What's new

Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

Keep in mind that JF-17 Block I won't need an AESA for its primary roles. We've entered the era of netcentric warfare where Awacs can do the same if not better job for the pilot and whole formation by interlinks.

Munir has a point that AESA is an overkill for smaller planes, specially JF-17 which lacks range to perform deep interdict strikes and therefor will not operate in deeper hostile aesospace.

Future Block II but certainly FC-20 are better candidates for the AESA and will have IDS/DP capability. :coffee:

Neo you forget something that the intended role for the JF-17 is to be the back bone of the PAF which means that it will not only be used for defending and intercepting but deep strike missions as well. Remember PAF is not buying those IL-78 out of nothing. Also as stated by the ACM in his interview, the on going work to increase the hard points from 7 to 9 clearly highlights the fact that the JF-17 will be used for offensive missions as well and with air to air refueling it can effectively carry the mission however in a hostile environment where one would expect tough resistance from a much superior airforce, the thunders will need an AESA radar. It does not matter if the jet costs 15 million and the radar costs 5, the bottom line is that 15 million is just the basic cost of the jet, with western hardware it will surely rise to 25 plus million per jet and more with an AESA radar.
 
.
Ice

can you explain why the question of number of hardpoints is so important -- if it is true that engagments may last seconds and that in deep strike missions the payload will effect other parameters, why is that we read so much about the number of hard points as a criticism of JF-17 - please shed some light on this
 
.
You do not want to have a few punches for long range and risking expensive asset...

Murad:
>>>
System Benefits

The demand for these new radar systems is largely driven by the significant performance improvements and increased reliability gained over legacy systems, according to industry and military officials. Generally, legacy systems rely on mechanically driven antennas that move back and forth to scan. An AESA antenna, on the other hand, does not move but rather consists of a matrix of small, solid state transmit/receive (T/R) modules, in which timing differences between the signals at each module are used to form and steer the radar beam.

On a practical level, the AESA radar "will register a 40 percent savings in life cycle costs over the legacy systems," said Patrick Geraghty, executive vice president radar systems, with Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems U.S. When you replace "the central traveling wave tube technology with a distributed multi-element array, you eliminate that single point of failure risk and get an inherent reliability increase," Geraghty said.

Also, the AESA antenna "has a gradual degradation," said Bill McHenry, Lockheed Martin F-16 business development director. There is no single antenna, but "hundreds of T/R modules, and if you lose one you still have (many) left." If you monitor the situation, "you can plan your maintenance and repairs (and) still fly the airplane and perform your missions."

Reliability was a key selling point for the U.S. Coast Guard when it tapped the Selex Seaspray 7500E AESA surveillance radar to replace the mechanically scanned Raytheon APS-137 on 16 of its HC-130Hs. The APS-137 has been "a very capable radar," but the system’s wave guides are "failing about every 80 hours," said Capt. Douglas Menders, aviation program manager, U.S. Coast Guard Aviation Acquisition.

The 7500E prototype has been deployed on an HC-130H for more than a year and "really has yet to fail," Menders said. In that time, the system has racked up more than 450 hours of operation.

The Coast Guard AESA radars have about 300 T/R modules, fewer than fire control radars on fighter aircraft, which can have more than 1,000 modules. It is "what we call a partially filled array," Geraghty said.

The system, which costs less than the higher density radars, requires fewer modules "because it is surveillance related."

The 7500E technology was developed in European programs including the Airborne Multirole Solid State Active Array Radar and CAPTOR Active Electronically Scanning Array Radar, Geraghty said. SELEX also offers its Vixen 500E AESA radar for fighter aircraft and UAVs as well as fixed and light helicopters.

Slated to be deployed by late 2009, the Coast Guard radars will cost $49 million, Menders said.

While it was standalone acquisition, the AESA radar will fit nicely with the new cockpit avionics suite, including five or six multifunction displays, that the Coast Guard is planning for the HC-130H, he said. The aircraft — some which date back to the early 1980s — are projected to continue in service to at least 2027.

Operationally, AESA radar is expected to deliver a 2-to-3 times boost in performance, said Mike Henchey, Raytheon director of strategy and business development, Tactical Airborne Systems (TAS). The technology extends "the range at which you are able to detect a target" and, "because you’ve got many, many small radars (or T/R modules), updates the target’s position very, very quickly," said Geraghty.

AESA radar can "truly be a force multiplier," said Dave Goold, Raytheon’s business development director for the F-18. On a two-place Super Hornet with decoupled cockpit, for example, "you could have the front cockpit doing an air-to-air mission, while nearly simultaneously the aft cockpit is performing air-to-ground."

The radar "supports multiple radar modes that include real beam mapping, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) mapping, sea surface search, ground moving target indication and tracking and air-to-air search and track," said Cmdr. A.J. McFarland, F⁄A-18 and EA-18G radar integrated product team military lead for the Navy.

"These modes can be interleaved and operated near-simultaneously, demonstrating a quantum leap in combat capability over our legacy radars."

The Navy plans to deploy 437 F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G Growlers — the latter an electronic attack version of the F/A-18F slated to replace the EA-6B Prowler. About 304 will be delivered off the line from Boeing, while 133 will be retrofitted with radars "procured directly from Raytheon on a schedule of roughly 20 per year," McFarland said.

In July, Raytheon delivered its 100th APG-79 AESA system to Boeing and the Navy for the F/A-18 and EA-18G.

The first unit to deploy F/A-18s with the AESA radar is VFA-22, the "Redcocks," from Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore in California. "They deployed aboard USS Ronald Reagan in May (and) are currently in the Western Pacific," McFarland said in July.

The VAQ-129 Electronic Attack Squadron at NAS Whidbey Island, Wash., is the first EA-18G squadron to deploy the radar.

System Challenges

For all its potential, AESA technology also provides challenges. Selex’s Seaspray system, for example, includes many more modes than the older system, and "those modes are pretty robust," said Menders. "There are a lot of different interfaces and target symbologies (involved), so there is going to be a pretty good learning curve for the operators."

"In many ways, aircrew workload will increase because the AESA radar is capable of providing much more information than previous radars could provide," said McFarland.

"However, the improved range of the AESA also provides the aircrew with exponentially better situational awareness, enabling them to make better informed tactical decisions sooner than they could using legacy radars."

Radar manufacturers have faced and continue to face development challenges.

"Weight, costs, electricity and cooling — those are the big challenges," especially in the retrofit of these technologies, said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at the Teal Group.

Eight years ago, the first generation array was deployed on the F-15C because it is a "bigger fighter with a real solid structure and it could carry some weight," said Henchey. In fact, the system was so much heavier than the mechanical systems "ballast had to be placed in the back of airplanes," he added.

Current systems weigh about half as much as earlier radars, or about the same as mechanical systems, and will continue to decrease as the AESA gets thinner, Henchey said. Eventually, the array will become flexible enough to mount in areas other than the nose "because the requirement for flat mounting space will be backed off." The radar will be able to be oriented in different directions and provide a broader perspective.

The U.S. Air Force plans to upgrade the radars in 177 F-15Cs and 224 F-15Es — the two models are slated to remain in the fleet through 2025 and 2035, respectively, Henchey said.

In the marketplace, weight, cooling and power issues helped drive Lockheed Martin to build the separate F-16 Block 60 to meet United Arab Emirates’ requirement for 80 aircraft with AESA technology. The airplanes required "some cooling and power upgrades or enhancements," said McHenry. The first aircraft with the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-80 was delivered to UAE in 2005.

Lockheed is looking at upgrading some of its F-16 Block 50 aircraft.

"We are cautiously optimistic that this is a doable do and won’t involve a significant modification to the airplane," McHenry said.

The optimism is based on two recently launched programs: Northrop Grumman’s Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) and Raytheon’s Advanced Combat Radar (RACR). The two programs are targeted at F-16 retrofits at least in the short run.

SABR is designed specifically to address F-16 electrical and physical interfaces without modification and fit within currently defined power and cooling requirements, according to Northrop Grumman. SABR demonstration flights are planned for later this year on Northrop Grumman’s Sabreliner, which emulates the F-16 avionics suite and has been used for previous F-16 radar testing. The SABR program "is our investment toward maintaining the F-16’s combat capability," said Chris Sheppard, F-16 Sensor Systems Program Development manager.

Similarly, RACR, unveiled at the Farnborough Airshow in July, "is designed to work with existing aircraft power and cooling," Henchey said. The RACR system can be "dropped with minimal impact into to the airplane."

The programs also tout lower prices. In fact, all of the manufacturers say prices have been on the decline, and there is evidence in the market to support this. "As it is being produced more and more and technology is maturing, the price is starting to go down, which is further increasing demand" for the systems, Ostrove said.

"We have been running the program since the early 1990s and have been able to over that time evolve the costs down to the point where we can readily compete with the traditional mechanical systems," said Geraghty.

It is "not exactly dollar for dollar; but when you compare the cost of acquisition compared with the life cycle cost savings, it is a very compelling argument."

"AESA is one of those technologies that is emerging and is now becoming cost effective," said McHenry. "By 2020 or 2025... it will be an accepted part of fighter airplanes."

However, outside of the Indian competition, "I don’t have any other customer who has an RFI [request for information] or RFP [Request for Proposal] on the street that says an AESA is a requirement. But I do have customers that are interested in talking about it," McHenry said.

AESA Developed For Communications
A versatile technology, Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar is being developed as a base for high-speed communications. However, the initiative is running up against funding challenges that are thwarting its progress.

Spearheaded by L-3 Communications, the effort to deploy this communication capacity is being abetted by both Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. The goal is allow for speedy transmission of the mass of critical data gathered by advanced sensors on fighter aircraft to others that may need it on the ground or in the air.

"What we have done is modify one of the common data link waveforms and turned it into a waveform that enables data to be carried on a pulse carrier signal instead of traditional continuous wave carrier," said Bruce Carmichael, vice president of Air Force Programs with L-3 Communication Systems West, based in Salt Lake City.

This waveform, called the Radar Common Data Link (R-CDL) or Pulsed Common Data Link (P-CDL), has been developed and was successfully flight tested about a year ago, Carmichael said. In practical terms, the capability would be "a new mode for the radar — a communications mode of operation," said Carmichael.

The capability of that mode encompasses a range of potential operations, from one-way broadcasts to interleaved "fully duplexed" exchanges between two stations, said Dave Robbins, an engineering lead for R-CDL at L-3 Communications.

Raytheon has demonstrated the system can transmit data at rates of 274 megabytes a second — "a speed that starts to approach instantaneous," said Mike Henchey, Raytheon’s director of strategy and business development, Tactical Airborne Systems. It is a speed that easily eclipsed the current military standard. "If you are relying on a tactical data link like Link 16, it might take you close to an hour to get a 72-megabyte file off of the aircraft," said Carmichael. With R-CDL, that transmission "is a matter of 3 to 5 seconds," he said.

The system could be used to provide close air support or help take out surface-to-air missile sites, said Joe Nunes, program manager for the Northrop Grumman R-CDL team at L-3 Communications. "Our sources told us that once a SAM site knows it is painted it can move in as little as six minutes," so time is of the essence, Nunes said. R-CDL can also provide real-time battle damage assessment to decision makers on the ground for re-tasking.

As far as system development is concerned, "we have gone through the basic challenges — the next step is to integrate the capability on the aircraft themselves... along with the man-machine interfaces," Carmichael said.

However, to do this and keep the program team together, the initiative needs funding. "That is the biggest thing right now," Carmichael said. "Our team is in a funding gap, so it is hard to keep the team together and go ahead," said Nunes.

On the positive side, "it has been recognized as a requirement for the F-22, so that is a major step forward," said Carmichael. — Ed McKenna
 
.
Ice

can you explain why the question of number of hardpoints is so important -- if it is true that engagments may last seconds and that in deep strike missions the payload will effect other parameters, why is that we read so much about the number of hard points as a criticism of JF-17 - please shed some light on this

The point of having more hard points is to effectively carry on with bombing raids while having something to defend its way back after the successful delivery of the payload.Currently with a max weapon payload of 3800 kg,it cannot perform well in a dedicated air to ground role. More payload for example with conformal fuel tanks, the drag increases meaning it will certainly effect the performance when quick turns are needed in case of a dog fight or perhaps from a SAM site. Dog fights these days might become very rare as all jets, interceptors, strikers will be equipped with BVR and fuel tanks can be dropped once the intended distance is achieved.
 
.
So the criticism is that it's payload is insufficient for deep strike mission and not necessarily that it requires more hard points
 
.
EDITED

You should think how F22 had to change lots of things just bacause of cooling... Resetting computers was one of the problems!
Cooling is a problem because you need to perfect cooling solutions o highly sensitive modules and computers, but how does that mean you need an awful lot of cooling space as you had mentioned in your post. From concept stage to today everything in F22 is an evolution so it is expected to undergo problems. Designing very small cooling solution for micro level electronics is a challenging task and will obviously face probles but that never means they occupy an awful lot of space. So much for your knowledge on AESA.

You still have no money to buy a decent aircraft but you want the best possible radar on it? Let me give you a thumbrule

Frankly I don't care what happens with PAF, untill you posted wrong infromation regarding AESA ie . You need awful lot space for cooling, hardware and proceed to belillte other members.

AESA is okay if multi engined and atleast 4 BVR... Otherwise you have performed a circus act like giving Bison BVR capability I spoke to pilots that fly Romanian BVR Mig21. They did agee... Not happy but still agreed.

Tell that to SAAB and Lock mart who in all their very little knowledge decided to install AESA in single engined aircrafts.

Can I hear more of you background? I do not expect that someone with electronics or aviation background can say that AESA is easier to install then conventional radars..

Ill tell u what, I come from a university whose Aerospace department is the best in India, which contributes nearly half of manpower to DRDO and HAL as far as aviation is concerned, Kalam was our alumnus and I have had lectures under him. I personally have my university hostel mates working on cutting edge stuff in defence both here and for western governments. As far as I am concerned, I advice a South Indian state government and an African government on policy level for adopting certain space based leapfrog(for developing nations) technologies. No go figure out...

BTW it is not stealth. Anything that emits signals can be tracked. The problem is you need more computing power cause the radar can scan in sectors and so others will not able to track the signal

Yeah I know that, your pont being.

Despite the operational and financial benefits, the campaign to outfit legacy fighters with AESA technology is running into some challenges, namely power, cooling and system cost


Good lord you have based all your arguments based on this one statement. EDITED
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Comments like "Are you for real" (IPF), will lead to responses like "Another person with hardly reliable info" (Munir), and "hot air" (IPF).

You guys do not need to ridicule the other before or after you make your point - just make your point, and present your sources/justification/evidence and leave it at that.

Enough of this disrespecting each other crap. Keep it civil.
 
.
Neo you forget something that the intended role for the JF-17 is to be the back bone of the PAF which means that it will not only be used for defending and intercepting but deep strike missions as well. Remember PAF is not buying those IL-78 out of nothing. Also as stated by the ACM in his interview, the on going work to increase the hard points from 7 to 9 clearly highlights the fact that the JF-17 will be used for offensive missions as well and with air to air refueling it can effectively carry the mission however in a hostile environment where one would expect tough resistance from a much superior airforce, the thunders will need an AESA radar. It does not matter if the jet costs 15 million and the radar costs 5, the bottom line is that 15 million is just the basic cost of the jet, with western hardware it will surely rise to 25 plus million per jet and more with an AESA radar.

ACM was referring to the BLock II as there will be no structural changes in Block I which is not designed for IDS role. Current payload is 3800kg with 7 hardpoints, the Thunder will have to refuel en flight to enhance range and still it will not get deep into hostile territory due refueling restrictions.
JF-17 will do excellent job as interceptor providing air defence and CAS in point defending role. Once FC-20 is inducted we'll have true DP capability with an typical Strike formation of 8 FC-20, 8 F-16D and 16 JF-17's.
Thats when AESA comes into the picture.
 
. .
I agree, sticking AESA into the JF-17 without structural changes and improvements in engine and payload isn't worth it. AESA could be a possibility on the Super 10 (if this infact is not a JXX derived rumor). By the way, some top notch fighters in the world today such as Eurofighter and Rafale do not even use AESA radar !
 
. .
I agree, sticking AESA into the JF-17 without structural changes and improvements in engine and payload isn't worth it. AESA could be a possibility on the Super 10 (if this infact is not a JXX derived rumor). By the way, some top notch fighters in the world today such as Eurofighter and Rafale do not even use AESA radar !

Why do you think Gripen has an AESA radar? Also both Rafale and EF will be equipped with an AESA radar. Improvement in is payload is already on its way as suggested by the ACM however as mentioned by NEO it will be for the next batch and so does the engine issue. By the way we are talking about an AESA radar for the next batch of the JF-17.
 
.
Why do you think Gripen has an AESA radar? Also both Rafale and EF will be equipped with an AESA radar. Improvement in is payload is already on its way as suggested by the ACM however as mentioned by NEO it will be for the next batch and so does the engine issue. By the way we are talking about an AESA radar for the next batch of the JF-17.

Gripen currently does not have active phased radar! Though they will in a few years.

And you must keep in mind that the Gripen will be substantially upgraded to accommodate AESA (Gripen NG). EF and Rafale were capable platforms from the start...not sure why why would they leave out the AESA from the beginning. Was the European consortium and France really that far behind in radar just a few years ago?

What will the new engine be on the Thunder?
 
.
Gripen currently does not have active phased radar! Though they will in a few years.

And you must keep in mind that the Gripen will be substantially upgraded to accommodate AESA (Gripen NG). EF and Rafale were capable platforms from the start...not sure why why would they leave out the AESA from the beginning. Was the European consortium and France really that far behind in radar just a few years ago?

What will the new engine be on the Thunder?

The Gripen NG has an AESA radar that is why it is offered to both Netherlands and India with it.

Gripen NG Fighters for The Netherlands
Following the submission of its proposals in response to the Dutch MoD’s F-16 Replacement programme, the Saab/Gripen team held a press conference in Den Haag to outline its proposals.

Gripen NG Next Generation fighter.

9/1/2008 | The Saab proposal is a comprehensive response to the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) F-16 fighter replacement Questionnaire.

Saab is offering an all-inclusive package comprising eighty-five (85) fully compliant NATO interoperable Gripen Next Generation (NG) true multi-role fighter aircraft with unrivalled availablilty, tailored for the future Net Centric (NCW) operational environment. Gripen NG will meet the demanding operational requirements of the RNLAF over the next 50 years and its unrivalled multi-role capability will provide the RNLAF with tactical flexibility in an unknown future.

Gripen NG offers operational dominance and flexibility with outstanding mission survivability. Air-to-air superiority is guaranteed with METEOR, AMRAAM, IRIS-T, AIM-9X, 12 missile capability, supercruise and Gripen NG’s superior situation awareness is delivered through an AESA radar, IRST, HMD, leading edge avionics design, next generation data processing and a state-of-the-art cockpit. These features, coupled with Gripen NG’s inherent Net Centric Capabilities including advanced data communications, dual datalinks, satellite comms and video links, coupled with increased range and thrust from its General Electric F414G Turbofan engine.

Saab is also offering a support solution that includes optimized key functions such as maintenance, training, supply and clearly defined support resources. The package includes Role Equipment for 85 aircraft including aircrew equipment, helmet-mounted displays, fuel drop tanks, pylons, EW systems, IRST systems and chaff and flare dispensers. In addition, the package includes mission support equipment, including mission planning and evaluation systems, digital map generating systems, threat library support systems, radio frequency planning systems and maintenance ground support system.
The training and logistics element includes mission simulators, desktop and computer-based training systems, pilot and ground crew training as well as ground support equipment, spares, publications and aircrew and ground crew support.

The Gripen NG solution meets the operational requirements of the RNLAF, delivers true multi-role capability and state-of-the-art technology. Owing to its outstanding reliability, maintainability and supportability Gripen will deliver at the most affordable acquisition and operational costs, compared to the known or predicted costs of alternative platforms. Gripen’s credible and fixed acquisition cost is based upon firm orders and known programme timescales. For the Netherlands, this would imply significant cost savings over 40+ years operation in comparison to alternative platforms. With experience from over 100,000 flight hours, current Gripen users have proven the unbeatable Life Cycle Costs of Gripen, which will be further improved in Gripen NG.

Gripen industrial co-operation has a proven track record around the world. Saab AB has a successful track record from more than 20 countries and has always succeeded in fulfilling industrial co-operation commitments, as proven in for example the Netherlands, Denmark, Hungary, Czech Republic, South Africa and Norway. In the Netherlands, Saab has co-operated with over 90 Dutch companies directly, or through industrial networks, with an offset delivery of 181 MEUR to date. Gripen International, through Saab AB, guarantees to deliver more than 100% of the contract value.

Gripen NG fulfills all Dutch requirements and will keep the RNLAF at the leading edge of military capabilities through 2050. Gripen NG meets all of the RNLAF operational requirements, has unbeatable low acquisition, operation and support costs and with technology transfer, will provide unrivalled access enabling autonomy and increased national security. With the full support of the Swedish government, the backing of world-leading defence industrial partners, Gripen NG is the fighter for the Netherlands.


EF and Rafale are both capable platforms yet they did not have an AESA radar which shows about the difficulties that lie when incooperating an AESA radar to a fighter size. Note China too has an AESA radar for their AWACS, yet the J-10 does not have it. Point that i am trying to make is that it has nothing to do with backwardness but the difficulties that are there to incooperate an AESA radar. It might not be related with the radar alone, but different factors including the cooling down of the system in a fighter nose.
As for the engine I think there is an on going discussion over the engine issue in the JF-17 thread, its better if we discuss is there as this is not the thread.
 
.
Hi,

Multiple hard points are not loaded with weapons for long range missions---on present day long range missions there maybe one or two smart bombs and depending upon he severity of the mission, the plane maynot even have any defensive capability like A to A missiles except for the machine guns---the plane will be loaded up with extra fuel to make it to the point of impact and maybe barely enough fumes to fly back to the home base.

The multiple hard points are for ground stike role in assisting the army on the front lines. Deep strike missions into iraq by the usaf F 16's---where the F 16 only carried a single smart bomb----similiarly IAF israel F 16 using the F 16 with a single or two smart bombs for their deep strike missions and no A to A missile for the protection of the aircraft---only F 15's flying behind to give protection on the way back.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom