Tbf even IRL, it is actually a smaller difference then people think.
So uh, fun fact, AESAs, atleast on aircraft, dont really generally actually use multi-beam forming. It has a bunch of issues with noise/range/accuracy. So its really only ever used on larger and powerful ground based arrays that have performance to overcome said issues.
It’s not a small difference
It kinda is from an end user standpoint. Especially for older AESAs which dont even have the advanced digital beamforming algorithms modern ones use.
Ik structrually they’re very different, but what they can do is not nearly as different as you’d think. The only notable advantage AESAs have are in certain filtering algorithms. Although again even on early AESAs, these weren’t that much of a departure from what PESAs could do.
Stuff like SAR modes dont even exist in warthunder anyways, so their accuracy in them wouldnt matter anyways.
Quite literally the one and only similarity is the aperture. If that makes it “basically an upgraded N011M”, then it might as well be an upgraded N010 as well.
I would have preferred to have a premium F-CK-1A Taiwanese for this update, but I’m sure that in the next one we’ll get our J-16
thanks for the response.
i struggle to believe your whole “generally dont use multi beam forming” mostly cause thats generalizing a whole lot in a space where there is quite a bit of variability and even then likely quite classified, what do you base this off? cause i tried finding anything and i dont seem to find anything that says what you’re saying here, there is no reason to assume multi beam forming isnt used, nor could we even know that(radar operation and indepth capability of modern radars arent public information) i think i understand what youre referring to here, but again there is little reason to assume multi beam formation isnt used, and i dont quite get what you mean by “accuracy” one of the reasons multi beam formation even exist is cause it allows to increase the rate of scan without sacrificing the resolution of the scan, something which would be extremely relevant in war thunder as the main advantages for this kind of things are exactly at the ranges we fight in the game.
Accuracy was a seperate statement describing how on AESAs, signal analysis can be done per element, unlike on PESAs. This greatly improves accuracy in look down modes, particularly SAR, by allowing for much better isolation of the target’s returns. Although it should be noted even the most modern AESAs currently in service dont rely on fully digital per element beam forming/signal analysis.
So, uh, multi-beamforming has lots of potential issues, and beam interleaving is basically nearly always better. Which is something PESAs can actually do; early ones didnt, but it was due to processing power limitations, even early enogh prototype AESAs lacked it.
So, uh, firstly, null formations. Basically when you have multiple beams at once, they actually recieve contructive and destructive interfearence from each others sidelobes. This is bad as it adds in significant interfearence. There are ways to filter this out, but they grow exponentially more complex the more beams are active. And without this costly filtering, the range which they can reliably track targets is greatly degraded.
Also, so, radars have things called beam cycles, which are made up of coherent processing intervals. CPIs include pulses sent out specifically to perform checks on velocity, azimuth, and elevation and such. Here things such as PRF comes into play, as a higher PRF mode allows for more checks to be performed thus improving accuracy. Point is in multi-beamforming, without digital per element analysis, the information in these CPIs can basically only be processed one detection at a time. So you’re more or less limited to the accuracy you’d conventionally have in like an LPRF mode, which is not suitable for engaging targets (but is otherwise fine for early warning). There are ways to have it so that way it splits how the information is recieved, but this brings us to what is done instead.
Mode/beam interleaving, is where, CPIs for multiple different track types are interweaved. This is what basically every AESA, including the J/APG-2 and AN/APG-77 use. Basically they use expanded onboard RAM to remember interval azimuth/elevation data between sniffs, allowing for “multiple” instantanious detections, although its really just swapping between them at a sub-cycle level. Which fun fact, modern PESAs would also be able to do.
Japan and britain have been working on a true multi-beam design for GCAP through a program called JAGUAR. Since japan having lots of research into APAARs and per element beam analysis, but yeah that just shows how not a thing currently it is.
If its easier to think about in a more general electrical sense, think of it in a conventional circuit as PWM versus other methods of power control. Instead of reducing the powrr outright (splitting it between two tasks), its instead alternated in frequency between active tasks, as lowering the active power causes sub-optimal performance. This also ties back to stuff such as duty cycles on the radar, but i dont wanna get into that unless the rest of what i said was decently understood.
Anything for you Zannafrancy <3
does anyone know if the J-16 can equip 2x more FOX 3s on the outer wing pylons similar to how the SU-30SM does? if it can this would give it upto 10x FOX 3s importantly? also could this potentially be applicable to the J-11D in theory as well?
We have never seen any PLAAF fighter aircraft carrying more than 6x ARH missiles，only in CG renders or speculative claims.
but gaijin can easily give it double pylons on wing hard points if they want it
Later Chinese Flankers (J-16, J-15T…) can carry 8 ARH.
I’m just commenting on how few missiles the PLAAF typically carries lol.
Hmm, actually, it makes me wonder if the double rack, found in J-10CE, can fit between intakes/engines of the J-16 (purely dimension wise)
Whats fin size for pl-15?
If its smaller than r-77, im sure that it could fit there theoretically
Of course they’re smaller, the PLA just doesn’t like putting a bunch of missiles on their flankers
J16 was developed based on J11bs and su30mkk, which was considered to be capable of carrying 10 fox3 and 2fox2
su-30mkk and mk2 can only carry 6 fox 1/3
Highly credible PLAAF commentators have mentioned that the outermost underwing pylons on the J‑15 series cannot carry the PL‑15 due to aileron placement issues—implying that the J‑16, which does not share this problem, should be able to, though we’ve never actually seen it.