JF-17 Block III's proposed AESA Radar KLJ-7A

[The SC]

That 170 KM range is amazing.. and will amplify both offensive and defensive capabilities of PAF.

And I hope JF-17s are able to share their data with each other while in flight and block-III is able to share its data link with block-IIs and make them equally effective as well.

Yep, that is 55% more range than the KLJ-7V.. they can through link 16..

Paks have checkmated their adversaries once again. They're almost milking the bulls...

Like always..

GaAs for sure. If using GaN, the detection range can be easily over 200 km

Yes normally, but think about it this is just 600 mm in diameter with range of 170 km against 3 m2 targets..if 5 m2 targets than range is 200 km or more..So it might just be GaN..who knows!

 

[thepakistani]

November 2, 2016

The Nanjing Research Institute of Electronics Technology (NRIET) KLJ-7A active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar. Photo credit: East Pendulum (http://www.eastpendulum.com)
Country PortfolioAsia Pacific
Oct 31, 2016 Bilal Khan -
KLJ-7A: Proposed AESA radar for the JF-17 Block-III
The Nanjing Research Institute of Electronics Technology (NRIET) has unveiled a new active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar at the Zhuhai Air Show, reportedly for use with the JF-17 Block-III.

Designated the KLJ-7A, it appears that NRIET will market the new AESA radar as a replacement to the KLJ-7 and KLJ-7V2 currently onboard the JF-17 Block-I and Block-II, respectively.

The KLJ-7A’s feature list includes track while scan, multi-object targeting and multi-target engagement, and synthetic aperture radar with ground moving target identification (among others).

Specific details, such as the materials or number of transceiver modules (TRM), were not listed. According to Henri Kenhmann (via East Pendulum), NRIET’s deputy director Wang Hongzhe stated that the radar has a maximum range of 170 km (likely in reference to a radar cross-section of 5m2).

Kenhmann also reported that the KLJ-7A can simultaneously track 15 targets and engage four.

Notes & Comments:

Based on the photos being circulated on several online discussion mediums, the KLJ-7A appears to be a small radar suite, one appropriate for the JF-17’s limited internal space. The name may indicate that the KLJ-7A is a direct development of the KLJ-7, but the images suggest that the KLJ-7A is a distinct design. In other words, it does not appear that the KLJ-7A and KLJ-7/V2 share anything beyond the name.

The inclusion of an AESA radar is the centerpiece of the JF-17 Block-III program, the first major iterative update of the JF-17 Thunder lightweight multi-role fighter.

In general, an AESA radar would provide greatly improved electronic counter-countermeasure (ECCM) capabilities, meaning, higher resistance to enemy active electronic warfare (EW) jamming.

This is achieved using hundreds of solid-state TRMs, each serving as a ‘micro-radar’ of sorts transmitting a unique signal simultaneously. For jamming pods, this makes the task of identifying, recording and re-transmitting all those signals, which change with each pulse, difficult.

This method also helps with shielding the radar from being detected by enemy radar warning receivers – i.e. giving it a ‘low-probability-of-intercept.’

Although Leonardo-Finmeccanica’s Vixen AESA radar line was identified as an option by PAF officials (during the 2015 Paris Air Show), NRIET’s KLJ-7A seems like it was designed with the JF-17 directly in mind, and as such, could potentially offer a superior balance of performance, integration complexity, and price.

http://quwa.org/2016/10/31/klj-7a-proposed-aesa-radar-jf-17-block-iii/

KLJ-7A is a AESA specially designed for JF17 with performance equals to radar of F-35. Operational mode
including :

• Tracking and searching
• Single/multiple targets tracking
• Dogfight
• Real beam mapping
• Doppler beam sharpening
• Synthetic aperture imaging
• Identify and track moving ground targets
• Sea targets searching and tracking
• Meteorological mode
• Missile guidance and multi targets attack mode

Merits:

1. long detection range
2. High accuracy
3. Multi operational modes
4. Multi target processing ability

Other specs:
Ø600 mm
T/R modules 1150-1200? any more info?
GaAs ou GaN used for MMIC?

Masha Allah
Great news great addition great tool for jf 17 for PAF for Pakistan
Moreover it would at fractional cast if compare the available platform possessing AESA radar especially rafale and its price india is paying.

These additional capabilities of JF17 block 3 would bring it very close to high end birds. Can make PAF to straight jump to 5th generation instead of spending on in between platforms.

Great milestone Alhamdolillah. Congratulations to all.

 

[The SC]

Hope the GaNs TR will be matured with Chinese tech firms soon so the TR modules will be replacesd as GaNs are power efficient and known to my knowledge they are cheap as well.

A question arise when i read the specifications as compare to other AESA it tracks only 16 targets and simultaneously engage 4 where as I have read it somewhere around a figure of 64 target tracking. If its right how this could be improved ? with the improvement of its processing system ??

Detecting and tracking are different! One can detect 64 but can only track 16 and engage them 4 by 4.. this task can be split on 4 JF 17s..unless you have 16 missiles that even the SU-35 can't do..

Masha Allah
Great news great addition great tool for jf 17 for PAF for Pakistan
Moreover it would at fractional cast if compare the available platform possessing AESA radar especially rafale and its price india is paying.

These additional capabilities of JF17 block 3 would bring it very close to high end birds. Can make PAF to straight jump to 5th generation instead of spending on in between platforms.

Great milestone Alhamdolillah. Congratulations to all.

Yes, and wait till they announce the IRST, the HOBS and the wide weasel electronic warfare capabilities..

 

[Mughal-Prince]

Detecting and tracking are different! One can detect 64 but can only track 16 and engage them 4 by 4.. this task can be split on 4 JF 17s..unless you have 16 missiles that even the SU-35 can't do..

Ok my bad I had mixed up Detection and Tracking. Is heir any information of detecting targets for KLJ7A ?

 

[gambit]

Detecting and tracking are different! One can detect 64 but can only track 16 and engage them 4 by 4.. this task can be split on 4 JF 17s..unless you have 16 missiles that even the SU-35 can't do..

Detection is when a body is above a certain threshold.

Tracking is when the (detected) body is assigned a queue to be updated with certain target resolutions. If 10 bodies are detected and if the system is capable enough, all 10 bodies will become 10 tracking targets. The problem then becomes resource allocation. The more queued bodies, the lower the target resolutions per target. Those resources are processor cycles, memory space, and display area.

In the classic mechanical antenna system, the reason tracking targets are less than detected bodes is because of the fixed mechanical movement of the antenna. The beam traverses a known path: back/forth.

If the pilot selects 4 out of 10 bodies for tracking, the radar computer must remember which four bodies and where each is in relation to each antenna sweep cycle.

For example...

Say the pilot chose 4 out of 10 bodies for tracking. Two on his starboard and two on port. Now the antenna has to run itself fully back/forth in order to update the pilot of those 4 targets.

Now say the pilot chose 4 out of 10 bodies for tracking, but all four are on his starboard. Now the antenna has to cycle (sweep) only to starboard.

In theory, there is no limit to how many bodies can be queued to become targets. Ten out of 10 or 100 out of 100. But in practice, limits to resources demands the radar design to have lower tracking targets from detected bodies. If the update time between multiple tracking targets is too long, the missiles launched may not acquire those multiple targets. If the designer chose too low a figure, like 2 tracking out of 10 detected bodies, he limits the pilot on the combat capability and increases the odds of losing that pilot and fighter aircraft.

A PESA system is superior to the classical mechanical system in the sense that the single beam can move thru all 10 targets much faster. But this is still a single beam with sequential movements.

On the other hand, an AESA system can create multiple beams to track multiple targets quite literally simultaneously. Say the pilot detected 10 bodies and designate 4 for tracking. But since the system can create multiple beams, why not 10 beams for 10 bodies ? In theory, yes, but in reality, the quantity of beams is limited by array size and software choreography. If the array is designed, including software, to produce 4 simultaneous beams, that is still far better than the PESA system because the pilot is seeing 4 target updates at the same time, compares to sequential like the mechanical and PESA systems.

Another advantage of the AESA system is that the pilot can switch one beam to become a communication signal, telling his companions of what he found. Or he can designate one beam to ground mapping while monitoring airborne targets just in case they become threats.

The flexibility of the AESA system is limited to only two items: software and array size.

Every country can perform cost/benefits analyses. From that perspective, it is telling that not single American fighter is going PESA. If the performance and capabilities gap between PESA and AESA is not that great, that cost/benefits analysis would have the AESA system confined to top line fighters like the F-22 and F-35, and PESA to older F-15, F-16, and F-18. Instead, the US is moving every fighter in inventory to AESA as fast as budget allocation allows.

Detection and Tracking in an AESA system is far superior in every aspects of the two modes.

 

[MastanKhan]

When it is available in Pakistan for trials on one of the existing blocks of Jf-17.

Hi,

There is a good chance that it is already being tested.

 

[Kompromat]

Upgrade 250 fighters with AESA, data link , C4ISR infrastructure and you'll give any Air Force a good run for their money. AESA fighters also come either inbuilt anti jamming and EW features .

 

[DJ_Viper]

Don't address that poster in that manner---thank you. I don't know what the F--- are you talking about in your post---.

I wasn't addressing him in anyway till my post got butchered out of context. You should go back and read up on my posts if you'd like to get familiar with the issue. Thanks

 

[gambit]

Upgrade 250 fighters with AESA, data link , C4ISR infrastructure and you'll give any Air Force a good run for their money. AESA fighters also come either inbuilt anti jamming and EW features .

Those features are 'built-in' only in the sense that you are %99.999 forced to write the software for them. You can exclude them, if you chose.

Why are you so much 'forced' to write the software for them ?

The hardware of the AESA system make it so that if you do not take full advantage of its flexibility, you are a fool for choosing the AESA system. There really is no other way to describe it. If you do not have the money and/or the intellectual talents to exploit its full potential, then do not consider that route. Do not even assess the PESA alternative. It will be a waste of money. You installed 100 PESA systems into your 100 fighters fleet. When you finally have the money to upgrade, you will have to fight bureaucratic obstacles, operational constraints because you can only take a certain quantity of your fleet offline to do the upgrades, additional training to overcome entrenched familiarity, and the list goes on.

Either you go AESA, or you stay with what you have until you have the money and time to go all the way. This is why the decision to go AESA is so fraught with confusion and frustration.

 

[Sine Nomine]

With the reliability of KLJ7, and the vast numbers in operation, there is no need for fleet vide development. Only the air superiority squadrons shall require AESA.

Sir blk 3 will be produced in numbers to replace F 7's and Mirages,so PAF fleet of JFT will be mostly AESA equipped beyond 2021.
Now,I think we should develop an AESA based on KLJ7A for F-16,what do you say sir.

 

[Dazzler]

Few points..

For JFT, At least two AESA contenders were from China and one from Italy. The klj 7A is quite similar to the radar fitted in the J10B, in fact, its the same case as we had seen with klj-10 and klj-7, where working modes were same but the difference of size, overall power consumption, antenna size differed due to available space inside the nose, engine output etc.

As Bilal Khan mentioned, this radar was demonstrated to PAF almost a year ago and remains a favorite candidate for blk 3 due to comparitively better performance, speed, detection and tracking range and working modes.

The italian candidate is a modified version of Vixen 1000. However, it suffers similar challenges i.e. incompatibility with many chinese and pakistani weapons/ sensors due to lack of source codes.

NRIET is the premier chinese radar manufacturer and sharing such sensitive information is not in their favor, especially when similar tech is being used in their premier in-service fighters A.K.A j10b and c.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Now,I think we should develop an AESA based on KLJ7A for F-16,what do you say sir.

that is impossible sir US don't allows this

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Sir blk 3 will be produced in numbers to replace F 7's and Mirages,so PAF fleet of JFT will be mostly AESA equipped beyond 2021.
Now,I think we should develop an AESA based on KLJ7A for F-16,what do you say sir.

First, JF17 will remain a non-ITAR platform, for avionics and sensors. There can be made small exceptions but radar may not be one of them. Block 3 configuration is currently 50 aircraft. Some of the Blk 3 innovations may seep into Blk 2, and the redundant equipment will be reduced to spare to support Blk 1, unless Blk 1 is sold to off or completes its time. JF17 remains a airframe separated from avionics, and will continue upgrades in the future.

Few points..

For JFT, At least two AESA contenders were from China and one from Italy. The klj 7A is quite similar to the radar fitted in the J10B, in fact, its the same case as we had seen with klj-10 and klj-7, where working modes were same but the difference of size, overall power consumption, antenna size differed due to available space inside the nose, engine output etc.

As Bilal Khan mentioned, this radar was demonstrated to PAF almost a year ago and remains a favorite candidate for blk 3 due to comparitively better performance, speed, detection and tracking range and working modes.

The italian candidate is a modified version of Vixen 1000. However, it suffers similar challenges i.e. incompatibility with many chinese and pakistani weapons/ sensors due to lack of source codes.

NRIET is the premier chinese radar manufacturer and sharing such sensitive information is not in their favor, especially when similar tech is being used in their premier in-service fighters A.K.A j10b and c.

PAF will take the european radar in a second if it came integrated with an acceptable EW package. Chinese radar is bought due to availability. Most systems are bought now in Pakistan when the vendor confirms availability, as that seems to be our biggest issue. Any of the features that you mention : "As Bilal Khan mentioned, this radar was demonstrated to PAF almost a year ago and remains a favorite candidate for blk 3 due to comparitively better performance, speed, detection and tracking range and working modes." are a figment of your imagination.

Boils down to money.

 

[Sine Nomine]

that is impossible sir US don't allows this

There will be a certain point in future when if not upgraded F-16 may become usless in EW environment.At that time US approval will become invalid.

First, JF17 will remain a non-ITAR platform, for avionics and sensors. There can be made small exceptions but radar may not be one of them. Block 3 configuration is currently 50 aircraft. Some of the Blk 3 innovations may seep into Blk 2, and the redundant equipment will be reduced to spare to support Blk 1, unless Blk 1 is sold to off or completes its time. JF17 remains a airframe separated from avionics, and will continue upgrades in the future.

So,blk 4 is expected.

 

[Dazzler]

Any of the features that you mention : "are a figment of your imagination.

Nope, you r not the only source of info on PAF and some of the inductions they make, the reasons, and causes as to why they chose those etc. on this forum. Others may have theirs as well.

Lets keep it at that.

Thanks.