JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF

[Thunder.Storm]

 

[syed_yusuf]

really,
To make such claims , I am sure you must be aware of the peak power / module of T/r or the quad module set., Please do share with us what would be average and peak demand for a 800 tr module of the chinese radar, and estimate the dry power peak requirement for the radar to function.

Before making your usual claims remember though that a mig 29 with two of the same power plants as the Jf17 , offers an AC 3 phase power supply through a 2P alt at 115/200 V, 400Hz freq constant irrespective of engine rpm, max power output is at 30KVA, on the same shaft assm there is smaller brushless DC module, producing 1.5KVA, The ADC combine with Sine wave filter provides DC power for the system bus. 30KVA through the trfm, though is not available all to the radar, Low side DC bus powers all the llid's(low lev int devices), Servos, and relays, and the high side terminal strip powers the fuel pumps, Hydraulic pumps, Avionics through a distributed three phase supply.

Now provided JF17 has Half of the power available at the genset, how on earth will you power a AESA radar 800T/R channels ( which btw is 148 channels more than the Zhuk AE -FGA 29)

only bother to reply if you have any real content.
thanks

What version of RD-33 that you are quoting this data from?

secondly, newer version of avionics require a lot less power or power loss than older version used on mig-29 that is used by IAF

 

[MilSpec]

What version of RD-33 that you are quoting this data from?

secondly, newer version of avionics require a lot less power or power loss than older version used on mig-29 that is used by IAF

how about substantiating your "lot less power", what are the specs on a JF17 3P alt? what is the terminal strip rated for? What is the rating for fuel pump and oil pump? what is the radar peak i/p power, given the klj7 is derived from a klj 9 which itself is developed from the Zhuk MSE?

btw, the specs are for Mig29M variant, which is quite irrelevant, the transformer are constant 400hz, through hydraulic transmission, so irrespective of engine rpm your PTO will give you the same power unless you change your entire generator setup.

 

[syed_yusuf]

how about substantiating your "lot less power", what are the specs on a JF17 3P alt? what is the terminal strip rated for? What is the rating for fuel pump and oil pump? what is the radar peak i/p power, given the klj7 is derived from a klj 9 which itself is developed from the Zhuk MSE?

btw, the specs are for Mig29M variant, which is quite irrelevant, the transformer are constant 400hz, through hydraulic transmission, so irrespective of engine rpm your PTO will give you the same power unless you change your entire generator setup.

Please don't ask question on a question. do you know or you do not know the specs of PF of newer version of rd-33 like rd-93b used on JFT.

 

[MilSpec]

Please don't ask question on a question. do you know or you do not know the specs of PF of newer version of rd-33 like rd-93b used on JFT.

is it twice of that on a RD33MK? or is that what you are trying to imply...
are we dealing with water car engineering now?

 

[syed_yusuf]

is it twice of that on a RD33MK? or is that what you are trying to imply...
are we dealing with water car engineering now?

No, i do not think that JFT nose cone is big enough to house a radar size of used by flanker. the maximum size dish it can accommodate is that of 660 - 700 mm. the power source required for AESA is lower than that of conventional/ mechanical radars like that KLJ-7V2. An F-16 SABR radar used less power for better range than APG-66 used on blk15/20 model.

if RD-93B can power KLJ-7V2 it can definitely power non mechanical AESA radar. that should not be an issue. if you add EOTS and other avionics, that might be a different story.

 

[MastanKhan]

really,
To make such claims , I am sure you must be aware of the peak power / module of T/r or the quad module set., Please do share with us what would be average and peak demand for a 800 tr module of the chinese radar, and estimate the dry power peak requirement for the radar to function.

Before making your usual claims remember though that a mig 29 with two of the same power plants as the Jf17 , offers an AC 3 phase power supply through a 2P alt at 115/200 V, 400Hz freq constant irrespective of engine rpm, max power output is at 30KVA, on the same shaft assm there is smaller brushless DC module, producing 1.5KVA, The ADC combine with Sine wave filter provides DC power for the system bus. 30KVA through the trfm, though is not available all to the radar, Low side DC bus powers all the llid's(low lev int devices), Servos, and relays, and the high side terminal strip powers the fuel pumps, Hydraulic pumps, Avionics through a distributed three phase supply.

Now provided JF17 has Half of the power available at the genset, how on earth will you power a AESA radar 800T/R channels ( which btw is 148 channels more than the Zhuk AE -FGA 29)

only bother to reply if you have any real content.
thanks

Hi,

Even though post s not addressed to e---I will just indulge a little bit----. First of all---technical information is not available and secondly---it won't be given out just yet----.

The other thing is---that it will come with aesa---. It is not a 800 T/R modules aesa---it actually is a 1000 T/R module unit----.

Some things you just have to wait and see.

 

[Donatello]

really,
To make such claims , I am sure you must be aware of the peak power / module of T/r or the quad module set., Please do share with us what would be average and peak demand for a 800 tr module of the chinese radar, and estimate the dry power peak requirement for the radar to function.

Before making your usual claims remember though that a mig 29 with two of the same power plants as the Jf17 , offers an AC 3 phase power supply through a 2P alt at 115/200 V, 400Hz freq constant irrespective of engine rpm, max power output is at 30KVA, on the same shaft assm there is smaller brushless DC module, producing 1.5KVA, The ADC combine with Sine wave filter provides DC power for the system bus. 30KVA through the trfm, though is not available all to the radar, Low side DC bus powers all the llid's(low lev int devices), Servos, and relays, and the high side terminal strip powers the fuel pumps, Hydraulic pumps, Avionics through a distributed three phase supply.

Now provided JF17 has Half of the power available at the genset, how on earth will you power a AESA radar 800T/R channels ( which btw is 148 channels more than the Zhuk AE -FGA 29)

only bother to reply if you have any real content.
thanks

SMR-95 engine is a derivative of the RD33, just like RD93, features twin 40KVA alternators. RD93 did have it's gearbox repositioned, i don't know exactly what capacity alternator is there on JF-17, but recent progress and design effort has been more focused on cooling the AESA in the nose of the JF-17, rather than worrying about Electrical power from the engine alternator.

 

[SQ8]

Now provided JF17 has Half of the power available at the genset, how on earth will you power a AESA radar 800T/R channels ( which btw is 148 channels more than the Zhuk AE -FGA 29)

I am not going to comment on the how, or what. But as stated before, the issue with AESA on the JF is related to cooling and NOT power.

What AESA it is: module number, Peak power etc. I'll leave for the rest to speculate.

 

[MilSpec]

Hi,

Even though post s not addressed to e---I will just indulge a little bit----. First of all---technical information is not available and secondly---it won't be given out just yet----.

The other thing is---that it will come with aesa---. It is not a 800 T/R modules aesa---it actually is a 1000 T/R module unit----.

Some things you just have to wait and see.

sure...

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Hence i said AESA is a long-shot. The whole "easy" redesigners of other AESAs from J10 and Captor E scan don't realise that it is not that easy. The likely sensor system for Block III fame should be an AESA, to reinforce the covert doctrine and PAF follows.

 

[SQ8]

Oscar who?

Eurofighter, Gripen, and loads of other aircraft have IRST. Modern automated IRSTs are as much work load as a modern radar.

Oscar the right hand of Cthulhu our savior.

What I did say, is that the IRST system has to have automation and sensor fusion comparable to a Radar so that unlike the generation that goes into previous gen Su's.. its not a burden on the pilot to operate and have to switch on and off between sensors. Sure, he could do it.. just like he could do Radars. But that is taking away the whole idea of ease of operation.

The benchmark for an infra-red sensor now in terms of sensor integration is the F-35' EOTS. Can something similar be done? I have mixed thoughts.

 

[Donatello]

Oscar the right hand of Cthulhu our savior.

What I did say, is that the IRST system has to have automation and sensor fusion comparable to a Radar so that unlike the generation that goes into previous gen Su's.. its not a burden on the pilot to operate and have to switch on and off between sensors. Sure, he could do it.. just like he could do Radars. But that is taking away the whole idea of ease of operation.

The benchmark for an infra-red sensor now in terms of sensor integration is the F-35' EOTS. Can something similar be done? I have mixed thoughts.

What is the scalability of the T/R modules count for an AESA? As in, by decreasing a larger AESA to a smaller one, how does the peak power vary? If we take the a simple ideal, circular cross section and it's Pi*Radius*Squared area, then a slight increase or decrease in the area (and hence the T/R modules) would result in a larger difference in the performance. No? Since the size of the T/R modules remain the same and they are solid state, it should be easy in scaling? Just like a certain size transistor, you can pack almost double if the node is halved, in the same area or you can double the count by doubling the die area?

 

[SQ8]

What is the scalability of the T/R modules count for an AESA? As in, by decreasing a larger AESA to a smaller one, how does the peak power vary? If we take the a simple ideal, circular cross section and it's Pi*Radius*Squared area, then a slight increase or decrease in the area (and hence the T/R modules) would result in a larger difference in the performance. No? Since the size of the T/R modules remain the same and they are solid state, it should be easy in scaling? Just like a certain size transistor, you can pack almost double if the node is halved, in the same area or you can double the count by doubling the die area?

I'd refer to @gambit .

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The supposed scenarioh ere is that the F22 cannot be seen----okay---that is fine---but only till it launches its missiles----the moment it launches at target---it position becomes known---the target will launch back multiple missiles at the point of origination ---and then the missile itself may calculate the supposed direction the F22 may take and the position where it will be when the missile intersects it.

The missile does not have to hit the F22----the proximity fuse---when it sense a body close by---will blow up the warhead.

The longer range of the Pl 15 is a concern---because the F22 will have to shoot by getting way under the umbrella of the PL15 range----unless something new comes up for the F22

As far as the news is concerned----the 1 st news is normally the one where a lot of information is released---by mistake or intentionally----. Intentionally---because the reporter wants to look good and so does the news channel----because the they broke into the real thing----the mistake happens---when the turning radius was mistakenly released by a Lt col about the F22---.

Like the news about the first gulf war----L A Times----reported on the 3rd day I believe that when the U S tanks with bulldozers went in to clean up---supposedly----40000 to a 100000 Iraqi troops got buried in their trenches----. I was in L A---I had the news paper in hand---and read it myself----. Then the news just totally disappeared---no head or tail---and then popped back up after a decade or so---here is a quote from another paper

" Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the allied commander, said U.S. troops found "very, very many dead" in the Iraqi front lines. And Schwarzkopf's staff has privately estimated that 50,000 to 75,000 Iraqis were killed in their trenches ".