What's new

PAF & the ramifications of Rafale's sale to India

CriticalThought

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 10, 2016
6,551
16
6,862
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
@CriticalThought

While that was an informative read but people need to understand that terms such as PESA, AESA, GaA and GaN have 'marketing connotations' and actualized output level will vary from product to product in lieu with numerous design-related considerations beneath the surface (i.e. architecture complexity).

To give all a rough idea:



You see how the actualized output level of each product vary irrespective of the GaN and GaAs factor?

GaN is a leap from GaAs on several counts because of its netpositive impact on design-related considerations of applications (Size; Weight; Power; Cost) in theory but actualized output level of a product is to be taken at face value, and not theoretical considerations when drawing a comparison between products.

This statement: "This means, it will be able to handle larger electric power, which results in a longer range for the Block 3 radar as compared to Rafale's RBE2." - is a THEORETICAL consideration and not actually established.

KLJ-7A (AESA) is a major leap from earlier the earlier KLJ-7 (Pulse Doppler) radar system on many counts without any doubt and a welcome development for JF-17 Thunder platform (much thanks to China) - this is based on a rough comparison between officially disclosed actualized output levels of both products from NRIET (developer) as well as general difference between AESA and Pulse Doppler technologies even in theory.

However, a rough comparison between actualized output levels of NRIET KLJ-7A (AESA) and Thales RBE2-AA (AESA) should be considered for a fair understanding of this theme. This will be possible when JF-17 Thunder Block III will be inducted and more information about KLJ-7A (AESA) will hopefully surface.

NOTE: I am not asserting that Thales RBE2-AA (AESA) is one of the best AESA radar systems out there [on its own] - it is certainly not in the high-end spectrum of Western AESA products in existence. However, you simply declared RBE2-AA (AESA) obsolete based on GaAs factor? Dang...

The older RBE2 (PESA) can notice and track a target having a uniform RCS of 3m^2 around 111 KM mark (Notice-only range around 130 KM mark). The newer RBE2-AA (AESA) is claimed to offer over 50% leap in this parameter alone. RBE2-AA (AESA) also enable engagement of up to 8 targets in one go (impressive capability).

Some of the most powerful radar systems in service contain GaAs TRMs with certain design-related amendments which are not public knowledge and/or rather openly-taught knowledge (Architecture complexity beneath the surface). Blunt explanation(s) of superiority of GaN over GaAs in a Public source is not very telling [on its own].

GaN is certainly enabling emergence of more efficient and powerful products in hindsight - American AMDR and LRDR are two glaring examples - implied to be most advanced and powerful AESA radar systems in the world by far. However, sheer amount of research and resources poured into these projects is also phenomenal to say the least.

Above being said; combat aircraft are expected to receive cues from AWACS in potential airborne battles. It is therefore important to understand what kind of AWACS platforms IAF is inducting lately and which one is compatible with the emerging Rafale F3R fleet. :-)
Your entire post is based on knowledge of Western capabilities and misunderstandings that arise from this limited view.

First, to establish the clear superiority of GaN, I quote from the link I posted in my post above

https://www.electronicdesign.com/te...ence-between-gaas-and-gan-rf-power-amplifiers
GaN’s high power density, or its ability to dissipate heat from a small package, makes it so impressive. While GaAs has a basic power density of about 1.5 W/mm, GaN has a power density ranging from 5 to 12 W/mm. It also has high electron mobility, meaning it can amplify signals well into the upper-gigahertz ranges. Typical transistor fTs are up to 200 GHz. Furthermore, GaN can do all this at relatively high breakdown voltages levels, up to 80 V or so.

The downside to GaN is its high cost. The materials are expensive, and the processes to make devices are costly. As volume increases, production costs will come down but will still remain way above the process costs of bulk CMOS or even higher-cost GaAs production.
The part numbers you quoted above were designed for a specific outcome and their performance parameters are a reflection of intended output. The correct way to look at this table is to note that these performance parameters are a reflection of current Western production processes which are behind current Chinese technology. This is why, as you put it, 'actualized output' doesn't seem very different between GaAs and GaN in Western chipsets. As I quoted in OP from Chinese source, these are the kinds of problems the Chinese were facing in 2018. In 2020, the West can only show its own impotence by banning Huawei based on unfounded fears. In research journals, Chinese researchers are reporting PAE levels of 64.7%-52.7%. Notice the 2020 in the quote below.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-1056/ab821e/meta
High performance InAlN/GaN high electron mobility transistors for low voltage applications*
Minhan Mi (宓珉瀚)1, Meng Zhang (张濛)1, Sheng Wu (武盛)1, Ling Yang (杨凌)2, Bin Hou (侯斌)1, Yuwei Zhou (周雨威)2, Lixin Guo (郭立新)3, Xiaohua Ma (马晓华)1 and Yue Hao (郝跃)1

© 2020 Chinese Physical Society and IOP Publishing Ltd

A high performance InAlN/GaN high electron mobility transistor (HEMT) at low voltage operation (6–10 V drain voltage) has been fabricated. An 8 nm InAlN barrier layer is adopted to generate large 2DEG density thus to reduce sheet resistance. Highly scaled lateral dimension (1.2 μm source–drain spacing) is to reduce access resistance. Both low sheet resistance of the InAlN/GaN structure and scaled lateral dimension contribute to an high extrinsic transconductance of 550 mS/mm and a large drain current of 2.3 A/mm with low on-resistance (R on) of 0.9 Ω⋅mm. Small signal measurement shows an f T/f max of 131 GHz/196 GHz. Large signal measurement shows that the InAlN/GaN HEMT can yield 64.7%–52.7% (V ds = 6–10 V) power added efficiency (PAE) associated with 1.6–2.4 W/mm output power density at 8 GHz. These results demonstrate that GaN-based HEMTs not only have advantages in the existing high voltage power and high frequency rf field, but also are attractive for low voltage mobile compatible rf applications.
The rest of your post is just an attempt at presenting a 'balanced' world view. And this is the problem with Americans - they don't have the graciousness to accept defeat once they have appointed someone their arch enemy. That's a problem you need to solve in your own mind.

@Beast @LKJ86 guys could you tag Chinese posters who can give us insight into current Chinese accomplishments in the field of GaN based RF power? My access is limited to the English language web, but you guys can search Chinese sites as well. Your input will be most appreciated.
 

LeGenD

MODERATOR
Aug 28, 2006
11,792
63
13,565
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Your entire post is based on knowledge of Western capabilities and misunderstandings that arise from this limited view.

First, to establish the clear superiority of GaN, I quote from the link I posted in my post above

https://www.electronicdesign.com/te...ence-between-gaas-and-gan-rf-power-amplifiers


The part numbers you quoted above were designed for a specific outcome and their performance parameters are a reflection of intended output. The correct way to look at this table is to note that these performance parameters are a reflection of current Western production processes which are behind current Chinese technology. This is why, as you put it, 'actualized output' doesn't seem very different between GaAs and GaN in Western chipsets. As I quoted in OP from Chinese source, these are the kinds of problems the Chinese were facing in 2018. In 2020, the West can only show its own impotence by banning Huawei based on unfounded fears. In research journals, Chinese researchers are reporting PAE levels of 64.7%-52.7%. Notice the 2020 in the quote below.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-1056/ab821e/meta


The rest of your post is just an attempt at presenting a 'balanced' world view. And this is the problem with Americans - they don't have the graciousness to accept defeat once they have appointed someone their arch enemy. That's a problem you need to solve in your own mind.

@Beast @LKJ86 guys could you tag Chinese posters who can give us insight into current Chinese accomplishments in the field of GaN based RF power? My access is limited to the English language web, but you guys can search Chinese sites as well. Your input will be most appreciated.
Bro,

I think you missed my intended point or something.

Did you check the table I mentioned? What did you learn from it?

Read the following paper now: https://www.norsat.com/wp-content/uploads/GaAS-vs-GaN-System-Performance-1.pdf

EMPHASIS: Neither GaN nor GaAs is technology “better” than the other, it depends upon the unique requirements of each application to determine the best technology for the job. Norsat has a line of both GaN and GaAs BUCs to ensure we have the best solution available for all customers and applications.

Once again; the actualized output level of a complex machine (i.e. radar system) is contingent upon numerous design-related considerations beneath the surface (Architecture complexity in simplest terms) which is largely CLASSIFIED information for a long period of time.

GaN TRMs = reduction in the 'architecture complexity' to achieve similar actualized output level as well as thermal benefits in the mix. This improvement in itself pave way for the development of more efficient and powerful radar systems in the long-term.

When it comes to radar systems, there are so many variations in their respective architectures that black-and-white terms such as PESA, AESA, GaN and GaAs give the impression of being "marketing connotations."

To give you a rough idea, the original AN/SPY-1A radar system is the world's first (strictly) PESA solution. However, architecture of this radar system received numerous 'amendments' over the course of years and the latest AN/SPY-1D(v) variant is a much different radar system in comparison (HYBRIDIZED) with actualized output level on par with high-performance (strictly) AESA radar systems in service enabling target engagement possibilities for host vessels which seemed impossible in the previous century (1970s - 1990s). Do you think that the much touted BMD and CMD capabilities of the AEGIS platform materialized out of the blue or through a magic wand?

When you talk about high-performance cutting-edge AESA radar systems with GaN TRMs, I suggest you take a good look at AMDR and LRDR projects - you won't find much information in relation but these are eye-openers. This leap is due to a 'revolutionary architecture as a whole' of which GaN TRMs are just a part of the equation.

China having a more fleshed-out 5G commercialization strategy is not very instructive in this topic, mind you.
 

CriticalThought

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 10, 2016
6,551
16
6,862
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Bro,

I think you missed my intended point or something.

Did you check the table I mentioned? What did you learn from it?

Read the following paper now: https://www.norsat.com/wp-content/uploads/GaAS-vs-GaN-System-Performance-1.pdf

EMPHASIS: Neither GaN nor GaAs is technology “better” than the other, it depends upon the unique requirements of each application to determine the best technology for the job. Norsat has a line of both GaN and GaAs BUCs to ensure we have the best solution available for all customers and applications.

Once again; the actualized output level of a complex machine (i.e. radar system) is contingent upon numerous design-related considerations beneath the surface (Architecture complexity in simplest terms) which is largely CLASSIFIED information for a long period of time.

GaN TRMs = reduction in the 'architecture complexity' to achieve similar actualized output level as well as thermal benefits in the mix. This improvement in itself pave way for the development of more efficient and powerful radar systems in the long-term.

When it comes to radar systems, there are so many variations in their respective architectures that black-and-white terms such as PESA, AESA, GaN and GaAs give the impression of being "marketing connotations."

To give you a rough idea, the original AN/SPY-1A radar system is the world's first (strictly) PESA solution. However, architecture of this radar system received numerous 'amendments' over the course of years and the latest AN/SPY-1D(v) variant is a much different radar system in comparison (HYBRIDIZED) with actualized output level on par with high-performance (strictly) AESA radar systems in service enabling target engagement possibilities for host vessels which seemed impossible in the previous century (1970s - 1990s). Do you think that the much touted BMD and CMD capabilities of the AEGIS platform materialized out of the blue or through a magic wand?

When you talk about high-performance cutting-edge AESA radar systems with GaN TRMs, I suggest you take a good look at AMDR and LRDR projects - you won't find much information in relation but these are eye-openers. This leap is due to a 'revolutionary architecture as a whole' of which GaN TRMs are just a part of the equation.

China having a more fleshed-out 5G commercialization strategy is not very instructive in this topic, mind you.
You are arguing on a topic that you have no insight into. Had you cared to read you own link, you would have realized exactly why 'actualized output' remains theoretical in Western chips:

Subject to system link budgets, we usually want to run a given amplifier as close to saturation as possible to minimize CAPEX costs. Running an amplifier closer to saturation causes many non-linear effects that can cause link performance degradation and interfere with other users.
These 'non-linearities' arise as harmonic signals which need to be dealt with. China has been dealing with exactly these types of non-linearities. This is from 2019, funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant/Award Number: 61871169

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mmce.22097
A new type of broadband class‐F power amplifier is proposed with GaN HEMT device CGH40010F. And a new harmonic control network is designed by improving the traditional harmonic control network, with the second harmonic and third harmonic broadband matched, which effectively solves the problem of class‐F power amplifier in the design of the bandwidth. To improve the efficiency of power amplifier, all high‐order harmonics are controlled in a certain bandwidth. CGH40010F power transistor is utilized to build the power amplifier working from 1.5 to 2.6 GHz, with the measured saturated output power >10 W, drain efficiency 60%‐80%, and gain >10 dB. The second and the third harmonic suppression levels are maintained from −19.13 to −47.44 dBc and from −16.18 to −47.9 dBc, respectively. The simulation and measurement results of the proposed power amplifier show good consistency.
RF Power applications include both mobile and radar. Whereas Chinese researches are less likely to publish military research (my assumption based on what I have found in my searches), we can use mobile applications as a proxy to gain insight into Chinese radar advances as well. The basic problem of addressing non-linearities remains the same whether you consider mobile or radar applications.
 

aziqbal

BANNED
Aug 26, 2010
3,048
9
5,155
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Rafale is operated by Egypt and Qatar this is very beneficial to Pakistan

having said that it need competent pilots

and thats where the problem lies, I mean Su30 MKI is not joke of a plane its a top tier fighter

JF17 Block III with ASEA and Long range engagement should ensure Rafale has ZERO chance

best news would be JF17 Block III shots down Indian Rafale over Pakistan and we capture the pilot and the plane
 

LeGenD

MODERATOR
Aug 28, 2006
11,792
63
13,565
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
You are arguing on a topic that you have no insight into.
And I suppose you are privy to classified research about American and Chinese radar systems in person? You may know better than me in person but don't give me this 'You are arguing on a topic that you have no insight into' ad hominem - this sound like a ego-tripe TBH.

My intention is not to put you on the defensive in this debate but my contention is that your take of this matter is SPECULATORY at best.

My statement without checking any source material in previous post:

"GaN TRMs = reduction in the 'architecture complexity' to achieve similar actualized output level as well as thermal benefits in the mix. This improvement in itself pave way for the development of more efficient and powerful radar systems in the long-term."

Compare:

"The distinct advantages of GaN such as high output power density and high operational voltage make GaN a game changer in radar and satellite communication. The output power can be increased about four times when compared with GaAs, with the same transistor size[40–42]. The advantages of higher power density are less circuit complexity, higher efficiency and wider band-width. Increased power density indicates more power per unit area and thus more functionality can be implemented in the same area, hence lesser circuit complexity and smaller die size." - Hamza and Nirmal (2020)

I am not quoting the whole para here but I am highlighting the conclusive part of the relevant section FYI:

As GaN devices exhibit high output-power density and good thermal properties, the fabrication of smaller devices with the same output power when compared to the much larger GaAs counterparts is possible. As the smaller size of GaN devices leads to a reduction in terminal feedback capacitance and an increase in the output impedance for a given output power, they can operate effectively over a wider bandwidth. - Hamza and Nirmal (2020)

But I have no insight, right? :rolleyes:

You are utterly focused on output level(s) of experimental GaN HEMT devices in isolation; I am telling you that this is only a part of the equation in the OVERARCHING ARCHITECTURE of a radar system. I assume you have seen a block diagram of a radar system - haven't you?

Block diagram for reference (do not mistake for being complete design):



Amendment in the OVERARCHING ARCHITECTURE of the radar system does the trick. Developers can also introduce new components (increase in COMPLEXITY) and/or replace some of the existing components (antennas can also be replaced; HYBRIDIZATION practices) in the mix for the needful if necessary. Refer back to the 'evolution of the AN/TPY-xx radar system" analogy in my previous post.

I reiterate that some of the most powerful radar systems in the world have GaAs TRMs; these are well-researched but 'expensive' designs.

Radar efficiency can also be TWEAKED with relevant amendments in the OVERARCHING ARCHITECTURE (increase in COMPLEXITY expected); GaN TRMs mitigate this particular problem to large extent however (reduction in COMPLEXITY) - preferred solution in new radar systems. Too much complexity is not desired.

There are numerous factors/considerations which shape actualized output level of a radar system. HYBRIDIZATION practices can be meaningful undertakings but companies/developers are in search of new and better ways to make products more efficient and powerful than before (research factor) - continuous practice. However, generous budgeting is a must (more the merrier).

Had you cared to read you own link, you would have realized exactly why 'actualized output' remains theoretical in Western chips:

Subject to system link budgets, we usually want to run a given amplifier as close to saturation as possible to minimize CAPEX costs. Running an amplifier closer to saturation causes many non-linear effects that can cause link performance degradation and interfere with other users.
These 'non-linearities' arise as harmonic signals which need to be dealt with. China has been dealing with exactly these types of non-linearities. This is from 2019, funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant/Award Number: 61871169

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mmce.22097
Recheck the HIGHLIGHTED part of the statement. What is the intended message?

This: BUDGETING constraints of the company - very important consideration.

In the shared paper, the author compared following products (comparable specifications):

a) Norsat Atom series 40W GaAs – rated as 40W P1dB
b) Norsat Atom series 40W GaN – rated as 40W Psa

- to convey a point that GaN technology does not necessarily ensure 'superiority' over GaAs technology in shaping actualized output level of products (assuming comparable specifications of-course), although it is supposed to in THEORY. In other words; WE need to consider the OVERARCHING ARCHITECTURE of the product instead - my point and emphasis all along.

NOW:

Norsat International is into developing components for use in satellites in large part. Its portfolio is not comparable to that of lets say Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin develop numerous products including "radar systems." You need access to Lockheed Martin internal documents (CLASSIFIED information) to understand the calibre of GaN HEMT devices developed by this company and/or one of its partners. Can you?

GaN HEMT devices of varying output levels obviously exist and different engineers/scientists/academics continue to push the envelope in this domain with their respective experiments - some publications offer a REVIEW of these developments (and accessible). I can provide links to you as well.

BUT:

Why do you assume that [only] China has been dealing with such 'non-linearities' and not others?

Take a look at following publication in the same journal: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mmce.20535

Grebennikov, A. (2011). High‐efficiency transmission‐line inverse Class F power amplifiers for 2‐GHz WCDMA systems. International Journal of RF and Microwave Computer‐Aided Engineering, 21(4), 446-456.

Much older publication than the one you cited/highlighted but related theme and similar intent. I am sure this isn't the only one (Western).

RF Power applications include both mobile and radar. Whereas Chinese researches are less likely to publish military research (my assumption based on what I have found in my searches), we can use mobile applications as a proxy to gain insight into Chinese radar advances as well. The basic problem of addressing non-linearities remains the same whether you consider mobile or radar applications.
There are Western journals/portals which cannot be accessed without 'security clearance' from relevant Western authorities - these sources contain publications (classified information) about a great number of Western defense-related projects. In case you didn't knew.

Since you know much more about this subject than poor me, can you provide some technical explanation of how AN/SPY-6(v)1 achieved much greater sensitivity than AN/SPY1-D(v) in respective output levels? Official block diagrams will be really helpful. :rolleyes:

Nevermind.
 

CriticalThought

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 10, 2016
6,551
16
6,862
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
And I suppose you are privy to classified research about American and Chinese radar systems in person? You may know better than me in person but don't give me this 'You are arguing on a topic that you have no insight into' ad hominem - this sound like a ego-tripe TBH.

My intention is not to put you on the defensive in this debate but my contention is that your take of this matter is SPECULATORY at best.

My statement without checking any source material in previous post:

"GaN TRMs = reduction in the 'architecture complexity' to achieve similar actualized output level as well as thermal benefits in the mix. This improvement in itself pave way for the development of more efficient and powerful radar systems in the long-term."

Compare:

"The distinct advantages of GaN such as high output power density and high operational voltage make GaN a game changer in radar and satellite communication. The output power can be increased about four times when compared with GaAs, with the same transistor size[40–42]. The advantages of higher power density are less circuit complexity, higher efficiency and wider band-width. Increased power density indicates more power per unit area and thus more functionality can be implemented in the same area, hence lesser circuit complexity and smaller die size." - Hamza and Nirmal (2020)

I am not quoting the whole para here but I am highlighting the conclusive part of the relevant section FYI:

As GaN devices exhibit high output-power density and good thermal properties, the fabrication of smaller devices with the same output power when compared to the much larger GaAs counterparts is possible. As the smaller size of GaN devices leads to a reduction in terminal feedback capacitance and an increase in the output impedance for a given output power, they can operate effectively over a wider bandwidth. - Hamza and Nirmal (2020)

But I have no insight, right? :rolleyes:
Yes, you have no insight at all because you are misquoting irrelevant text. What you quoted above describes the limitations of Western technology today - they can certainly produce MMIC designs for GaN, but they can only match output power levels of GaAs. This means, for the same given power, the resulting chipset will have smaller size. This is Western accomplishment to date.

You are utterly focused on output level(s) of experimental GaN HEMT devices in isolation; I am telling you that this is only a part of the equation in the OVERARCHING ARCHITECTURE of a radar system. I assume you have seen a block diagram of a radar system - haven't you?

Block diagram for reference (do not mistake for being complete design):



Amendment in the OVERARCHING ARCHITECTURE of the radar system does the trick. Developers can also introduce new components (increase in COMPLEXITY) and/or replace some of the existing components (antennas can also be replaced; HYBRIDIZATION practices) in the mix for the needful if necessary. Refer back to the 'evolution of the AN/TPY-xx radar system" analogy in my previous post.

I reiterate that some of the most powerful radar systems in the world have GaAs TRMs; these are well-researched but 'expensive' designs.
Thank you for arguing my case rather than your own. As you have shown above, given the limitations of Western technology today, they do have a workaround which you describe above. They can add more amplifiers to increase the transmitted power. This immediately has disadvantages:

1. It increases the number of components (increased complexity). This limits the application of this technique when it comes to radars on fighter jets which are limited in space.

2. It increases the required input power. This is again at a premium in fighter jets.

3. It increases the heat dissipation, and necessitates heat management solutions, adding further weight and power requirements. This is again not good for fighter jets.

4. But the main point you have avoided is that this method cannot be used to amplify received signal. If you put the signal through multiple gain stages, each stage increases the noise level and you then have to add further complexity to deal with that noise. MMICs are analog systems, you don't have the luxury of digital filtering.

In contrast, the new Chinese GaN circuitry will have smaller size, lesser heat production, higher amplification, and overall better quality of signal. Finally, who are you to call Chinese technology 'experimental'? I will give you a taste of your own medicine and ask you: Why is Donald Trump so concerned about Huawei? This is a quote directly from South China Morning Post. Pay special attention to the paragraph I have highlighted in bold.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gallium-china-tightens-grip-wonder-093000430.html
Did you know that a 5G base station can be squeezed into a casing the size of a shoebox? It's thanks to gallium, a soft, bluish metal that makes it possible.

The chipsets that generate powerful bursts of high frequency radio waves are not made with silicon, but gallium nitride.

They consume little electricity, produce little heat and can function comfortably at 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 degrees Fahrenheit), making bulky equipment for power supply and air conditioning redundant.

Gallium is one of the 35 technology-critical elements listed by the US government as a national security concern. Like rare earths, the global supply of gallium is under Chinese control.

China produced 390 tonnes of raw gallium last year, or more than 95 per cent of the world output, according to the United States Geological Survey.

China has become a super power in rare earth, rare metals and other dispersed elements, with increasing dominance over a wide range of sectors from ore to technology.

Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei has filed more than 2,000 patents related to gallium nitride, according to Google Patents. Nokia, Huawei's major competitor in the 5G race, had more than 1,500 patents, while Ericsson had just over 400 filings.

Qualcomm, a US-based company and major supplier of 5G-based chipsets, had less than 1,000 patent filings.

"As the semiconductor industry shifts from silicon to gallium, China is preparing to take the lead position," said professor Hao Xiaopeng, functional material researcher at the State Key Laboratory of Crystal Materials in Shandong University, Jinan.
This actually translates into practical products rather than 'experimental devices'. Huawei rolled out its TIANGANG chip in early 2019

https://www.huaweicentral.com/huawei-launches-worlds-first-core-chip-tiangang-for-5g-base-stations/

This is the reason why Apple and Google don't yet have a 5G phone. China is making practical devices using this technology today. And Western articles are littered with the grudging acceptance that it will take the West a long time to catch up. I have quoted numerous such articles by now.

Radar efficiency can also be TWEAKED with relevant amendments in the OVERARCHING ARCHITECTURE (increase in COMPLEXITY expected); GaN TRMs mitigate this particular problem to large extent however (reduction in COMPLEXITY) - preferred solution in new radar systems. Too much complexity is not desired.

There are numerous factors/considerations which shape actualized output level of a radar system. HYBRIDIZATION practices can be meaningful undertakings but companies/developers are in search of new and better ways to make products more efficient and powerful than before (research factor) - continuous practice. However, generous budgeting is a must (more the merrier).


Recheck the HIGHLIGHTED part of the statement. What is the intended message?

This: BUDGETING constraints of the company - very important consideration.

In the shared paper, the author compared following products (comparable specifications):

a) Norsat Atom series 40W GaAs – rated as 40W P1dB
b) Norsat Atom series 40W GaN – rated as 40W Psa

- to convey a point that GaN technology does not necessarily ensure 'superiority' over GaAs technology in shaping actualized output level of products (assuming comparable specifications of-course), although it is supposed to in THEORY. In other words; WE need to consider the OVERARCHING ARCHITECTURE of the product instead - my point and emphasis all along.

NOW:

Norsat International is into developing components for use in satellites in large part. Its portfolio is not comparable to that of lets say Lockheed Martin.
Stop insulting yourself by repackaging your old arguments in new words. The reason why your 'Norsat International' does not see the superiority of GaN over GaAs is exactly because it hasn't caught up in terms of both fabrication technology and chip design. As I discussed in my previous post, it cannot manage the harmonic signals that arise at saturation point, thus not realizing the true potential of its GaN devices.

Lockheed Martin develop numerous products including "radar systems." You need access to Lockheed Martin internal documents (CLASSIFIED information) to understand the calibre of GaN HEMT devices developed by this company and/or one of its partners. Can you?

GaN HEMT devices of varying output levels obviously exist and different engineers/scientists/academics continue to push the envelope in this domain with their respective experiments - some publications offer a REVIEW of these developments (and accessible). I can provide links to you as well.

BUT:

Why do you assume that [only] China has been dealing with such 'non-linearities' and not others?

Take a look at following publication in the same journal: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mmce.20535

Grebennikov, A. (2011). High‐efficiency transmission‐line inverse Class F power amplifiers for 2‐GHz WCDMA systems. International Journal of RF and Microwave Computer‐Aided Engineering, 21(4), 446-456.

Much older publication than the one you cited/highlighted but related theme and similar intent. I am sure this isn't the only one (Western).
And this is the reason why I disrespect you. You are a dishonest man who tries to hide his defeat by wrapping it into technical jargon or by presenting flawed proofs. In the case above, the 2011 research manages only the second and third harmonics. Whereas, quoting directly from the actual Chinese paper

In the traditional class-F power amplifier only con-sider the impact of the second and third harmonics of the
fundamental wave. Because taking the high-order har-monics into account will inevitably increase the difficulty
of the harmonic control network, it is not in line withmodern power amplifier layout design. However, the
high-order harmonics has an important impact on the power amplifier efficiency. So, a new harmonic con-trol structure is proposed to improve the efficiency and bandwidth in a limited layout.
What you have just shown, is an inability to understand research itself. You do not grasp the basic concept that a paper in 2020 would be based on earlier research, but expand the result in some fundamental manner. In this case, succeeding to manage higher orders other than 2 and 3 is a huge improvement, and is exactly the kind of edge which gives China superiority over Western designs.

There are Western journals/portals which cannot be accessed without 'security clearance' from relevant Western authorities - these sources contain publications (classified information) about a great number of Western defense-related projects. In case you didn't knew.

Since you know much more about this subject than poor me, can you provide some technical explanation of how AN/SPY-6(v)1 achieved much greater sensitivity than AN/SPY1-D(v) in respective output levels? Official block diagrams will be really helpful. :rolleyes:

Nevermind.
So, you need to bring a naval radar into a discussion about aerial radars on fighter jets? Why are you trying to derail the discussion? Even so, I can make an educated guess about what AN/SPY-6 does. Probably, it adds more amplifiers to the transmitter, and because it is a naval radar with the entire power of a naval ship backing it, it can manage the heating and power problems. The added output power improves the final power received from the target, thus improving overall performance. It would still not be able to compete with a modern Chinese GaN device.
 

LeGenD

MODERATOR
Aug 28, 2006
11,792
63
13,565
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Yes, you have no insight at all because you are misquoting irrelevant text. What you quoted above describes the limitations of Western technology today - they can certainly produce MMIC designs for GaN, but they can only match output power levels of GaAs. This means, for the same given power, the resulting chipset will have smaller size. This is Western accomplishment to date.
Ad-hominem again...

HRL Laboratories, LLC, has received an award from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to significantly advance the technology and manufacturing readiness levels of its leading-edge millimeter-wave (mm-wave) T3 gallium nitride (GaN) electronics. Integrated circuits made by layering GaN onto silicon carbide substrate wafers offer the best combination of efficiency, output power, and survivability among radio frequency (RF) and mm-wave semiconductor technologies. This makes these GaN devices and monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMICs) key components for next-generation radars, electronic warfare systems, and communications systems.

Source: https://www.hrl.com/news/2018/11/27/highest-speed-gan-electronics-racing-to-the-finish-line

THAT is 2 years old news of just one company in the business. Emphasis on "research."

There are multiple Western companies which are trying to push the envelope in private capacity. Consider an example from company (Wolfspeed): https://www.wolfspeed.com/rf/products/radar/cghv14250-531 - optimized for use in radar systems operating in L-band frequency. This product offers superior output than the product proposed in publication (Liu et al., 2019) which you touted in your earlier responses. Same company is offering Power amplifiers of varying specifications for different applications to potential customers (this is indicative of the fact that the company have significant expertise in the domain).Tailored solutions of this company are not public knowledge nevertheless.

General knowledge: Commercial purpose RF amplifiers and Power amplifiers tend to have pre-determined specifications - cataloged and marketed by a company in its official website for potential customers. A company might also be willing to offer RF amplifiers and Power amplifiers tailored to meet the needs of a potential customer (defense contracts usually). There are multiple American and European companies which continue to develop both commercial purpose and tailored RF and Power amplifiers as well as continue to push the envelope in this domain in private capacity (research factor; experiments); do not expect much information in Public domain for tailored solutions.

Related information: https://www.analog.com/en/analog-dialogue/articles/rf-power-amplifiers-go-wide-and-high.html

Thank you for arguing my case rather than your own. As you have shown above, given the limitations of Western technology today, they do have a workaround which you describe above. They can add more amplifiers to increase the transmitted power. This immediately has disadvantages:

1. It increases the number of components (increased complexity). This limits the application of this technique when it comes to radars on fighter jets which are limited in space.

2. It increases the required input power. This is again at a premium in fighter jets.

3. It increases the heat dissipation, and necessitates heat management solutions, adding further weight and power requirements. This is again not good for fighter jets.

4. But the main point you have avoided is that this method cannot be used to amplify received signal. If you put the signal through multiple gain stages, each stage increases the noise level and you then have to add further complexity to deal with that noise. MMICs are analog systems, you don't have the luxury of digital filtering.

In contrast, the new Chinese GaN circuitry will have smaller size, lesser heat production, higher amplification, and overall better quality of signal. Finally, who are you to call Chinese technology 'experimental'? I will give you a taste of your own medicine and ask you: Why is Donald Trump so concerned about Huawei? This is a quote directly from South China Morning Post. Pay special attention to the paragraph I have highlighted in bold.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gallium-china-tightens-grip-wonder-093000430.html


This actually translates into practical products rather than 'experimental devices'. Huawei rolled out its TIANGANG chip in early 2019

https://www.huaweicentral.com/huawei-launches-worlds-first-core-chip-tiangang-for-5g-base-stations/

This is the reason why Apple and Google don't yet have a 5G phone. China is making practical devices using this technology today. And Western articles are littered with the grudging acceptance that it will take the West a long time to catch up. I have quoted numerous such articles by now.
I did not request you to explain pros and cons of that block diagram to me - I simply had a point to convey which you conveniently overlooked. But thanks.

You mentioned digital filtering? I have seen block diagrams of the evolutionary process (shift from 'analog array' to the latest 'full digital array' and in-between).

You remain fixated on accomplishments of Huawei in the domain of 5G (which are remarkable no doubt) but can you explain to me that in what capacity Huawei is contributing to development of Chinese radar systems including KLJ-7A (a product of NRIET)? What exactly is your argument in this thread? That KLJ-7A is the world's most advanced, powerful, and efficient radar system yet produced based on workings of Huawei?

Stop insulting yourself by repackaging your old arguments in new words. The reason why your 'Norsat International' does not see the superiority of GaN over GaAs is exactly because it hasn't caught up in terms of both fabrication technology and chip design. As I discussed in my previous post, it cannot manage the harmonic signals that arise at saturation point, thus not realizing the true potential of its GaN devices.

And this is the reason why I disrespect you. You are a dishonest man who tries to hide his defeat by wrapping it into technical jargon or by presenting flawed proofs. In the case above, the 2011 research manages only the second and third harmonics. Whereas, quoting directly from the actual Chinese paper

What you have just shown, is an inability to understand research itself. You do not grasp the basic concept that a paper in 2020 would be based on earlier research, but expand the result in some fundamental manner. In this case, succeeding to manage higher orders other than 2 and 3 is a huge improvement, and is exactly the kind of edge which gives China superiority over Western designs.
1. You continue to nitpick instead of collating statements to glean the 'intended message' - baat ka batangar bana diya
2. Over-reaction and blatant disrespect - attitude problems (making this debate unproductive).

I did not assert that the much older publication in the same journal disclose a more capable product in comparison to the one proposed by Liu et al (2019). Obviously; new research provides an update over the previous one of the same theme. However, there are numerous company-sponsored and/or independent research streams besides the journal (International Journal of RF and Microwave Computer Aided Engineering) which you seem to overlook.

Your contention all along: Fixated on a GaN HEMT Power amplifier proposed in publication (Liu et al., 2019) - prematurely assuming it to be world's best in its class, and that China have surpassed others based on workings of Huawei. Fantastic logic and connection of dots. :tdown:

My contention all along: Are you privy to internal workings (largely classified research) of multiple Western companies in developing GaN HEMT Power amplifiers and wholesale radar systems? Refer back to an example from Wolfspeed above - superior to GaN HEMT Power amplifier proposed in publication (Liu et al., 2019) - this one being openly marketed. Understand this: tailored solutions are not openly marketed by any company.

HINT: If you wish to learn more about Western advances in radar sciences/applications, you will receive many pointers from the workings of DARPA actually.

In relation to that YAHOO article: WEST transformed China into a global manufacturing hub and the latter have expertise in many crafts now. Courtesy of Huawei, China have a fleshed out 5G commercialization strategy but this has made USA insecure. There are multiple American corporations with R&D capability to develop cutting-edge solutions for a wide range of applications (continue to do so in private capacity) but USA had not devised a national 5G commercialization strategy. Now Americans are in envy of China in this matter (hypocrites).

So, you need to bring a naval radar into a discussion about aerial radars on fighter jets? Why are you trying to derail the discussion? Even so, I can make an educated guess about what AN/SPY-6 does. Probably, it adds more amplifiers to the transmitter, and because it is a naval radar with the entire power of a naval ship backing it, it can manage the heating and power problems. The added output power improves the final power received from the target, thus improving overall performance. It would still not be able to compete with a modern Chinese GaN device.
1. AMDR is a scalable architecture suited to a wide range of applications.
2. I am not derailing this discussion; I gave you pointers (AMDR and LRDR) to dig into American advances with GaN applications. You continue to overreact on the other hand. :rolleyes:

Still not be able to compete with a modern Chinese GaN device? Your utter lack of focus on actualized output levels of existing and emerging radar components as well as wholesale radar systems and their respective evolutionary trajectories is the fundamental problem in this debate.

Detection range and sensitivity level of AN/SPY-1D(v) for reference:

The only public numerical figure on Aegis detection range against a specific target (that I have seen) is that the SPY-1D "can track golf ball-sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 kilometers." A golf ball-size (1.68 inches diameter) sphere corresponds to radar cross section of about 0.0025 m^2 at 3.3 GHz. This statement was made in the context of the soon-to-be deployed SPY-1D(V) radar to detect mortar and artillery shell and small-caliber rockets against a clutter background, so presumably it applies to the D(V) version. Scaling to a radar cross section more typical of a ballistic missile warhead (0.03 m^2 at 3.3 GHz) gives a range of at least 310 km.


THAT is the level of sensitivity which enabled BMD and CMD applications for USN in recent years, and it puts even the most powerful airborne radar systems to shame.

At same aperture, AMDR architecture offer 100% leap in detection range and/or level of sensitivity. This is the only radar system in the world which can notice and track even VLO class targets at much further distances than any other radar system in existence (revolutionary architecture and components in use).



In case of fighter jets, I do not recall a single radar system which is even close to replicating actualized output level of the AN/APG-77(v)1 AESA radar system (4th generation) in use in F-22A Raptor in the present. Only AN/APG-82(v)1 is relatively more advanced derivative.

FYI: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/rafa...-17-shahid-latif.680030/page-11#post-12621251

Step out from your BUBBLE reality please.
 

Super Falcon

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 3, 2008
14,072
-4
5,366
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Arab Emirates
PAF should consider gripen in small number just to get a jet for stop gap most of our mirages are old no matter how much u upgrade they will carry old missiles handfull of f 16 which are new one of them already destroyed in islamabad crash

Thunder is a new jet butt has some limitations

Gripen can perform EW it suits our needs it has all latest tools and missiles

Gripen has the best EW suits in the world which paf lacks in air and it is force multiplayer these gripen can refuel requio in 10 min and go forcwar again maintance is cheap and easy
 

Xone

FULL MEMBER
Oct 13, 2019
530
0
569
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
going through all the discussion, One thing is clear the need for an answer to rafale, the experienced professional are of the opinion for a heavy more high tech system to counter it. My expertise is from a different perspective,
smaller is the better, you can add it and subject them according to the need.in case of loss even then it will be less
there will more available even at the time of repair. so instead of one mammoth airplane 3 or 4 can make up for its load-carrying capacity. My choice would be more JF-17s as they offer a low price in the acquisition, maintenance, high availability rate, and cost-effective solution for future needs. to counter rafale we do not need a new platform, only we need little bit of codes for new missile at the fractional cost of the plane.
to counter a swarm is difficult, making swam attack with JF17 is for easy than with a larger plane, Pakistan has already had a counter for rafale in the shape of thunders. so what we need is a force multiplier, not any additional new plane. efficiency comes with small, not with large Sir, JF17 is a small and smart plane, right answer to any present and future challenges for the defense of our homeland. we need to devote our precarious resource to the development or acquire new technology.
 

jupiter2007

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 19, 2007
4,371
-1
3,170
PAF should consider gripen in small number just to get a jet for stop gap most of our mirages are old no matter how much u upgrade they will carry old missiles handfull of f 16 which are new one of them already destroyed in islamabad crash

Thunder is a new jet butt has some limitations

Gripen can perform EW it suits our needs it has all latest tools and missiles

Gripen has the best EW suits in the world which paf lacks in air and it is force multiplayer these gripen can refuel requio in 10 min and go forcwar again maintance is cheap and easy
First of all there is need to panic. 2nd, in current circumstances we cannot go for expensive toy for short term gain. Gripen has American engine and sale can be blocked. Even if we are considering middle weight fighter jet, I would rather go for J-10 than Gripen.
If we have the funds allocated to purchase fights jet, we should wait for latest tech upgrade for J-10 variant.
 

The Eagle

SENIOR MODERATOR
Oct 15, 2015
20,973
172
39,020
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
NOTE TO READERS: My post in response to LeGenD's last post has been deleted. I have lodged a formal complaint in GHQ on this matter. While the matter is under review, I urge readers to take note of the lies and deception of LeGenD, and use your own personal judgement instead of taking his words at face value.
As you have lodged a formal complaint in GHQ; there is no need to derail this thread... Read OP again as I said earlier and you are going out of the thread for specific time to make you realize that one reminder is good enough and shouldn't be taken as a joke.
 

princefaisal

FULL MEMBER
Sep 6, 2006
505
1
245
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
PAF should consider gripen in small number just to get a jet for stop gap most of our mirages are old no matter how much u upgrade they will carry old missiles handfull of f 16 which are new one of them already destroyed in islamabad crash

Thunder is a new jet butt has some limitations

Gripen can perform EW it suits our needs it has all latest tools and missiles

Gripen has the best EW suits in the world which paf lacks in air and it is force multiplayer these gripen can refuel requio in 10 min and go forcwar again maintance is cheap and easy
Just like T-129 engine, Gripen engine will also be banned for export to Pakistan by US before delivery
 

AsianLion

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 1, 2010
9,327
0
8,987
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Big ramfications for PAF as of now! New Planes, New tactics, new technologies to counter the mighty threat of Rafale and Su-30 Mki combo now.
 

imranyounus

FULL MEMBER
Jan 10, 2010
169
0
105
don't think gripen is the answer. its better to invest in JF 17 block 3 than Gripen as both are in same weight class.

PAF should now serious look at 2 front buy as many as possible used F16 and upgrade them with turkish help. and also look at a new medium size fighter and all roads lead to J 10. No other option here.

we we can get another 50 odd F 16 even C/D version this will give a decent number along with 60 odd J10 which can be customize for BVR with PL15.

A fleet of 120 F16 even if no 72, another 150 JF 17, along with 60 odd mirage give you decent force.

But it will only be effective if they are covered by 60 J10 with PL 15.
 

Windjammer

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 9, 2009
35,887
166
125,902
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
On 31 January 2012, India announced Dassault Rafale for it's MMRCA requirement.
So it's no rocket science that PAF has also been aware of this news for almost a decade.
Indians often use to boast that the SU-30 is an overkill of PAF and are meant for China where as MiG-29s are sufficient to take care of little PAF......PAF was aware of this threat and when the test came, there was no MiG-29 in sight and the SU-30 paid the price. Suffice to say, PAF again has been doing it's homework to counter and neutralise any future threat.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom