Yes we can perfectly read it and understand! Thanks for sharing!The picture says KLJ7A and F-35 radar have the same performance. But the KLJ7A antenna is only 600mm, while the F35's radar antenna is 800mm. Under the same technical conditions, the larger the antenna area, the better the performance of radar. If radar manufacturers weren't bragging, the KLJ7A would probably be GaN.
View attachment 777998
Let’s say in an extremely hypothetical scenario where money wasn’t an issue, the engines didn’t have sanction issues and that Pakistan got the same kind of support facilities for these engines As they do for RD93, the answer would still be a resounding no.
Chinese must be producing GaN TRMs as they already had the technology since 2016.I checked the news that the US only started preparing to upgrade airborne radars with GaN this year. The first models should be F/A-18. The F-35 is not scheduled to be upgraded until 2025. The US military report in 2016 already mentioned Chinese research in GaN. So there are no Gans currently in service in the US. The KLJ7A is a new product in the last two years, no product is in service, and it is not strange to use GaN. That's about the same amount of time it takes to change into a GaN in the United States.
In March 2019, Yang Wei, chief designer of the China-Pakistan co-developed fighter jet, said development and production of the JF-17 Block 3 were underway, and the third block will see the JF-17's information-based warfare capability and weapons upgraded.As for EODAS and datalink etc, I don't think BLK3 has it. But these technologies are already in service on the J20. It's just a question of money. After all, BLK3 opted for a single-array air-cooled radar instead of the better three-array radar.
Wrong. China been manufacturing military grade radar use GaN since at least three years ago when J-20 was introduced. J-20 radar was long finished before 2018.Actually, its not true. Chinese AESA radar uses Gallium arsenide (GaAs) and American uses Gallium nitride (GaN) in their electronics. American radar is capable with connecting high bandwidth encrypted data link, sensor fusions such as AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System. An/APG-83 can communicate with off-board systems and can look-back.
Chinese and Russian radars are yet to achieve any DAS and look-back capability. Why do you think Su-30MKI ran from Kashmir? Su-30MKI has no off-board connection and cannot look-back. Su-30MKI had only hope that its Missile Approach Warning (MAW) systems is working and does not malfunction in-flight.
Pakistani F-16 has off-board connection such as Saab Erieye. Pakistani F-16 does not have sensor fusion but Saab Erieye filled the vacuum of sensor fusions for F-16.
US wants to upgrade existing radars to GaN. F-22's is developed in the 1990s. Of course the first ones don't have GaN base. US would have GaN around the same timeframe basically they must have been ready around 2018 for designed for GaN units.I checked the news that the US only started preparing to upgrade airborne radars with GaN this year. The first models should be F/A-18. The F-35 is not scheduled to be upgraded until 2025. The US military report in 2016 already mentioned Chinese research in GaN. So there are no Gans currently in service in the US. The KLJ7A is a new product in the last two years, no product is in service, and it is not strange to use GaN. That's about the same amount of time it takes to change into a GaN in the United States.
As for EODAS and datalink etc, I don't think BLK3 has it. But these technologies are already in service on the J20. It's just a question of money. After all, BLK3 opted for a single-array air-cooled radar instead of the better three-array radar.
You don't seem to know that western countries attach many political conditions to exporting weapons. And the Americans forbid their Allies from engaging in technological cooperation with China. Americans have also dropped out of JF17 early.
Half-assed compensation. The US's WoT has cost us $150 billion, 80,000 lives, and many unquantifiable losses.
The British MoD cannot sanction JF-17s because in such a case they can simply switch to chinese ejection seats as found on Myanmars JF-17s. PAF just used Martin-baker ones because they’ve got a good history with the company.Good discussion.
You are right some people don't get it that JF-17 still uses Martin Baker Ejection Seats. The British MoD still can sanction Pakistan's JF-17. This was not my point. My point was that JF-17 could have a huge export potential if Pakistan removes Russian baggage from JF-17.
I wanted to see how people think of the West. Pakistan received more than $35 billion from the U.S. since 9/11. Reference https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41856.pdf
People don't understand sanction when they talk about EU and US sanctions. CAATSA has different purpose not just sanction willy-nilly. Turkey was sanctioned for buying arms from Russia because Turkey is a NATO member. India will be sanctioned for buying S-400 from Russia.
Germany, Italy, France and UK supply arms to all Southeast Asian countries. Pakistan is a democratic country. Pakistan Army is not going to walk into Prime Minister's office and take power. Pakistan is in a complex geopolitical tug of war. Its highly unlikely that Pakistan will be sanctioned for buy Mi-35 helicopter and RD-93MA engine for Russia.
It's been documented that Pakistan lost over $120 Billion due to the war on terror. So $35 Billion - $120 Billion = -$85Billion in loss.
ONLY if you read the document you will find more than half of amount is under the head of Coalition Support Fund (CSF) which is reimbursement of Pakistan's own expenses already made in WOT it was never US money, BTW Pakistan has not receive reimbursement of more than 60% of our own expenses incurred in support of US mission of WOT in Afghanistan TILL TODATE
Do u want sanction and the beg the west for stuff again???Can anyone comeback to me with rational points why JF-17 cannot be modified and retrofitted with Western engine such as F404 or Rolls-Royce engines. Rolls-Royce engines are modular, more efficient and burns less fuel then any other engines.
The Western engines are more compact than RD-93MA. The length, weight and diameters are not issue here. Mind you, Pakistan still buys vast arrays of Western equipment from France, Sweden, Italy, USA and UK. I want a technical discussion, no political nonsense.
AoA sir, but they have bound them from buying another jet (can't remember which one ) with the MB ejection seat ?An ejection seat is not a weapon of mass destruction. There are international ethics as well that bound many countries.
MB can't deny Pakistan with seats unless, Brits are totally gone crazy or being infected by zombie apocalypse or lost their mind or even started to act like Indian. For Argentine case, they are already in a war like situation so China must have offered after thorough study.AoA sir, but they have bound them from buying another jet (can't remember which one ) with the MB ejection seat ?
Could it be that they have Chinese origin seats ?