JF17 AESA radar
- Thread starter UFO77
- Start date
Costs and R&D level. Something to do with algorithm trouble with the scanning in all directions stuff for that particular arrangement.
Dillinger
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 6,103
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
That's odd, did you guys front the R&D costs? I mean, again, the Chinese some to have had no issue with their full fledged AEW&C system so it seems a bit odd that they'd have any issues with the trimmed down ZDK, unless the development of the system was contingent upon Pakistan taking up a majority of the development costs itself rather than just being a simple buyer.
Yeah, soft loaned fronted.
Bratva
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 13,832
- Reaction score
- 67
- Country
- Location
Wasn't Saab deal downsized for this very reason, to put money in to ZDK program
Dillinger
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 6,103
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
Ok, so why not aim at acquiring systems which the Chinese have inducted themselves instead of opting for what we all call "joint development" and fronting the R&D costs for a hitherto unproven system?
Saab was downsized because of this and the need to have two systems in case dictatorship hit again.
And the Chinese had no system ready by then either.. despite the claims of KJ-2000 or whatsoever, that was capable of the performance in terms of resolution/range/modes required by the PAF. The ZDK-03 is essentially the best the Chinese could get operational with reasonable reliability.
Dillinger
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 6,103
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
Bro, honestly our own AEW&C sounds better than that and I am not talking about the Phalcons.
That having been said given the circumstances it was the smarter move, but were more Erieye's actually that prohibitive cost wise or off the table?
Arsalan
THINK TANK CHAIRMAN
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 18,178
- Reaction score
- 65
- Country
- Location
I am sorry but can you clarify what you mean by your won AEW&C sounds better
What AEW&C platforms are you actually refereeing to?
And, i check the last few posts and cant figure at exactly what point the thread about Jf-17 AESA radar turned towards AWACS and AEW&C comparisons.
Sir, please, you are a think tank analyst. The last time i checked even the Indian air force was not interested in the DRDO product.
Indian AF Pushes for AWACS Competition | Defense News | defensenews.com
Last edited:
They are better, but then the ZDK brings with it one very interesting advantage. Its radar while limited in scan, reportedly has better results in resolution and range than the Erieye in certain modes and targets. More Erieyes were prohibitive in cost after the 2005 earthquake. That drained whatever coffers Pakistan had for weapons purchases.
Gessler
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3,579
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
Read the contents of a link before posting it. You sure are not aware that we are developing two different AEW
systems, are you? A beam radar mounted on EMB-145I (similar to Erieye/KJ-200) and a dome radar mounted on a yet-to-be-decided aircraft (similar to Phalcon/E-3 Sentry).
The former is in advanced stages of testing and should be entering service in couple of years, while the
link you posted speaks about the latter. In case you need information about the DRDO AEW&CS project (EMB-145I),
kindly research the internet.
Dillinger
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 6,103
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
Hmm..I like (purely in terms of technology) the ERIEYEs can keep a look out on some part of the maritime territory of Pakistan even as it operates on the western front, makes it more of a bother and pain for us.
Donatello
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 10,531
- Reaction score
- 23
- Country
- Location
You should know when to rant and when not to. This is a thread for JF-17 AESA radar, not what DRDO is doing. As an Indian, you just can't keep away from trolling, can you?
Gessler
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3,579
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
Sheeeessssh. Correcting a misinformed statement is called trolling now? Then what is jumping to conclusions
without knowing the point called? Or are such conclusions to be ignored because they are made by persons
of a particular nationality?
Fine, then. Go on with your clueless, misinformed opinions. I'm not stopping you.
Dillinger
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 6,103
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
I am sorry but can you clarify what you mean by your won AEW&C sounds better
What AEW&C platforms are you actually refereeing to?
And, i check the last few posts and cant figure at exactly what point the thread about Jf-17 AESA radar turned towards AWACS and AEW&C comparisons.
Sir, please, you are a think tank analyst. The last time i checked even the Indian air force was not interested in the DRDO product.
Indian AF Pushes for AWACS Competition | Defense News | defensenews.com
They are not interested in filling all the planned slots (about a dozen) with the smaller DRDO AEW&C, otherwise with two examples of the same already going through tests prior to operationalization its place in the mix is guaranteed. Although, for example, if Oscar is right then the ZDK might out perform it in the area of detection range in specific modes but be slower on the uptake thanks to limited coverage of its electronically steered beams since the mechanical rotation meant to overcome that shortage will still cause a relative lag.
The reason for digressing a bit to the AEW&Cs is because its instructive of how AESA tech is proliferating in the region, how it is easier to overcome high power output challenges and the complexities of the mitigating said challenges within larger platforms. Beyond this of course it is not meant to shed any light on any particular manner or method of mitigation wrt the challenges faced by "light fighters" like the JFs in said context. So we were looking at the funds side of the equation and when and why the PAF has been willing to shell out greenbacks to see whether if the conditions which promised a similar outlay by the PAF were present in the JF's context. Since liquid cooling in itself is not as complex in its constituent tech as opposed to the complexity of integrating them with a fighter with limited real estate (an issue with all light fighters), the cost of integration and mitigation of related challenges seemed to be the major issue in our estimation. For example, larger platforms can even opt for the far simpler air cooling option (ERIEYE, DRDO AEW&C etc.) as the real estate present on the carrying platforms and the inherent lack of as many necessary design constraints as those present in a fighter's case allows for more flexibility and the application of even less effective solutions without leading to any serious corresponding lag in performance due to the adoption of said solution (air cooling).
To summarize, the PAF hasn't shied away from from fronting the R&D costs (in whatever way the costs are factored or funds for it accrued is not relevant) for ensuring the availability of technologies which even the country doing the R&D (China) might not have put in the field (at least not at the time when the decision to engage in such a venture was taken), this was illustrated by how the PAF went about with the ZDK, as such it is unlikely that despite the challenges faced by the JFs in this area that the PAF would not pursue options such as AESA sensors if it really considered it to be a priority (which is one of the logical conclusions that we could reach within our limited knowledge) or even if some technical challenge or snag is holding them back then the issue lies more with a crunch in available funds required to surmount said snag rather than a lack of access on the PAF's part wrt otherwise OTS AESA sensor tech from the concerned OEM (in the case of the JF).
Similar threads
