JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[randomradio]

According to you? You are STILL wrong.

Here is from YOUR source...

http://micro.apitech.co.uk/pdf/aesa/X-Band-QTRM.pdf

See the 'QTRM' initials? What does the letter 'M' stands for? MODULE.

The word 'Module' here describe the entire component, not the individual T/R module (lower case) element.

Inside the (upper case) 'Module' are the four individual T/R modules that controls their four elements.

According to APITECH's functional block schematic, it does not mean one T/R controller operating four elements.


And you are wrong. I do understand it and understand it better than you do. I understand your own source better than you do because I have relevant experience. You do not.

You are not only dense, but stubborn.

So even after I concede and agree to your point, I am still wrong?

According to APITECH's functional block schematic, it does not mean one T/R controller operating four elements.

I never claimed this in the first place. You were the one who linked what I said to PESA.

This is how I defined my radiator element:
And my "radiator element" is a device that has its own high power amplifier and low noise receiver.

Note the bold in the quotes:

The word 'Module' here describe the entire component, not the individual T/R module (lower case) element.

And I called this "T/R module", the entire component.

Inside the (upper case) 'Module' are the four individual T/R modules that controls their four elements.

And I called this "radiator element." So that would be 4 radiator elements according to me. Check how I defined it again.

============
I'll repeat again: From the same pdf file you linked, there are two block diagrams.
The first one says "TRM Element block diagram". This is my radiator element.
The second one says "QTRM block diagram". This is my T/R module.

So, when you asked a seemingly dumb question (to me) like "How do 1000 "QTRMs" make "4000" beams?" (changed the number to reflect the example)
I replied:
It's so simple. Take 1 T/R module. Put 4 (changed number for effect) radiating elements in it in a line configuration. You get 4 beams.

So here, my 1 T/R module = 1 QTRM
4 radiating elements = 4 TRM Elements

 

[Globalwarrior]

This thread is about ? ?

 

[Taha Samad]

So even after I concede and agree to your point, I am still wrong?



I never claimed this in the first place. You were the one who linked what I said to PESA.

This is how I defined my radiator element:
And my "radiator element" is a device that has its own high power amplifier and low noise receiver.

Note the bold in the quotes:


And I called this "T/R module", the entire component.



And I called this "radiator element." So that would be 4 radiator elements according to me. Check how I defined it again.

============
I'll repeat again: From the same pdf file you linked, there are two block diagrams.
The first one says "TRM Element block diagram". This is my radiator element.
The second one says "QTRM block diagram". This is my T/R module.

So, when you asked a seemingly dumb question (to me) like "How do 1000 "QTRMs" make "4000" beams?" (changed the number to reflect the example)
I replied:
It's so simple. Take 1 T/R module. Put 4 (changed number for effect) radiating elements in it in a line configuration. You get 4 beams.

So here, my 1 T/R module = 1 QTRM
4 radiating elements = 4 TRM Elements

Are your really that dumb or just acting like one?

1. There is NO 'your' T/R module. The world does not operate on you flawed and self-postulated definitions.
2. Putting simply in AESA T/R module is a controller + antenna(period). Now how these are packaged depends on individual manufacturer. BUT when a manufacturer says there are 1024 T/R modules in a radar; these may be 256 x Quad packaged T/R Modules OR it may be 128 x Oct packaged T/R Modules. But bottom line is in 'WORLD's' definition of a T/R Module there are 1024 T/R Modules that can produce max 1024 beams.

 

[gambit]

Are your really that dumb or just acting like one?

Maybe he is both?

There is NO 'your' T/R module.

That is the only way he can salvage any face.

This thread is about ? ?

Part of the learning process.

I understand that it has deviated from the main theme of this thread, but it is a learning process. We have seen how stubborn some people can be even when faced with their own errors. This is a lethal combination of ignorance, arrogance, and stubbornness.

 

[Armchair]

The JF-17s AESA radar could potentially have 1000-1200 TR modules. I wonder how they managed to do that for a relatively smaller nose.

 

[SQ8]

Members causing Pointless derailment will be banned from stickies.
Please stick to the topic rather than trying to prove flawed arguments

 

[gambit]

The JF-17s AESA radar could potentially have 1000-1200 TR modules. I wonder how they managed to do that for a relatively smaller nose.

The JF-17 structure where the current radar antenna sits? That determines the shape of your AESA antenna array, which eventually affects how many sub-arrays you can create, which eventually affects the system's final performance. %90 of what happens on the classical concave/planar antenna shape is applicable to an AESA antenna array.

Let us take an extreme example for now...

The beam shape is perpendicular (90 deg) from the array's shape.

So as we move away from the extremes of the above illustration towards a more 'rounded' area, the beam's shape will also change from being fan shaped to pencil shape. The fan shape beam is excellent for volume search, but for a tactical combat aircraft, we want as narrow a pencil beam as possible.

Essentially, what kind of beam shape you want, plus the real estate you have, plus miniaturization, determines how many T/R modules you can fit into that area.

Beam shape and antenna mounting is dependent on you (aircraft). Miniaturization depends on the manufacturer.

 

[Armchair]

The JF-17 structure where the current radar antenna sits? That determines the shape of your AESA antenna array, which eventually affects how many sub-arrays you can create, which eventually affects the system's final performance. %90 of what happens on the classical concave/planar antenna shape is applicable to an AESA antenna array.

Let us take an extreme example for now...

The beam shape is perpendicular (90 deg) from the array's shape.

So as we move away from the extremes of the above illustration towards a more 'rounded' area, the beam's shape will also change from being fan shaped to pencil shape. The fan shape beam is excellent for volume search, but for a tactical combat aircraft, we want as narrow a pencil beam as possible.

Essentially, what kind of beam shape you want, plus the real estate you have, plus miniaturization, determines how many T/R modules you can fit into that area.

Beam shape and antenna mounting is dependent on you (aircraft). Miniaturization depends on the manufacturer.

Gambit, I've read that the new generation of GaN TR modules are 1/3rd the size of earlier models. Could this explain why some information is coming in that JF-17 has 1200 TR modules? Supposing that information is right, that is.

 

[Goku-kun]

The JF-17 structure where the current radar antenna sits? That determines the shape of your AESA antenna array, which eventually affects how many sub-arrays you can create, which eventually affects the system's final performance. %90 of what happens on the classical concave/planar antenna shape is applicable to an AESA antenna array.

Let us take an extreme example for now...

The beam shape is perpendicular (90 deg) from the array's shape.

So as we move away from the extremes of the above illustration towards a more 'rounded' area, the beam's shape will also change from being fan shaped to pencil shape. The fan shape beam is excellent for volume search, but for a tactical combat aircraft, we want as narrow a pencil beam as possible.

Essentially, what kind of beam shape you want, plus the real estate you have, plus miniaturization, determines how many T/R modules you can fit into that area.

Beam shape and antenna mounting is dependent on you (aircraft). Miniaturization depends on the manufacturer.

you guys are really informative..
learning a lot..request to the admins to not delete this thread..

 

[gambit]

Gambit, I've read that the new generation of GaN TR modules are 1/3rd the size of earlier models. Could this explain why some information is coming in that JF-17 has 1200 TR modules? Supposing that information is right, that is.

I supposed so. I do not know who is the AESA manufacturer for the JF-17, I will leave that research up to you guys, but smaller modules always mean finer beams, which results in a higher resolution main beam.

 

[My-Analogous]

I supposed so. I do not know who is the AESA manufacturer for the JF-17, I will leave that research up to you guys, but smaller modules always mean finer beams, which results in a higher resolution main beam.

Nanjing Research Institute of Electronic Technology is making this radar
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/jf-17-to-get-chinese-developed-aesa-radar-447147/

 

[syed_yusuf]

why there are no more JFT rolling out from the assembly line. it has been 6 months counting

 

[fatman17]

why there are no more JFT rolling out from the assembly line. it has been 6 months counting

Blocks l and ll completed. Block l under upgrade and maintenance. They are not sitting idle. I'm not sure if the block lll prototype has been assembled.

 

[syed_yusuf]

Blocks l and ll completed. Block l under upgrade and maintenance. They are not sitting idle. I'm not sure if the block lll prototype has been assembled.

arent PAC supposed to roll out 12-16 more blk 2 in 2018

 

[fatman17]

arent PAC supposed to roll out 12-16 more blk 2 in 2018

Work is complete as aircraft are with Test and Evaluation Squadron before formal induction.