What's new

JF-17 Block III's proposed AESA Radar KLJ-7A

LPI: Low probability of intercept
TWS:Track while scan
A/A: Air-air
A/G:Air-ground
SAR: Synthetic aperture radar
ECM: Electronic countermeasure
ECCM:Electronic counter-countermeasure
DL: Datalink
MTBF:Mean time between failure
MTTR:Mean time to repair
SA: Situational awareness



We missed NC...or is it NCTR you were referring to?

Secondly, can some one elaborate how AESA is used as DL?...any source, if you can refer to, would be appreciated.
Thanks

NC stands for Network Centric, this means that the radar by design assists in the network centricity of the EW battlefield.

AESA as Datalink is the inherent nature of the beam former or steered/stabilized beam. The steered beam is able to guide weapons, transmit to another aircraft or DL node.

We see AESA as a very power Data Link or NC tool, and the detection capability as secondary, if you ask me.
 
. .
If it is a good one.

Still, I would not jump to the conclusion that the KLJ-7A IS the choice for the JF-17

It is one of the choices and while the Chinese are "available ", that availability isn't always without caveats.

I agree to this, however the ear to the ground tells me that the JF17 Blk III configuration is final or near final, which means that the radar/EW selection may also be final/near final.
 
.
NC stands for Network Centric, this means that the radar by design assists in the network centricity of the EW battlefield.

AESA as Datalink is the inherent nature of the beam former or steered/stabilized beam. The steered beam is able to guide weapons, transmit to another aircraft or DL node.

We see AESA as a very power Data Link or NC tool, and the detection capability as secondary, if you ask me.
To elaborate a bit more for the audience: in theory, you can essentially tear all other communication and EW antennas and array from the aircraft and put a Aesa Array in the nose, on the side and a smaller facing the rear to achieve full 360 radar coverage, gigabit level communications and EW capabilities in an essentially "clean"(everything flush) with the skin. Aircraft.

The F-22 had a bit of this planned out, its entire airframe is one big EM absorbing "antenna" @gambit

I agree to this, however the ear to the ground tells me that the JF17 Blk III configuration is final or near final, which means that the radar/EW selection may also be final/near final.
Then a combination of availability and kickbacks did the trick. Although I hope a certain gentleman held his ground against certain quarters whose purpose is to lobby for the Chinese or other quarters.

Setting people up with pretty greek travel agents to spend a week in the seychelles is a popular way

Apologies, بھٹک گیا
 
.
People have posted all the advantages/uses of AESA but have forgotten these two:
-Mode interleaving
-Higher resolution GMTI
 
.
To elaborate a bit more for the audience: in theory, you can essentially tear all other communication and EW antennas and array from the aircraft and put a Aesa Array in the nose, on the side and a smaller facing the rear to achieve full 360 radar coverage, gigabit level communications and EW capabilities in an essentially "clean"(everything flush) with the skin. Aircraft.

The F-22 had a bit of this planned out, its entire airframe is one big EM absorbing "antenna"
Makes sense considering an AESA 'radar' is essentially a honeycomb of many smaller radars - i.e. transmit/receive or transceiver modules. A TRM's functional role can be applied to undertaking ECM/EW, communication, etc. In fact, a lot of the current and emerging EW/ECM jammers are using phased-array antennae, i.e. TRMs (good example here in Elettronica's ELT-568 ECM suite).
 
.
I agree to this, however the ear to the ground tells me that the JF17 Blk III configuration is final or near final, which means that the radar/EW selection may also be final/near final.
As such, the Turkish GaN based AESA will have its dry run with the PAF F16s inshaAllah. III-V devices like GaN fabrication is an art and the Bell Labs folks were the Maestros. Elhamdulillah the Turkish folks from the Bilkent University aren't that far away. Let's see what they put on the table..
 
.
Well in my humble opinion and just to set the record straight, if the figure of 170km is true for 3m2 RCS targets, then for 5m2 RCS targets it would be ...
= (5/3)^0.25 X 170
= 193.16 km ... not 200km or more
What is this formula?

I agree to this, however the ear to the ground tells me that the JF17 Blk III configuration is final or near final, which means that the radar/EW selection may also be final/near final.
If it is a good one.

Still, I would not jump to the conclusion that the KLJ-7A IS the choice for the JF-17

It is one of the choices and while the Chinese are "available ", that availability isn't always without caveats.
Makes sense considering an AESA 'radar' is essentially a honeycomb of many smaller radars - i.e. transmit/receive or transceiver modules. A TRM's functional role can be applied to undertaking ECM/EW, communication, etc. In fact, a lot of the current and emerging EW/ECM jammers are using phased-array antennae, i.e. TRMs (good example here in Elettronica's ELT-568 ECM suite).
Don't you fellas think that KLJ7A is light in weight compared to KLJ7V1/V2 and dimension wise there is enough room in processing unit to house integrated IRST system?

173608zxp5yd2y5zd6dbia.jpg
klj7.jpg
 
.
What is this formula?

This is a formula for computing the range at which a target of any RCS signature in meter square will be detected based on the known/published range of the radar for a standard RCS signature.

Example: Say a radar has the known capability of detecting a 5m2 target at 100km ...

(1) Range for detecting a 3m2 target, for the above radar ..
= (3/5)^0.25 X 100
= 88km

(2) Range for detecting a 8m2 target, for the above radar ...
=(8/5)^0.25 X 100
=112.5km

I came across this formula while I was browsing for some information on radars on the internet. It was a pdf book but I no longer have the link to that site. But I still have the formula saved on my backup media. I have found it to be quite accurate and tested it against published figures over years.

Hope that answered your query.
 
Last edited:
.
What is you opinion about AESA for JFT, th Chinese one shown or any other western AESA like Vixon or Reaven from Selex?
There are two types of radar users for whom no system is ever adequate: air traffic controllers and fighter pilots.

It does not matter if you are at a regional municipal airport, you want the type and size of the radar the guys at large international airports uses. It does not matter if you fly the latest or a 20-yr old fighter design. You want to know who is coming from which direction, how fast, how high, and from as far away as possible. From this perspective, regardless of vendor, if the system is an AESA, you must investigate.

Most air forces today are defensive in posture, meaning they have limited reach beyond domestic airspace. This is all the more reason a force at a defensive posture should have the best eyes available. No ground force ignores attacks from the third dimension, therefore, control of the sky is paramount, even when one's forces are defensive in posture. If an adversary is uncertain on the safety of his ground forces due to intelligence that his air force may not be able to hold the necessary air corridors and/or airspace territory, he may not attack or alter his ground plans enough that may sway the war in your favor.

Which one you think will be better in terms of capabilities Chinese or Selex?
This is problematic. Published specs are always optimistic, and when the technical details are secret, you have no way of telling if the sales brochure is telling the whole truth until you are able to secure a private demonstration assessed by your own experts, from pilots to engineers to scientists.

I cannot give you any opinion in any direction. But just as I posted earlier, the potentials of the AESA platform is so great that if a vendor advertises an AESA, you are compelled to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is telling the truth, or at least mostly the truth, until you are able to secure that private demonstration.

Absent that private demonstration, the next best hint is experience. So here you have to look at who is the newcomer to the AESA field. I understand that as a patriot, you want the best for your country. But intellectual honesty do not allow me to make that comparison in the absence of third party testing, which we know will not happen. You have no choice but to trust that your government will audition the candidates objectively.

However, in the interests of layman discussion, some high level clues can be useful.

Range. An AESA platform does not automatically have superior range over the classical mechanical dish/planar designs. But the real desirable advantage when range matters is how much less power an AESA system need to produce target resolutions at the same range as the classical mechanical dish/planar designs. In other words, less power for the same results means better response time -- FOR YOU.

Situational awareness. If a four-ship attacker can gang up on one victim -- they will do it. One to kill, the other three to deter the victim's mates. Four against one make for a quicker kill, which mean the same four attackers can more quickly reorient themselves against the next singular victim. We do this at Red Flag regularly. What this mean is that the MINIMUM tracking any combat radar system must be able to do is four. No less. An AESA system should have no problem doing six.

The four-ship patrol is standard.

https://theaviationist.com/2014/01/29/f15-vs-mig-23/
BARCAP (BARrier Combat Air Patrol) whose aim was to protect the zone between the Iraq and Iran borders, 24 hours in each day of the week.

On Jan. 28, 1991 one of this BARCAP was flown by four F-15s belonging to the “Wolfhounds” of the 32nd TFS (Tactical Fighter Squadron) from Soesterberg,...
If some mechanical system can track six, so should the AESA candidate.

Multi functionality. In auditioning an AESA candidate, said AESA system should have no problem performing true airborne targets multi-tasking. Track-While-Scan (TWS) is fake in the classical mechanical systems and any experienced pilot can tell. That same pilot would be able to know when the AESA system is performing two or more air tasks at the same time. Ground mapping is time intensive and usually requires stable flight. An AESA system must be able to perform ground mapping while monitoring the sky for potential threats that would interrupt that ground mapping process. Multi functionality is the most critical and time consuming assessment, which inevitably requires the most experienced pilots to test.

Maintenance. The higher the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF), the better. But you are going to pay for that. Part of maintenance is modularity of components, which results in how quickly can the aircraft return to flight status after a maintenance action. Part of maintenance is service contract since you are buying from a foreign source.

Again...You have no choice but to trust that your government will exercise due diligence. The audition will not be in one day or even one yr. Every vendor know you are reviewing multiple candidates that may come from countries that are hostile to each other, which inevitably brings in politics.

How big boost it will be for PAF for facing IAF?
If the Indians do not have the same capability, then Pakistan will have a noticeable edge. But if the Indians have AESA, then Pakistan would be foolish for going PESA. You either be superior or match.
 
. .
If it is a good one.

Still, I would not jump to the conclusion that the KLJ-7A IS the choice for the JF-17

It is one of the choices and while the Chinese are "available ", that availability isn't always without caveats.
From the day theyreleased news of the KLJ-7A, a bit of me suspects the PAF has decided against it hence CETC are marketing it to alternative customers. I just see it as a possibility as I think PAF would have preferred their choice subsystems more protected.... ... saying that, the KLJ-7 featured at exhibitions and still ended up on the JF-17
 
. .
:raise::raise::raise:

If PAF select this KLJ-7A Radar for Block III of JF-17 will they also equip Block II's with it??
I do not see that happening. Not yet.
Personally and from what i have been hearing and reading about, the Blk I will be upgraded to Blk II standard and there will be aroubd 100 planes in Blk II specs. Then there will be the Blk III and quite likely beyond that too.
 
.
KLJ7A is considered as a milestone achievement of Chinese tech on AESA fire control radars: at a size of 600mm and a distance of detection over 170 km. With this capacity it could find Su-30MKI (RCS >15sq m) over 200kms and shoot PL15 BVR missiles.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom