JF-17B - EW 'Growler'

[FuturePAF]

if you know jamming, you would understand power/energy requirements.

Please correct me If I'm wrong, but the Engines provide the Electrical power that will power the jamming pods?

If so then the the F-18 Growler is powered by two GE 414-400 Engines at a max thrust of 22,000lb each; so a combined thrust of 44,000lb max. The Jf-17 has one engine and its max thrust is current around 18,000lb.
The J-10C is powered by a variant of the WS-10; max thrust somewhere around 31,000lb. The planned WS-15 Engine has a planned max thrust of 44,000 lb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_WS-15#General_characteristics)

If the J-10C's weight performance matched or exceed the F-18 Growler (the weight in the same configuration as the growler) and its jamming pods were as advanced as those on the Growler, it would be able to have the same performance as the Growler?

If this is the case, then a Fleet of 40-60 J-10Cs powered by WS-15 and operated with the two DRFM wingtip pods and three Under wing/Centerline Jamming pods as in the Growler would be the best qualitative procurement option for the PAF. (If the Chinese government allows export of the WS-15 engines when they are ready; or a derivative variant of the WS-15 approved for export). Working on an Export approved WS-15 would also be a great plus to the Future PAF fifth generation requirement by the way.

 

[Shabi1]

Please correct me If I'm wrong, but the Engines provide the Electrical power that will power the jamming pods?

If so then the the F-18 Growler is powered by two GE 414-400 Engines at a max thrust of 22,000lb each; so a combined thrust of 44,000lb max. The Jf-17 has one engine and its max thrust is current around 18,000lb.
The J-10C is powered by a variant of the WS-10; max thrust somewhere around 31,000lb. The planned WS-15 Engine has a planned max thrust of 44,000 lb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_WS-15#General_characteristics)

If the J-10C's weight performance matched or exceed the F-18 Growler (the weight in the same configuration as the growler) and its jamming pods were as advanced as those on the Growler, it would be able to have the same performance as the Growler?

If this is the case, then a Fleet of 40-60 J-10Cs powered by WS-15 and operated with the two DRFM wingtip pods and three Under wing/Centerline Jamming pods as in the Growler would be the best qualitative procurement option for the PAF. (If the Chinese government allows export of the WS-15 engines when they are ready; or a derivative variant of the WS-15 approved for export). Working on an Export approved WS-15 would also be a great plus to the Future PAF fifth generation requirement by the way.

from wikipedia on the jamming pod of the F-18 Growler. For external pods there is option of a alternate power source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ALQ-99
The AN/ALQ-99 has a maximum power output of 10.8 kW in its older versions and of 6.8 kW in its newer versions.[3] It uses a ram air turbineto supply its own power.

US Navy needed a carrier capable EW aircraft so they had to modify a F-18 for the role PAF has no same requirement so any platform will work. I think for a dedicated jamming platform it would suit PAF best to rely on a larger platform like a Y-9 or Gulf Stream type jet etc, it already uses modified Dassault Falcons. Using a larger aircraft will also give more loiter time.
The person suggesting a Growler JF-17 version must have meant for SEAD/Wild Weasel operation. A twin seat JF-17 optimized to suppress and destroy enemy air defenses makes better sense. However JF-17 being multirole, a standard JF-17 would do fine but if insisting on a modified version, gun could be removed for the jammer pod and its turbine integration, sensors could be wired onto wings etc. But again, PAF will have other platforms available if it wants a dedicated EW jet.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Please correct me If I'm wrong, but the Engines provide the Electrical power that will power the jamming pods?

If so then the the F-18 Growler is powered by two GE 414-400 Engines at a max thrust of 22,000lb each; so a combined thrust of 44,000lb max. The Jf-17 has one engine and its max thrust is current around 18,000lb.
The J-10C is powered by a variant of the WS-10; max thrust somewhere around 31,000lb. The planned WS-15 Engine has a planned max thrust of 44,000 lb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_WS-15#General_characteristics)

If the J-10C's weight performance matched or exceed the F-18 Growler (the weight in the same configuration as the growler) and its jamming pods were as advanced as those on the Growler, it would be able to have the same performance as the Growler?

If this is the case, then a Fleet of 40-60 J-10Cs powered by WS-15 and operated with the two DRFM wingtip pods and three Under wing/Centerline Jamming pods as in the Growler would be the best qualitative procurement option for the PAF. (If the Chinese government allows export of the WS-15 engines when they are ready; or a derivative variant of the WS-15 approved for export). Working on an Export approved WS-15 would also be a great plus to the Future PAF fifth generation requirement by the way.

There is plenty of electrical power available; that is not much of a problem.

The real problem is manufacturing materials that can transmit that amount of power safely and reliably.

ironically, the case of thrust is also dependent on advanced materials and metals that can withstand power reliably.

We are really reaching the limits of available materials.

 

[MastanKhan]

and you are labeled as think tank?? c'mon PDF```` do you even have the slightest clue of the basic terminology and common sense, or you even up to the latest aviation technology?````EW pod is an EW pod, and a dedicated EW plane is an EW plane```the former one is mainly for multi-mission and self-defense purpose, can hardly take a serious SEAD or DEAD missions , and the latter one is a professional plane only for electronic warfare!!!````the amount of energy required, specially designed bits and bots, the price, and the amount of frequency it can deal with at same time plus the range of effects are far far far greater than a regular fighter plane that carry few EW pods.

you want a tiny JF-17 to be developed as a dedicated EW fighter like J-16D and EF-18?? lol````let me know anyone on this earth can do it for the time being, I will let my circle of people know, that they are "$ucks"``````and for your ignorance, J-16D costs much more than China's latest stealth fighter J-20, I will tell you this much`!!

and please dont speak your ignorance over our military capability, we know where we are```and also we know, Japan and S.Koran is crying over U.S daddy's shoulder about PLAAF's electronic warfare capability. they are dying to buy America's EF-18 no matter how much it will cost to get even with PLAAF over East China sea``````

so on this topic of whether CAC is developing an EW version of JF-17 or not```the answer is no, and it is not a matter of different opinion!

Hi,

You have written so clearly about this subject---yet pakistanis still have a hard time understanding---.

 

[JohnWick]

Hi,

You have written so clearly about this subject---yet pakistanis still have a hard time understanding---.

Sir anything new?

 

[Signalian]

Please correct me If I'm wrong, but the Engines provide the Electrical power that will power the jamming pods?

If so then the the F-18 Growler is powered by two GE 414-400 Engines at a max thrust of 22,000lb each; so a combined thrust of 44,000lb max. The Jf-17 has one engine and its max thrust is current around 18,000lb.
The J-10C is powered by a variant of the WS-10; max thrust somewhere around 31,000lb. The planned WS-15 Engine has a planned max thrust of 44,000 lb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_WS-15#General_characteristics)

If the J-10C's weight performance matched or exceed the F-18 Growler (the weight in the same configuration as the growler) and its jamming pods were as advanced as those on the Growler, it would be able to have the same performance as the Growler?

If this is the case, then a Fleet of 40-60 J-10Cs powered by WS-15 and operated with the two DRFM wingtip pods and three Under wing/Centerline Jamming pods as in the Growler would be the best qualitative procurement option for the PAF. (If the Chinese government allows export of the WS-15 engines when they are ready; or a derivative variant of the WS-15 approved for export). Working on an Export approved WS-15 would also be a great plus to the Future PAF fifth generation requirement by the way.

Power and energy is not present in the engine only...its present in jammer and radars too.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

Power and energy is not present in the engine only...its present in jammer and radars too.

Its sometimes best not to comment if one has no idea of what is being said.
The issue is from where that power originates...jammer and radar do not generate power to function they are given electricity from the engines or battery(which is very less only critical functions work).

 

[Signalian]

Its sometimes best not to comment if one has no idea of what is being said.
The issue is from where that power originates...jammer and radar do not generate power to function they are given electricity from the engines or battery(which is very less only critical functions work).

You are right, i would like someone who knows about jamming and wants to discuss radar and electronics to reply me. Not just random replies from you and anyone else who knows nothing about energy/power relation to jamming or EW. So please don't reply me.

 

[Goku-kun]

You are right, i would like someone who knows about jamming and wants to discuss radar and electronics to reply me. Not just random replies from you and anyone else who knows nothing about energy/power relation to jamming or EW. So please don't reply me.

tag gambit he is an expert and would definitely love to share his knowledge

 

[Signalian]

tag gambit he is an expert and would definitely love to share his knowledge

yes, i have learnt alot from his posts.

 

[Signalian]

That's what is the question the jet too small & short range to Carry ew ware and also its powered via the jets engine is the single engine up to task ??

Unless we r working with Chinese on their version of next gen jammer where one pod can perform job of 3 with little energy requirements

Please correct me If I'm wrong, but the Engines provide the Electrical power that will power the jamming pods?

If so then the the F-18 Growler is powered by two GE 414-400 Engines at a max thrust of 22,000lb each; so a combined thrust of 44,000lb max. The Jf-17 has one engine and its max thrust is current around 18,000lb.
The J-10C is powered by a variant of the WS-10; max thrust somewhere around 31,000lb. The planned WS-15 Engine has a planned max thrust of 44,000 lb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_WS-15#General_characteristics)

If the J-10C's weight performance matched or exceed the F-18 Growler (the weight in the same configuration as the growler) and its jamming pods were as advanced as those on the Growler, it would be able to have the same performance as the Growler?

If this is the case, then a Fleet of 40-60 J-10Cs powered by WS-15 and operated with the two DRFM wingtip pods and three Under wing/Centerline Jamming pods as in the Growler would be the best qualitative procurement option for the PAF. (If the Chinese government allows export of the WS-15 engines when they are ready; or a derivative variant of the WS-15 approved for export). Working on an Export approved WS-15 would also be a great plus to the Future PAF fifth generation requirement by the way.

I didnt have time to reply earlier in detail about my thoughts on EW version of JF-17 and the power/energy relation.

If the JF-17 E is used as a standoff jammer aircraft, it needs to house different avoinics/radar/electronics suite than a standard Block -III. The reason of a bigger aircrfat,coz the stand-off jammer on a heavier (or slower) platform can carry a higher power jamming transmitter and a higher gain antenna as compared to an attack or fighter aircraft. I will mention use of both; the radar and jammer.

The jamming aircraft may orbit a path like an elongated racetrack course, the long axis of which is normal, to the line-of-sight(LOS) to the area targeted for jamming behind the forward line of troops(FLOT),and transmit from one of two antennas toward the enemy radars. With two or more jamming aircraft simultaneously on orbit, one can cover for the other as the latter executes the turn at either end of the racetrack. A typical stand-off radar jammer employs an ESM system with direction finding capability to locate threatening radars.

High Energy/Power Requirement for a jammer or transmitter or radar or all of these are as follows, I will mainly talk about main beam noise jamming but will slightly touch side lobe too:

1. The ERP (Effective Radiated Power) of a single transmitter/antenna combination may be in the range of + 50 dBW to + 100 dBW. This high ERP overcomes the propagation loss of a larger jammer range and enables it to inject jamming power through the radar antenna's side lobes. Several transmitters may be aboard a single aircraft, with one or more of the transmitters dedicated to jam a given type or class of radars such as surveillance ,tracking or imaging radars.

2. The noise jammer situation is basically an energy battle between the radar and the jammer. For main beam noise jamming, the advantage is with the jammer because the radar experiences a two way propagation loss of its energy as contrasted with the one way propagation loss between the radar and jammer. Thus, main beam jammers provide strong beacon like signals that betray their angular locations, which then can be exploited by the radar in weapon designation. If the radar is interconnected with other radars, the jamming target can be located through triangulation.

3. The radar must maximize the energy received from the target with respect to that received from the jammer
It can maximize the received target energy by transmitting more average power, dwelling longer on the target, or increasing antenna gain. If the radar's data rate is fixed and a uniform angular search rate is dictated by mechanical or search strategy, then the only option for the radar is to increase its average transmitter power. The next option is to reduce the data rate requirement, thereby allowing a longer dwell time on the target.

4. Another principle is to minimize the amount of jamming energy accepted by the radar. This is accomplished by spreading the transmitted frequency range of the radar over as wide a band as available while maintaining a radar bandwidth consistent with the radar range resolution requirement. For example, if a 150 to 300 MHz transmitting frequency range is available at S band for a 1 MHz radar resolution bandwidth, then the potential for a 150 to 300 dilution of the jamming energy is possible.

The ECCM objective is to force the jammer into a barrage jamming mode of operation. Operation of radars over a wider bandwidth than that dictated by range resolution requirements can be accomplished in several ways. Some radars incorporate a spectrum analyzer which provides an advance look at the interference environment. This allows the radar frequency to be tuned to that part of environment which contains minimum jamming energy. This can be defeated if the noise jammer has a look-through mode and can follow the radar frequency changes.

I didn't want it to get too technical as sometimes there are no easy words to explain something. I have not yet talked about side lobe jamming, frequency diversity, frequency agility, coherent integration etc. Its mostly seen that main lobe jamming is preferred over side lobe jamming. Another method of playing with energy/power is using antenna beam to strobe in the direction of the jammer and vice versa.

One of the main objectives of jamming is to reduce the enemy's radar range. For constant jammer ERP, main beam jamming is more effective than the side lobe jamming and the spot jamming is more effective than the barrage jamming.

 

[JamD]

I didnt have time to reply earlier in detail about my thoughts on EW version of JF-17 and the power/energy relation.

If the JF-17 E is used as a standoff jammer aircraft, it needs to house different avoinics/radar/electronics suite than a standard Block -III. The reason of a bigger aircrfat,coz the stand-off jammer on a heavier (or slower) platform can carry a higher power jamming transmitter and a higher gain antenna as compared to an attack or fighter aircraft. I will mention use of both; the radar and jammer.

The jamming aircraft may orbit a path like an elongated racetrack course, the long axis of which is normal, to the line-of-sight(LOS) to the area targeted for jamming behind the forward line of troops(FLOT),and transmit from one of two antennas toward the enemy radars. With two or more jamming aircraft simultaneously on orbit, one can cover for the other as the latter executes the turn at either end of the racetrack. A typical stand-off radar jammer employs an ESM system with direction finding capability to locate threatening radars.

High Energy/Power Requirement for a jammer or transmitter or radar or all of these are as follows, I will mainly talk about main beam noise jamming but will slightly touch side lobe too:

1. The ERP (Effective Radiated Power) of a single transmitter/antenna combination may be in the range of + 50 dBW to + 100 dBW. This high ERP overcomes the propagation loss of a larger jammer range and enables it to inject jamming power through the radar antenna's side lobes. Several transmitters may be aboard a single aircraft, with one or more of the transmitters dedicated to jam a given type or class of radars such as surveillance ,tracking or imaging radars.

2. The noise jammer situation is basically an energy battle between the radar and the jammer. For main beam noise jamming, the advantage is with the jammer because the radar experiences a two way propagation loss of its energy as contrasted with the one way propagation loss between the radar and jammer. Thus, main beam jammers provide strong beacon like signals that betray their angular locations, which then can be exploited by the radar in weapon designation. If the radar is interconnected with other radars, the jamming target can be located through triangulation.

3. The radar must maximize the energy received from the target with respect to that received from the jammer
It can maximize the received target energy by transmitting more average power, dwelling longer on the target, or increasing antenna gain. If the radar's data rate is fixed and a uniform angular search rate is dictated by mechanical or search strategy, then the only option for the radar is to increase its average transmitter power. The next option is to reduce the data rate requirement, thereby allowing a longer dwell time on the target.

4. Another principle is to minimize the amount of jamming energy accepted by the radar. This is accomplished by spreading the transmitted frequency range of the radar over as wide a band as available while maintaining a radar bandwidth consistent with the radar range resolution requirement. For example, if a 150 to 300 MHz transmitting frequency range is available at S band for a 1 MHz radar resolution bandwidth, then the potential for a 150 to 300 dilution of the jamming energy is possible.

The ECCM objective is to force the jammer into a barrage jamming mode of operation. Operation of radars over a wider bandwidth than that dictated by range resolution requirements can be accomplished in several ways. Some radars incorporate a spectrum analyzer which provides an advance look at the interference environment. This allows the radar frequency to be tuned to that part of environment which contains minimum jamming energy. This can be defeated if the noise jammer has a look-through mode and can follow the radar frequency changes.

I didn't want it to get too technical as sometimes there are no easy words to explain something. I have not yet talked about side lobe jamming, frequency diversity, frequency agility, coherent integration etc. Its mostly seen that main lobe jamming is preferred over side lobe jamming. Another method of playing with energy/power is using antenna beam to strobe in the direction of the jammer and vice versa.

One of the main objectives of jamming is to reduce the enemy's radar range. For constant jammer ERP, main beam jamming is more effective than the side lobe jamming and the spot jamming is more effective than the barrage jamming.

Thanks for the details. I have two questions that may be dumb:
1. If you were the lead designer of an EW package for the JF-17, how many watts of power would you "want" for your EW suite? I know this is a super vague question but I am asking for a ballpark figure. I have little idea how much power these things soak up.
2. Is there a good book I can read to get the fundamentals of this sort of thing? Or is it one of those topics you need to read about from a lot of different sources? I'm a control systems engineer so you know where I'll be jumping off from.

 

[Signalian]

Thanks for the details. I have two questions that may be dumb:
1. If you were the lead designer of an EW package for the JF-17, how many watts of power would you "want" for your EW suite? I know this is a super vague question but I am asking for a ballpark figure. I have little idea how much power these things soak up.

My reply will be more than that since all power specs are not available for comparison and i will use common terms while keeping techie jargon to min.

AESA Radar
Starting with AESA radar, depending upon T/R modules, considering an example that 4 x TR modules are mounted on a 2.5 centimetre cube giving a density of about 3,000 modules per square metre, once mounting brackets are factored in. Each TR module has a peak power of about 10 W with an average power of about 2 W; therefore a square metre of TR modules will have a peak power of about 30 kW and an average power of about 6 kW.

Some radars in use:
Irbis E PESA Radar: 20 kW peak power
APG-79 AESA Radar: 15-16 kW peak power (estimated)
APG-81 AESA Radar: 17 kW peak power

Considering a shorter range of KLJ-7 or KLJ-A, the peak power would be lesser than above stated and average power even smaller. Aircraft's radar is a diverse topic and i will come to it again in another post.

Jamming Pods

Maximum Power ranges from 6 - 11 Kw such as AN/ALQ 99 jamming pod used on EA-18 Growler. The ALQ-99 offers several noise/spot-noise jamming modes and may have other capabilities such as false target generation. Keeping weight in view, ALQ-99 with pod is is 950lb, 2 are carried, one for Hi-Band and one for Low-Band.
2 Pods = 2 hard points.
Russians use KHIBINY pods which have dual role: ECM+Jamming. specs are not available. It is said that KHIBINY Pods are for individual aircraft protection, till Tarantul ECM pod is introduced which could be used for air group cover, means more Kw in it.
Power management in this case refers to the allocation of available jamming power in such a way that the greatest threats receive the most power and are thus most strongly degraded.

Probably a Low, mid and High band- all in one pod could be useful.

Radar Warning Receiver

RWR detects and prioritizes(cues) enemy radars threatening the aircraft. When mated with a jamming pod, the system provides the ability to jam high power surveillance, acquisition and tracking radars. When the RWR detects threats, the computer sorts them and the jammer jams them.

EA-18 G uses AN/ALQ-218 Radar Warning Receiver / Electronic Support Measures / Electronic Intelligence (RWR/ESM/ELINT) Sensor System. Basically 3 in 1 system. Since ALQ-218 has additional capabilities than a normal RWR, this pod is carried on a separate hard point. Can be housed in gun area. It can also be made capable to transfer data to other platforms.
Bear in mind that another installation needs to take place if such a pod is used; the receiver for this pod needs to be installed behind the AESA radar, so enough nose space needs to be available.

Track Breaker

These are designed to break enemy lock-on and to give false information. It provides simultaneous protection against pulse ranging, FM-CW, conical, and monopulse radar in different ways, based on each method’s angle and range. e.g ALQ 41.

Wireless Communication Jamming

The Russians used a system called Leer-3 on a UAV for jamming mobile communication. It is also a ground based system. Its designed to locate electromagnetic emission sources and suppress wireless communications, including cellphones, within a 3.7-mile (+6 kilometers) radius and control range of 60 km. Basically its intended for the monitoring of GSM communication networks, the determination of system identifiers of mobile stations and their locations, and the transmission of obtained data.

Targeting / FLIR Pod

A SEAD/EW aircraft will need a targeting pod if it carries an AR Missile. Wild Weasel F-16 Block 50 carries HARM targeting system (HTS) pod for firing HAR missiles.

U.S. focuses on the F-16 Block 50 Wild Weasel as HARM shooters, the EA-18G as radar jammers, and the EC-130H Compass Call as communication jammers as combined force to suppress or limit an enemy’s IADS. This shows that EW/SEAD/DEAD is not the job of one aircraft. It could be F-35 and F-22 combo in future.

2. Is there a good book I can read to get the fundamentals of this sort of thing? Or is it one of those topics you need to read about from a lot of different sources? I'm a control systems engineer so you know where I'll be jumping off from.

EW 101.
Search in PDF format. I posted the link a month back, cant find it now.

 

[Signalian]

link plzz? can't find it on google.

Its hardly copy paste.

 

[Signalian]

link? but what is the link?

I read different documents. When i will have time, i will post those documents and links.