Let’s take the nose cone space of the J-10C as a straightforward comparison.
As can be seen from the KLJ-7A configuration you mentioned earlier, in terms of aperture area, tilted fixed flat plate > vertical fixed flat plate > swashplate repositioner > multi-array. Additionally, the swashplate repositioner has another drawback—it requires the radar base to be vertically oriented, which is unfavorable for reducing frontal RCS.
Except, like I already said, thats something that you would design the radome around. Of course a swashplate radar isnt going to be as space efficient in a tilted fixed plate radome, its not designed for it, and your example ends up proposing pushing forward a radar that is already pushed forward (since an angled fixed plate radar is also pushed forwards of where a flat plate array would sit)
If you take a pic of the Eurofighter “Tranche 5” mockup for example, with a normal radome, it becomes a lot more obvious:
Where the red line is the antenna for the CAPTOR-E, and the 2 green lines demonstrate the edges of the repositionner, it makes quite literally no difference if what the angled plate is attached to is a fixed structure, or a swashplate repositionner space-wise.
Its also super obvious when you consider the fact that a swashplate repositioner is quite literally just an angled plate that also gets rotated about its center axis, making it effectively no different to a fixed angled plate in terms of required space.
The J-10C’s radar aperture is only flush to the back of the radome because the radome was designed to accommodate it. Theres no need to have radome material behind the antenna if the antenna is fixed.
This is related to the nose space distribution of the EF2000, where the rear components of the radar are housed beneath the front windshield of the canopy, positioning the radar array base immediately behind the windshield. In fact, opting against a swashplate repositioner could allow for a slightly larger array.
However, to maximize radar space, the J-10C’s nose features an oval-shaped cross-section, which is inherently unsuitable for a swashplate repositioner mechanism.
No, cuz then you’re redesigning the whole nose of the aircraft making your entire point moot. I can do the exact same thing you did on the J-10C’s nose and conclude the exact same thing:
Oh man, you could have a much bigger array in the J-10C if you just crammed all the radars internals inside the cockpit, I have no clue why nobody has though of this before?!
Of course if you jam the whole radar a foot back, you’ll have more space to work with relative to the taper of the nose, but the radar is where its at because if you do push the whole radar a foot back, the rest of the radar components will encroach on the cockpit, which, unless you get rid of the pilot, you cant actually do.
The mistake you’re making is assuming that a fixed angled plate, and a rotating angle plate would start at different positions in the nose if installed. They wouldn’t, the space taken up by the swashplate mechanism would be similar, if not identical to the space taken up by the structure necessary to hold the radar antenna in the desired angled position.
The comparisons we’re making here are based on the same radar backend, such as different variants of the KLJ-7A. While the J-10C and EF-2000 naturally have different approaches to internal nose space allocation, within their respective designs, when simply switching antenna types, the fixed flat-panel array holds an advantage in terms of aperture area. Naturally, each aircraft is optimized around its specific radar system—for instance, the EF-2000 positions its radar as far aft as possible to maximize space, though this comes at the expense of crowding other systems. Meanwhile, the J-10C adopts an oval nose design tailored around a tilted fixed flat-panel array to maximize antenna area, with the trade-off being narrower scanning coverage—particularly in downward angles—compared to the EF-2000’s configuration. However, under the PLAAF’s current operational doctrine, these limitations can be compensated for by deploying additional fighters.
Moreover, given that both the F-22 and F-35 utilize tilted fixed flat-panel arrays, I consider the J-10C’s design choice to be one where the benefits clearly outweigh the drawbacks.
F-22 and F-35 are stealth aircrafts, and as such are constrained by their nose geometry to being obligated to use a fixed plate antenna. You’re comparing apples to oranges here.
Using a circular antenna (max surface area possible for a given amount of space in a conventional aircraft nose) would result in not fully utilizing internal space, since stealth aircrafts do not have conventional nose shapes. Its the very reason why the Su-57 is forced into using a multi antenna array (something the AN/APG-77 of the F-22 is also designed to accommodate btw).
Spoiler
As a sidenote to this comment of yours putting multi-array setups in last place for aperture area, its completely wrong. Multi-array setups are in first place cuz they quite literally have multiple antennas strewn about the aircraft, so they get the full sized main fixed angle plate antenna, and multiple smaller fixed sub-antennas.
I’m not gonna keep trying to convince you though, you can feel free to believe whatever you want I guess, but you’re just repeatedly making false equivalences to justify the position you refuse to budge from. This isnt a case of China “maximizing radar aperture size” its just a case of them running single fixed plate AESA’s like everyone did with their earlier AESA’s…
Completly irrelevant to the point he made
1 Like
From a docrtinal standpoint, the assumption is that chinese aircraft will not need a gimbaling radar (in the same way they denied the usefulness of TVC in modern air combat) due to the strategic assumption that enough friendly assets will be in the air at any given time (in a hypothetical conflict) that blindspots/effectiveness of HOBS radar acquisition are simply redundant.
Besides the more uniform scanning cone allows for greater detection and refresh rates, on paper anyway
2 Likes
In any case, that’s my perspective. I’m only highlighting the advantages of fixed flat-panel arrays—as for their drawbacks and trade-offs, the PLAAF has already made its choice. This is evidenced by the fact that you’ll find SLAR on the larger J-36, whereas it’s omitted on other, smaller fighter aircraft.
2 Likes
That’s correct. Excluding the J-10 series, the PLAAF and PLAN now operates over 1,000 Flanker-series aircraft and more than 500 stealth fighters, providing more than sufficient resources to address this issue.
3 Likes
Twin seat j20 is so sick
4 Likes
- the growing fleet of awacs, which the “new” e2 copy is an understated member of, fixed wing awacs is infinitely more capable than helicopter based systems as far as naval is concerned and it provides a essential capability of you plan to match the us in the future.
Edit: the autocorrect is trying to kill what I’m to say lol
2 Likes
tvc is useful outside of WVR combat, because it can be used to trim the plane at high speeds instead of the control surfaces which decreases drag and on turn will improve fuel consumption/ combat ranve
1 Like
Well theorists and aircraft engineers at the PLAAF would beg to differ, as they have evaluated and tested various TVC platforms and deemed it to be something worth investing in for blended-wing stealth projects, but not their current fleet of 4.5%5th gen fighters.
And tbh i’d rather take their hypothesis than that of the Russian MOD or defense corporations
3 Likes
So control surfaces are not generating drag?
Because that’s what are you saying rn
Any position of the control surfaces that isn’t in line with the airflow will generate more drag
Quite funny that the f22 also uses tvc at high speeds, ig Russia build it then
2 Likes
America hasn’t handed the PW-119s to china though have they, whereas the AL-41 (or whatever engines the Su-35S uses) has been purchased, tested and evaluated by the PLAAF
I’m not arguing with the premise, just stating that Chinese engineers, who are world class atm, have deemed TVC to be an inadequate system to bother installing into the current fleet, while showing interest (J-10B TVC) in future projects that use 2D TVC (J-36/J-50 leaks)
If you want to get into a debate over aerodynamics and drag, then go and talk to those chinese engineers
5 Likes
At high Mach numbers, the aircraft’s aerodynamic center shifts rearward, generating a nose-down moment. To counteract this, the TVC must produce a component opposite to the lift direction for trim. The resulting lift loss requires higher AOA on the main wing to compensate, which similarly increases induced drag. Meanwhile, TVC deflection increases aft-body drag to some extent and causes a power loss. In contrast, canards generate additional lift for trim at high Mach numbers and offer better trim efficiency due to the rearward-shifted aerodynamic center. This reduces the lift required from the main wing, allowing a lower main wing AOA, which partially offsets the increased induced drag caused by the higher canard AOA. As for which approach is superior, specific lift-to-drag ratio curves would need to be examined for a definitive comparison.
1 Like
Smh, if you have nothing productive to add, why comment at all
5 Likes
Comes from the guy that says tvc is useless bc China dosent use it