Air Forces Monthly - summary of updates to JF-17

[aliyusuf]

I just found an old post from the original unveiling of the KLJ7A. It mentions the same 65% increase over the previous model. So safe to say the range of the radar is still around the original 170Km (plus/minus). What a grand confusion:

Post in thread 'JF-17 Block III's proposed AESA Radar KLJ-7A'
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17-block-iiis-proposed-aesa-radar-klj-7a.458854/post-8869283

That was almost 6 years ago. Which was being compared with a previous model.

In the current article, the prototype of the AESA has a range of 81nm, and its current production version 6 years later is 65% enhanced over the prototype.

This is further corroborated by it exceeding the range of all current and future missiles the Thunder is going to carry. PL-15 has a range greater than or equal to 200km.

P.S.
81nm = 150km approx
Which is the initially stated range of the KLJ-7A on an NRIET brochure.
Which can be interpreted as the prototype version.

 

[Bilal.]

That was almost 6 years ago. Which was being compared with a previous model.

In the current article, the prototype of the AESA has a range of 81nm, and its current production version 6 years later is 65% enhanced over the prototype.

This is further corroborated by it exceeding the range of all current and future missiles the Thunder is going to carry. PL-15 has a range greater than or equal to 200km.

It would be hell of a coincidence that at both instances it’s the same 65% increase.

 

[Bilal.]

That was almost 6 years ago. Which was being compared with a previous model.

In the current article, the prototype of the AESA has a range of 81nm, and its current production version 6 years later is 65% enhanced over the prototype.

This is further corroborated by it exceeding the range of all current and future missiles the Thunder is going to carry. PL-15 has a range greater than or equal to 200km.

P.S.
81nm = 150km approx
Which is the initially stated range of the KLJ-7A on an NRIET brochure.
Which can be interpreted as the prototype version.

Can you share that brochure please. The initial range in the 5-6 year old thread is 170Km.

 

[aliyusuf]

It would be hell of a coincidence that at both instances it’s the same 65% increase.

Otherwise, PAF would have selected the air-cooled 200km Lihua LKF-601 radar. It is quite possible that work may have gone on and the radar was improved.

Otherwise, as per the current article, 81NM remains the other alternative and that is approximately equal to 150km. So the PAF selected a 50km inferior ranged radar ... compared to the LKF-601??

Can you share that brochure please. The initial range in the 5-6 year old thread is 170Km.

I will look for it. Its jpeg was on my saved laptop, which now has
died a year ago.

P.S.
Found it ...

 

[TheTallGuy]

Unfortunately, it's still not possible with the current technology. To launch and guide an AAM, one needs a true fire control radar. AWACs just works in either broadcast mode initially or more fluid tactical control in advanced stages of an air battle. Either by voice or data link, it provides general target information to a fighter formation. Rest everything has to be done by the airborne FCR on the jets. Aerial CEC has been displayed in a few cases by fighters shooting IR shots like MICA heaters. Also, fighter radars have longer or max ranges in search mode. Tracking/missile guidance range is almost half. So a 100 NM range sensor would most likely provide launch support up to 50-60NM.
Naval CEC is something else. AEGIS-based ship-borne radars are dedicated systems with fire control capabilities.

I am sure SAAB-2000 ERIEYE can use cooperative engagement mode with F-16 AIM-120C5

I am sure there was a complete brochure explaining Saab-2000 ERIEYE co-operative engagement mode on PDF.

 

[HRK]

Can you share that brochure please. The initial range in the 5-6 year old thread is 170Km.

 

[Bilal.]

Otherwise, PAF would have selected the air-cooled 200km Lihua LKF-601 radar. It is quite possible that work may have gone on and the radar was improved.

Otherwise, as per the current article, 81NM remains the other alternative and that is approximately equal to 150km. So the PAF selected a 50km inferior ranged radar ... compared to the LKF-601??


I will look for it. Its jpeg was on my saved laptop, which now has
died a year ago.

P.S.
Found it ...
View attachment 810928

View attachment 810930

Now it’s all falling in place:

- 65% greater than initial version/prototype (with range 81NM = 150Km). Meaning now the range is ~250Km

- Also now makes sense as it’s (and should be) better than LKF601 and corroborates the statement for it being more than current and future BVRAAMS.

 

[aliyusuf]

Now it’s all falling in place:

- 65% greater than initial version/prototype (with range 81NM = 150Km). Meaning now the range is ~250Km

- Also now makes sense as it’s (and should be) better than LKF601 and corroborates the statement for it being more than current and future BVRAAMS.

All this confusion because it was a purposefully obfuscating article from the retired Sqdr Leader.

It's my belief that it is better to keep quiet if you don't want to share information. Rather than spread misinformation and confusion. Because sometimes it becomes counterproductive and demoralizing for the home supporters.

 

[kursed]

I genuinely don’t understand the discussion on radar ranges here, there’s no way in hell that anyone would let you know true range of KLJ-7A. The entire debate is practically moot.

At the very best, take whatever they’ve mentioned on the brochure and run with it.

 

[GumNaam]

I genuinely don’t understand the discussion on radar ranges here, there’s no way in hell that anyone would let you know true range of KLJ-7A. The entire debate is practically moot.

At the very best, take whatever they’ve mentioned on the brochure and run with it.

hey we all gotta be keyboard experts...

 

[Bilal.]

I genuinely don’t understand the discussion on radar ranges here, there’s no way in hell that anyone would let you know true range of KLJ-7A. The entire debate is practically moot.

At the very best, take whatever they’ve mentioned on the brochure and run with it.

Of course. Most of the topics related to defense are similar in nature. And we as enthusiasts try to extrapolate things because… well we are enthusiasts. What else do you think people will do on a public defence forum.

 

[Chak Bamu]

I genuinely don’t understand the discussion on radar ranges here, there’s no way in hell that anyone would let you know true range of KLJ-7A. The entire debate is practically moot.

At the very best, take whatever they’ve mentioned on the brochure and run with it.

Many do not understand that whatever information is given out is also meant to sow doubts across the border and that it is perfectly OK. Home supporters can be put out to graze and it does not really matter much.

 

[Bilal.]

Many do not understand that whatever information is given out is also meant to sow doubts across the border and that it is perfectly OK. Home supporters can be put out to graze and it does not really matter much.

I think. Across the border (and same for us) would have way different sources of data and information than a £2 mag.

 

[alimobin memon]

Ra'ad ALCM with Block-III----- Hats off to AWC Busy Bees. Remember one of them senior was praised by Sajjad Haider sahib in live program? These boys have more tricks under sleeves. Wait for another good day to be revealed.

Block-III Radar is good enough. However, a short leg Radar means the detection & locking range by the Air Craft. If we go by the argument of Radar being short legged as compare to range of PL-15; remember that Fighter can still fly without Radar Off Mode and yet the AEWACS signals the target where PL-15 can be launched with F&F mode. However, it doesn't mean that Block-III will need AEWACS for the PL-15 launch on maximum range. Thunder, J-10C, Falcons all will play in a netcentric warfare domain and whether getting a feed or acting individually, will perform task without any short coming. These Birds will still play their part as a force multiplier during flight and thanks to Link 17. The reason why interoperability was coined and may be J-10Cs are coming.

As a pakistani we should be satisified with fleet of at least 8 awacs in PAF. They can be used to guide BVR against stealth fighter in future. Stealth fighters are good but AWACS have super powerful radar. If we go by this strategy of guiding BVR using AWACS I think we may not need Project Azam soon as our rival has no 5th generation jet yet.

I don't know much but aren't AWACS vulnerable. How safe it is to rely on AWACS for missile launch

Respected sir, I don't post much but your question is valid and I would like to share my pence here. Loses in war are certain, that's why multiple AWACS are fielded in air force. Plus, the fact that they operated away from airspace where enemy bogies are present.

In pakistan and its neighbours conflict I think most of the time JF17 block 3 radar would not require guidance of AWACS as stated many years ago even f7PG can lock 4th generation fighters easily as they are fielded near border and will be first interceptors in close range not clearly remember the scenario but it was something about rival jets entering pakistani space and when PAF in response launches the jets would already be close enough for f16 and jf17 but even in some cases f7pg would have little difficulty in tracking and engaging them as well.

 

[Ghessan]

Lol.
I go back to Pakistan in summer and can't order fish in restaurants cause people look at my face like I am crazy asking to eat fish in summer.

there is an old saying among people in Pakistan:

eat fish during months that ends with Urdu alphabet "ray" and they are you know ...