What's new

JF-17B Updates, News & Discussion

After a better Engine gets loaded in Block III I would imagine the Jet would have ability to carry more Payload
in form of Multiple Missiles on Wings

Block III would give us option to Explore the ability to add missiles , or other weapons of choice
 
After a better Engine gets loaded in Block III I would imagine the Jet would have ability to carry more Payload
in form of Multiple Missiles on Wings

Block III would give us option to Explore the ability to add missiles , or other weapons of choice

Hi,

Engine does not have much to do with the payload. I mean to say what more are you going to hang that is not already hung---.

You need a larger and stronger wing to hang extra hardware.
 
Hi @ARMalik. If your theory is true then why has there been such a fuss over heating issues with AESA and instituting of a liquid cooling system? Please understand I am merely asking to understand rather than question.
Regards

"Its performance and capability with the AESA radar". Did anyone else notice this? So the ACM is basically telling us that the Bs either have AESA or are planned to have AESA. Any comments

Honestly, I am not sure why there is fuss. Fighters Jets are sophisticated machines with advance HVAC and refrigerants. We need to remember that Liquid AESA and Air AESA are TWO DIFFERENT PRODUCTS. And hence their performance inputs and outputs would be different as well. I am speculating that the Air cooled AESA might have slightly inferior performance, about 80%, compared to Liquid cooled AESA, due to a number of reason including heat exchange limitations.
 
Honestly, I am not sure why there is fuss. Fighters Jets are sophisticated machines with advance HVAC and refrigerants. We need to remember that Liquid AESA and Air AESA are TWO DIFFERENT PRODUCTS. And hence their performance inputs and outputs would be different as well. I am speculating that the Air cooled AESA might have slightly inferior performance, about 80%, compared to Liquid cooled AESA, due to a number of reason including heat exchange limitations.

You should refrain from speculating on highly specialized and technical topics because it is a non-scientific approach. And since you are not a researcher who actively creates new AESA radars, where did you get that 80% number from?

The word 'air cooled' is not very well defined in itself. For example, Leonardo calls its 'osprey' range of radars as air cooled, but they are used as surveillance radars. As far as I know, there is currently no concept of an 'air cooled' radar for fighter jets. I can think of only one explanation for the Chinese claims of air cooled radar for JF-17: a SIC substrate layer for efficient thermal dissipation.

Given the same total input power, i.e., the power that is used to generate radar waves + the power that is needed for cooling, and the same semi-conductor material for the TRMs, an air cooled AESA radar will perform better in terms of power conversion than a liquid cooled AESA radar IF boundary layer defects between the substrate and semi-conducting layer do not play a role. There is a fundamental underlying assumption here: the air cooled AESA uses materials having more efficient thermal conductivity, which is the case for SiC substrate. This superiority of air cooled AESA will be true up till the point where the substrate layer can no longer efficiently dissipate heat. If you go beyond this limit, the air cooled radar cannot keep up, and you enter the realm of liquid cooled AESA radars.

But in the previous paragraph, I used the word 'total input power'. The entire paragraph is written from the perspective of total input power. It is easy to overlook the assumption that both the air-cooled and liquid cooled version have exactly the same semi-conductor material in the TRMs. The total output power per TRM is determined by the bandgap of the semi-conductor, and so you won't see any difference in terms of output power. Which makes your 80% number completely ridiculous and shows you have no understanding of the topic on which you are opinionating.

A final subtlety is that in paragrpah 3 I am talking about going beyond the thermal capability of the substrate, and in paragraph 4 I am saying that the bandgap determines total output power. The TRMs are based on transistors working as power amplifiers and the manufacturing process limits the amount of power amplification you can get. So, if you keep improving your manufacturing, in theory you could go beyond the ability of the substrate. Another way is to increase the total input power, which again is limited by the manufacturing process. This is currently an area of active research and nothing can be said with surety, until the Chinese publish their research.
 
Aoa, sir I m just asking one question, if use two AESA radar Air cooled and liquid cooled from two different sources East and west then the fighter of same squadron can use two kind of weapons from East and West ????
 
1614175877411.png
 
Aoa, sir I m just asking one question, if use two AESA radar Air cooled and liquid cooled from two different sources East and west then the fighter of same squadron can use two kind of weapons from East and West ????

Very unwise or I must say, foolish to use 2 different AESA radars in same squadron. There's no example as such and no one will do so. However, most of OEMs allows only weapons of same origin i.e. Eastern Radar for weapons from the East & Western radar with the weapons from West. By the way I am not Sir. For example F-16s employs US made weapons & Thunder with Eastern Weapons. West/US wouldn't trust source codes for Eastern Weapons or neither the Chinese. A Pakistan made Radar can be a different case.
 
Radomes ....

why overhaul JF-17 radomes are in this colour .... 🤔🤔🤔
Radomes as you know are made from non metallic material and they cover the radar of an aircraft....lighter shade reportedly have less interruption in the radar signal.
 
You should refrain from speculating on highly specialized and technical topics because it is a non-scientific approach. And since you are not a researcher who actively creates new AESA radars, where did you get that 80% number from?

The word 'air cooled' is not very well defined in itself. For example, Leonardo calls its 'osprey' range of radars as air cooled, but they are used as surveillance radars. As far as I know, there is currently no concept of an 'air cooled' radar for fighter jets. I can think of only one explanation for the Chinese claims of air cooled radar for JF-17: a SIC substrate layer for efficient thermal dissipation.

Given the same total input power, i.e., the power that is used to generate radar waves + the power that is needed for cooling, and the same semi-conductor material for the TRMs, an air cooled AESA radar will perform better in terms of power conversion than a liquid cooled AESA radar IF boundary layer defects between the substrate and semi-conducting layer do not play a role. There is a fundamental underlying assumption here: the air cooled AESA uses materials having more efficient thermal conductivity, which is the case for SiC substrate. This superiority of air cooled AESA will be true up till the point where the substrate layer can no longer efficiently dissipate heat. If you go beyond this limit, the air cooled radar cannot keep up, and you enter the realm of liquid cooled AESA radars.

But in the previous paragraph, I used the word 'total input power'. The entire paragraph is written from the perspective of total input power. It is easy to overlook the assumption that both the air-cooled and liquid cooled version have exactly the same semi-conductor material in the TRMs. The total output power per TRM is determined by the bandgap of the semi-conductor, and so you won't see any difference in terms of output power. Which makes your 80% number completely ridiculous and shows you have no understanding of the topic on which you are opinionating.

A final subtlety is that in paragrpah 3 I am talking about going beyond the thermal capability of the substrate, and in paragraph 4 I am saying that the bandgap determines total output power. The TRMs are based on transistors working as power amplifiers and the manufacturing process limits the amount of power amplification you can get. So, if you keep improving your manufacturing, in theory you could go beyond the ability of the substrate. Another way is to increase the total input power, which again is limited by the manufacturing process. This is currently an area of active research and nothing can be said with surety, until the Chinese publish their research.
Does this air-cooled and liquid-cooled dichotomy have something to do with the rate of heat transfer through conduction convection? I am just guessing here (not my field) that liquid-cooled systems are able to take away more heat per unit time than air-cooled systems. Is that so?
 
Very unwise or I must say, foolish to use 2 different AESA radars in same squadron. There's no example as such and no one will do so. However, most of OEMs allows only weapons of same origin i.e. Eastern Radar for weapons from the East & Western radar with the weapons from West. By the way I am not Sir. For example F-16s employs US made weapons & Thunder with Eastern Weapons. West/US wouldn't trust source codes for Eastern Weapons or neither the Chinese. A Pakistan made Radar can be a different case.
Aoa sir, I have failed to convey, sir if there are 50 JF 17 using air cooled AESA radar with package from east and 50 JF using liquid cooled AESA radar with package from west can be used as a pair and will able to deliver two kind of integrated weapons for just an example I.e SD 10 as well AMRAAM, then what is obstacle ? Two different Radar with two different package integrated???
 
Radomes ....

why overhaul JF-17 radomes are in this colour .... 🤔🤔🤔

Now I can't remember if they were originally lighter or darker... Mandela effect... I could've sworn JF-17A had a darker radome.
 
You should refrain from speculating on highly specialized and technical topics because it is a non-scientific approach. And since you are not a researcher who actively creates new AESA radars, where did you get that 80% number from?

The word 'air cooled' is not very well defined in itself. For example, Leonardo calls its 'osprey' range of radars as air cooled, but they are used as surveillance radars. As far as I know, there is currently no concept of an 'air cooled' radar for fighter jets. I can think of only one explanation for the Chinese claims of air cooled radar for JF-17: a SIC substrate layer for efficient thermal dissipation.

Given the same total input power, i.e., the power that is used to generate radar waves + the power that is needed for cooling, and the same semi-conductor material for the TRMs, an air cooled AESA radar will perform better in terms of power conversion than a liquid cooled AESA radar IF boundary layer defects between the substrate and semi-conducting layer do not play a role. There is a fundamental underlying assumption here: the air cooled AESA uses materials having more efficient thermal conductivity, which is the case for SiC substrate. This superiority of air cooled AESA will be true up till the point where the substrate layer can no longer efficiently dissipate heat. If you go beyond this limit, the air cooled radar cannot keep up, and you enter the realm of liquid cooled AESA radars.

But in the previous paragraph, I used the word 'total input power'. The entire paragraph is written from the perspective of total input power. It is easy to overlook the assumption that both the air-cooled and liquid cooled version have exactly the same semi-conductor material in the TRMs. The total output power per TRM is determined by the bandgap of the semi-conductor, and so you won't see any difference in terms of output power. Which makes your 80% number completely ridiculous and shows you have no understanding of the topic on which you are opinionating.

A final subtlety is that in paragrpah 3 I am talking about going beyond the thermal capability of the substrate, and in paragraph 4 I am saying that the bandgap determines total output power. The TRMs are based on transistors working as power amplifiers and the manufacturing process limits the amount of power amplification you can get. So, if you keep improving your manufacturing, in theory you could go beyond the ability of the substrate. Another way is to increase the total input power, which again is limited by the manufacturing process. This is currently an area of active research and nothing can be said with surety, until the Chinese publish their research.
f16 AESA update radar doesnt has liquid cooling
 
Aoa sir, I have failed to convey, sir if there are 50 JF 17 using air cooled AESA radar with package from east and 50 JF using liquid cooled AESA radar with package from west can be used as a pair and will able to deliver two kind of integrated weapons for just an example I.e SD 10 as well AMRAAM, then what is obstacle ? Two different Radar with two different package integrated???
Why would the PAF use
Air cooled aesa if liquid cooled is availabile and can be integrated into jf-17?
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom