The almost daily developments are interesting to read about.

Why no western option for JF-17 radar? They are using the Grifo on their J7PGs. Chinis not cooperating on the JF-17? No sharing code for weapons so only the two PRC companies?

Leonardo's "low cost" and "easy to integrate" Grifo E has been floated around as a competitor. Late model PAF F7's had Grifo PD's integrated in the early 2000's and they cue Chinese AAMs so it wouldn't be unprecedented.

The carrier UAV is by a shipbuilder? That’s bizarre since they already have more appropriate aviation firms with drone or carrier aircraft experience.

This free-for-all in their MIC looks a bit wasteful especially as a nation they are nowhere near as wealthy as the US — and even the US don’t have that many prototypes coming in from every sundry company in barely related fields.

But overall, I like their approach. Firms developing and pitching prototypes create a competive eco-system where the industry is not waiting around for some screwdriver giri JV to sustain them. They are forced to hustle for business against others.

I still struggle to understand the complexities of their large state owned defense manufacturers, so bare with me.

CSIC was established by both the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, and the giant aerospace SOE China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation(or CAST). This drone looks like one of CAST's HALE UAV offerings made carrier capable throuh a joint effort with the shipbuilder, which is also responsible for developing their Electromagnetic catapults and rail gun programmes...

Considering that there is litteraly no other navy at present with a requirement for a catapult launched HALE unmanned aerial vehicle to export this to, HK 5000G is most definately a navy sanctioned project to equip future Chinese carriers.

[chola]

^^^Damn, Kengsley. You are putting me out of business as the local chini expert. If you are not desi then I'm keeping the title. Good in depth posts..

Thanks mate. And no, I'm not Desi so your title is safe.

I'm African, from Botswana to be exact. Following the Chinese defense sector has been a hobby/addiction since my college years. The almost daily developments are interesting to read about.

Welcome again, Sir! You may be our first member from Africa.

Yes, their constant stream of development and the unending leaks which nearly always pan out a few weeks or months down the line is very addicting. Which is in sharp contrast to our news where we might not get new info on a project for months on end sometimes.

What brought you here? Are you on the Indian mil watch as well? The international interest is far smaller unlike the chini one so we don’t see many non-desis.

Your post on the carrier UAV was very insightful and gave a good explanation of what would be a confusing set up. I didn’t know about CAST. I’m mostly concentrated on their fighters and mil aircraft makers — CAC, SAC, Guizhou and Xian — mainly because I started chini watching over competition between the LCA and their fighter projects.

[nam]

AESA KLJ with side antenna. It looks like a micro strip antenna, rather than AESA. If it was AESA, wonder why they did not hide the elements.

Those dots are radiating elements, however AESA elements are not that small.

[brar_w]

It is a model not an actual radar and there are model's that are made of all sort of materials showing notional capability. Those side panels might be for illustration purposes only and an actual panel, on the actual hardware may look different.

[kit]

^^^Damn, Kengsley. You are putting me out of business as the local chini expert. If you are not desi then I'm keeping the title. Good in depth posts.

Why no western option for JF-17 radar? They are using the Grifo on their J7PGs. Chinis not cooperating on the JF-17? No sharing code for weapons so only the two PRC companies?

The carrier UAV is by a shipbuilder? That’s bizarre since they already have more appropriate aviation firms with drone or carrier aircraft experience.

This free-for-all in their MIC looks a bit wasteful especially as a nation they are nowhere near as wealthy as the US — and even the US don’t have that many prototypes coming in from every sundry company in barely related fields.

But overall, I like their approach. Firms developing and pitching prototypes create a competive eco-system where the industry is not waiting around for some screwdriver giri JV to sustain them. They are forced to hustle for business against others.

I think the Chinese can develop.near equivalent Western systems at a fraction of the cost esp "R and D" .. like India

[chola]

Showing off its bays:

[Singha]

The j20 show in zhuhai looked quite tame. 3 first flew in and then planes 1 and 2 some horizontal turns and only 1 certicsl climb move

Nowhere near what the j10 must have showed

[chola]

The j20 show in zhuhai looked quite tame. 3 first flew in and then planes 1 and 2 some horizontal turns and only 1 certicsl climb move

Nowhere near what the j10 must have showed

The J-20 is a low observable interceptor it seems or a fighter that is dependent on zoom and boom tactics not furball, in close fights. No one can find the gun on the thing and it is looking like it doesn’t have one.

[nam]

Would anyone know if KLJ7A AESA is GaN?

[brar_w]

Would anyone know if KLJ7A AESA is GaN?

If it were, China would have said it given that this was a PR opportunity and that was what they were doing there.

In order to reap some of the biggest benefits of GaN that ultimately end up justifying the higher cost, you have to solve the thermals on SwAP constrained fighters. Until someone does that it will not come mainstream and systems which are more optimized such as Electronic Attack, and Comms this will be a better target for GaN upgrades on fighters.

One does have to step back and have a look at how many airborne fighter AESA's China actually has in service, and what that ramp up looks like before we then start getting into Version-2 and upgrades on them. There is something to be said about providing performance and reliability by raking up hundreds of thousands if not millions of flight hours time on operational aircraft before the operator goes out and begins to fund a massive overhaul as would be required to switch antennas to GaN. This assuming that they have actually solved the quality and production side of things that are required to produce GaN at volume. It is one thing to have PAs and other components in labs or with Universities, but totally another to be able to demonstrate Mil-Grade performance and reliability and get the yields up to a point where you can produce hundreds of thousands of components a year.

Even if one follows the GaA industrial base funding by USAF and DARPA in the prior decades and the T3 and other GaN efforts by DARPA more recently, the process of proving systems in the lab and then being able to demonstrate quality and yields under production grade processes was not straightforward particularly at the higher frequencies. This with an industrial base that has delivered well over 1500 airborne fighter AESA radars (and has clocked close to if not more than 1.5 Million flight hours). Even there capabilities like GaN on Diamond or ICECOOL like concepts that are considered pivotal to high performance GaN radars on fighters are not mature in a lab environment let alone in a production grade environ. Until you do that, you won't be able to get the sort of performance on fighters that justifies the higher costs and solutions in that space will mostly exist for PR purposes like what SAAB is doing with its GaN AESA product which neither Sweden or Brazil are adopting on the Gripen-E.

[Singha]

to properly safeguard the J20 from its sluggish inability to move like a F-solah, it will need to track and fire a ERAM type missile and then turn away either providing updates via a side array or letting the missile do its own work.
the current SD-10 is cutting it close, lots of other missiles similar range fired by more agile fighters packing big EW sets. perhaps new ERAM is being worked on and a more powerful Sinic engine or Russi AL41C will mitigate

and if it comes to using that blue WVR IIR aam, I dont think its agile enough to mix it up with a flanker/Solah/Shornet type.

[nam]

I would expect China to roll out land based radar first, if they have started producing GaN. Hence i wanted to check if there were claims on GaN by the Chinese.

As you said, if that was the case, they would have been screaming from the roof top.

DRDO chief mentioned that Indian GaN efforts were yielding 40W output and working towards 110W, before they would be applied to land based projects. Ofcourse in case of India, there are large ground based radars which are required. So GaN is good option.

[nam]

The canard on the J20 might go, once the TVC engines are applied. But it is fascinating to see the size of the jet required, for what looks like carrying only 4 internal BVR!

Chinis are said to working on Ramjet BVRs.

[nam]

Without the cover.

[JayS]

The canard on the J20 might go, once the TVC engines are applied.

Looking at the config, I highly doubt that. It would become tail heavy, so to speak, if canards are removed. And the TVC would constatly have to be angled downward to compensate.

[nam]

The canard on the J20 might go, once the TVC engines are applied.

Looking at the config, I highly doubt that. It would become tail heavy, so to speak, if canards are removed. And the TVC would constatly have to be angled downward to compensate.

Possible. However Russian seems to have done away with the canards from SU30 to SU35. I was thinking along those lines.

[brar_w]

As you said, if that was the case, they would have been screaming from the roof top.

DRDO chief mentioned that Indian GaN efforts were yielding 40W output and working towards 110W, before they would be applied to land based projects. Ofcourse in case of India, there are large ground based radars which are required. So GaN is good option.

That is dependent on what frequency you are working towards on the Power Amplifiers which is then dependent upon which solution you are aiming to provide a product to. You are most definitely not looking at those power levels for the higher frequency sensors as one would expect to be on a fighter aircraft. Some of the highest power densities with GaN demonstrated in a production grade environment come from Raytheon that came close to 20W/mm on C-band PAs with a PAE approaching 60%, and densities >50W/mm at S-Band.

But in the end the solution you use for a particular radar depends upon a whole host of factors and not just peak power. For some applications an 80W S-band amplifier may work just fine while for others you may need something in excess of 200W. In the end if you are going to pump a heck of a lot of power you will also have to find ways to extract all the heat so in many instances you are limited by your thermals and this is even more relevant in the fighter fire-control-radar space where it seems that either solutions that differ from GaN on SiC would have to be developed, or more novel ways such as embedded cooling matured to a point where they can be reliably inserted into a military system. Until you do that, you will just be scraping at the surface of performance gains possible with GaN on a fighter and since what is required is a fundamental architectural change you can't upgrade for these things later because doing so would essentially tantamount to a completely new radar system.

I would expect China to roll out land based radar first, if they have started producing GaN. Hence i wanted to check if there were claims on GaN by the Chinese.

Producing GaN is not an issue here but producing for what application. GaN has been in production for a long long time. In fact Gallium Nitride was at the front line in high performance systems in Iraq during OIF which was more than a decade ago. It is the use of the capability for higher performance radars particularly, airborne radars that is of interest here. So far, only one known high frequency GaN equipped airborne radar is known to have flown and that is Northrop's Vanguard and it is capable of operating at both X band and Ku Band.

https://www.janes.com/article/83030/afa ... isr-system

[Singha]

my guess is japan may be the 2nd nation to field a GaN fighter radar soon.

[brar_w]

my guess is japan may be the 2nd nation to field a GaN fighter radar soon.

A) Which nation is the first one?

B ) On which fighter will Japan field this radar?

[nam]

brar_w, DRDO chief was talking about L & S band.

[brar_w]

brar_w, DRDO chief was talking about L & S band.

I realized that looking at the performance but as I said those won't obviously apply to X band or higher frequency applications where you are likely looking at thermally limited performance requirement probably closer to 18-30W, with efficiency in the 30 to 40% range, or so for most applications. I believe this is the power range that Raytheon chose to be in for its X-band TPY-2 modernization but that was what they were capable of doing in 2014 which highlights one important aspect - at some point your ability to produce something in the lab has to step out into the manufacturing process and in this example they drew the line at where they were in 2012-2014 time-frame and chose to mass produce that because they were aiming for a late 2018 delivery for the first GaN X-band radar. Being able to do something in the technology space has to be replicated in the manufacturing space and your yields have to be comparable to GaAs otherwise your cost becomes too big a barrier. This is an important aspect for even the really large foundries and those looking at integrated T/R modules for Military applications.

It becomes easier with L and S band sensors because you have higher efficiency and larger physical array and cooling as well. When you get into the C and X band or higher frequency space you not only have very tight thermal margins (smaller radars for the most part) but from a manufacturing perspective you have to produce many times the volume in terms T/R modules. This was one of the reason why a lot many radar suppliers moved GaN first to the L and S band space and only a handful few are working on the high frequency side in any meaningful (capacity) way. Both technical capability, and cost are significant barriers still.

[JayS]

Looking at the config, I highly doubt that. It would become tail heavy, so to speak, if canards are removed. And the TVC would constatly have to be angled downward to compensate.

Possible. However Russian seems to have done away with the canards from SU30 to SU35. I was thinking along those lines.

Apples vs Oranges. Canards in Su30 were after thought to original Su27 design. They were not really needed. Su27 used to manage supermanuevrability without canards and TVC. This chini bird has much stubbier looking wings set bit too farther aft. The Canards don't look like they are their only for controlling.

[Indranil]

Canards on J-20 are very much there to stay. If you read the applied patent, the designers explain how the canards are used for significant lift generation.

[JayS]

Canards on J-20 are very much there to stay. If you read the applied patent, the designers explain how the canards are used for significant lift generation.

Hm..Can ypu share link please..?

[chola]

Someone shot the J-20 show in high def video and audio. Turn your volume up. lol.

Low cloud cover must have forced them down low.

Really interesting stuff begins at 2:00, you’ll see (and hear) this big honking monstrousity near tree level. Fairly impressive from the look of the thing. Throwing masses of vortices over the wings. Agile for a brute the size of a Flying Fortress.

[Viv S]

Avic’s J-31 Fighter Is a Winner After All

Not long after the J-31 fighter prototype from Avic’s Shenyang Aircraft Corp. appeared in 2012, analysts realized that it was not, after all, a new combat aircraft for the Chinese military. It was just a technology demonstrator from a well-resourced but frustrated state company that had lost two air force fighter competitions in a row.

Now the J-31 has indeed become a government-funded project, apparently rescued by the shortcomings of the J-15, a naval Flanker derivative also built by Shenyang Aircraft. The navy needs the J-31, and the air force wants it, too.

State arms organizations are meanwhile working on improvements to earlier fighters, including the two that Avic’s Chengdu Aircraft builds after beating Shenyang Aircraft in competitions: the J-10 and J-20. At Airshow China, held here on Nov. 6–11, Avic demonstrated a thrust-vectoring nozzle on a J-10. Cetc exhibited radars that revealed a new interest in wide-area fire-control sensors for Chinese fighters.

The J-31 is being developed for domestic military service under government contract, an official source says. The type is now intended to serve with the navy, says the source, confirming rumors and speculative news reports that have appeared over the past few years. The air force also wants to put the J-31 into service, says the source, declining to provide more information.

Shenyang Aircraft has built two J-31 prototypes, the second of which appeared in late 2016 and is larger than the first.

The navy evidently needs the J-31 as a shipboard fighter to replace the J-15, which reportedly suffers from unstable flight control—a severe problem for carrier landings. Lt. Gen. Zhang Honghe, deputy head of the air force, told Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post in July that a new fighter would replace the J-15, which is also built by Shenyang Aircraft.

The J-31, also known as the FC-31, was competing for the navy contract with the J-20 from Chengdu Aircraft, the Sina web portal reported in July. The J-20’s wing loading looks high, making the large fighter an improbable candidate for shipboard operation, which requires low stalling speeds for safe recoveries. Also, state television has shown a model of the J-31 in naval service, though that did not mean it had been selected.

The air force’s desire to use the J-31 has not been expected but can be explained by the navy’s willingness to pay for full-scale development. The air force probably rejected an offer of the J-31 from Shenyang Aircraft 8–10 years ago because the service wanted to concentrate resources on acquiring the less advanced but urgently needed J-10: Most fighter squadrons were equipped with obsolete aircraft. Reflecting that urgency, Avic officials said at the time that the group was trying to build the J-10 as fast as possible and could not consider exports.

The J-10 cannot have been a candidate as the navy’s J-15 substitute, because the Chengdu Aircraft type has only one engine, a serious safety shortcoming at sea unless extreme reliability can be expected from the powerplant.

Maximum weight for the initial J-31 design was 25 metric tons; this has risen to 28 metric tons for the design represented by the second prototype, says Sina’s news service. For naval service, weight would rise to 30 metric tons, it says, citing unnamed sources. Radius would rise to 1,500 km (930 mi.) from 1,250 km, the news service adds, but such figures are almost meaningless if the mission and stores are not specified.

An Avic-owned J-10B testbed, in a Nov. 6 flying display, demonstrated China’s new mastery of extreme aerial maneuverability aided by an experimental thrust-vectoring control system. Over a crowd of thousands attending Airshow China, 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 an air show stunt familiar to 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 maneuvers, while popular at air shows, have limited value in modern combat against another fighter. Post-stall maneuvering can, however, 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 Sukhoi Su-35 fighters in 2016 introduced thrust-vectoring-control technology to the Chinese air force fleet. Around the same time, pictures surfaced of Avic’s J-10B testbed equipped with a thrust-vectoring nozzle.

China does not usually exhibit new technology under development for the military, but an official says that in the case of the thrust-vectoring nozzle the country was far enough behind the U.S. and Russia for the matter not to be regarded as sensitive.

Since the J-10 has been used as a testbed for the nozzle, the technology can be expected to be applied to production units of that type. Song Zhongping, a military expert quoted by the Global Times newspaper, says that the test program is also laying the groundwork for applying thrust vectoring to a version of the J-20 fighter under development, called the J-20A.

The Cetc radars unveiled at Airshow China allow a fighter to search across an arc of up to 240 deg. without making a turn. The group displayed the new sensors in radomes that matched the shapes of the J-10 and J-20. The presentation suggested Cetc intended to offer the fire control radars as upgrades for the air force. They had active, electronically scanned arrays (AESA).

A radar displayed in a J-20-like radome proposes to introduce a three-antenna array in the nose of a fighter. A front-facing large array sweeps for targets over a 120-deg. field of view, a Cetc official says. Two more arrays are mounted on each side of the radome below a J-20-like fuselage chine. Each of the side-facing arrays searches across a 60-deg. field of view. The data from all three arrays is fused together, providing the pilot a 240-deg. radio-frequency map of a battlefield.

Cetc also showed another radar in a shape resembling the nose radome of a J-10. This sensor lacked the side-facing arrays but installed the front-facing AESA on a mechanical gimbal.

[Singha]

Why is the side bay of j20 closed a wvr missile bolted outside

[Sid]

Why is the side bay of j20 closed a wvr missile bolted outside

F-22 uses quick open-extend-fire-retract-close sequence. Bays remain open during WVR for lock-on. Probably too complicated, and unnecessary.

Instead J-20 just hang it outside in ready to fire mode when necessary, else its retracted for the duration of flight.