Radar Ranges Of Different Fighters

[DARKY]

JFT will see the MKI first!
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-2.html#post1514430

you might find this post interesting

You whole assessment of JF-17 early detection is based on a mere claim that BARS can't operate beyond 4.5-5kW.........and its an old radar and ........Until recently BARS were the 2nd most powerful radar in the russian inventory and its beyond my limited knowledge what would stop its 7kW peak power rated Chelnok TWT from operating at the same[P.S. its just the figure available publicly and reliable sources maintain upgraded versions to be capable of operating at 10kW]........going by the public figures of 5-7kW.....I did present a graph which showed its detection ranges for a 1m2 target inexcess of 180km operating at 4-4.5kW.......I would post that again.....just in case

Hereby going by the claims made by some fan boy on some defense form @your post #16

105km detection range for 5m2 Target. 5m2 105km detection range for Target. Hence: Henco:
For 20m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68(V)9 detection range is 149km For 20m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68 (V) 9 is 149km detection range
For 15m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68(V)9 detection range is 138km For 15m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68 (V) 9 is 138km detection range
For 12.5m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68(V)9 detection range is 132km For 12.5m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68 (V) 9 is 132km detection range
For 10m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68(V)9 detection range is 125km For 10m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68 (V) 9 is 125km detection range
For 8.5m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68(V)9 detection range is 120km For 8.5m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68 (V) 9 is 120km detection range
For 3m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68(V)9 detection range is 92km For 3m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68 (V) 9 detection range is 92km
For 1m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68(V)9 detection range is 70km For 1m2, KLJ-7 & APG-68 (V) 9 detection range is 70km

And assuming the RCS of MKI to be around 20m2.........which is highly unlikely as its supposed be around 12m2 and JF-17 to be around 2m2 which again is possible only if it were a stealth aircraft with 0.0001 RCS as external loading adds around 3-5m2 RCS........plus KLJ-7 operating in passive mode and JF-17s nose happens to be pointing towards MKI........BARS at 4kW would still detect it beyond 200km and it would happen to see MKI type plane at 150km...maxium.

P.S.
I can hear some buzz.......did I disturb the Party........apologies in that case....

 

[SQ8]

You whole assessment of JF-17 early detection is based on a mere claim that BARS can't operate beyond 4.5-5kW.........and its an old radar and ........Until recently BARS were the 2nd most powerful radar in the russian inventory and its beyond my limited knowledge what would stop its 7kW peak power rated Chelnok TWT from operating at the same[P.S. its just the figure available publicly and reliable sources maintain upgraded versions to be capable of operating at 10kW]........going by the public figures of 5-7kW.....I did present a graph which showed its detection ranges for a 1m2 target inexcess of 180km operating at 4-4.5kW.......I would post that again.....just in case

Hereby going by the claims made by some fan boy on some defense form @your post #16



And assuming the RCS of MKI to be around 20m2.........which is highly unlikely as its supposed be around 12m2 and JF-17 to be around 2m2 which again is possible only if it were a stealth aircraft with 0.0001 RCS as external loading adds around 3-5m2 RCS........plus KLJ-7 operating in passive mode and JF-17s nose happens to be pointing towards MKI........BARS at 4kW would still detect it beyond 200km and it would happen to see MKI type plane at 150km...maxium.

P.S.
I can hear some buzz.......did I disturb the Party........apologies in that case....

That graph looks familiar..
where did you get it from btw??

Wait a minute.. its from Carlo Kopp's website..

and I believe this sums its up best for Mr Kopp..
"
Kopp is not an analyst of any sort, bar in his own fantasy land where tech demonstrators such as the J-20 and PAK-FA already completely outclass in production and in-service aircraft. His "reality" is no more real than the hysterical rantings of the sort that rabid anti-communists used to froth from the mouth, ie: "a good red is a dead red."

His antics in front of Australian Senate Committees are nothing short of an embarassment and for those who actually saw them, you have NO trouble understanding the exact reasoning as to why the "shrift" he was given couldn't have been shorter.

He has never held a position within any defence or intelligence service. He has never had formal training in any defence related field at an accredited institution.

He has been provided with classified briefings by the Australian Defence Force as well as "ride a longs" by quite a few major Defence manufacturers, most notably Boeing with their Super Hornet and he speaks glowingly of such experiences and indeed uses them to try and boost his own credibility.

Until some of these things directly impacted on his own pecurniary interests that is...

He is a part time University lecturer and his formal qualifications are in eletrical engineering and computer science. He is nothing more than an enthusiastic fanboy who writes articles in trashy defence magazines, many of which also appear on his own personal website that morphed out of an F-111 fanboy website to become a self declared "thinktank" and his articles are generally so loaded with bias and mistruths that anybody who takes them seriously needs to have a good hard look at themselves and wonder WHY it is that virtually every single professional defence force in the Western World is pursuing a path that is diametrically opposed to what he writes is THE way of things."

You bought in a fanboy's assessment to counter a fanboy.. ingenious.

 

[ironman]

Basically Grifo S7 Radar could be for the export customers and not Pakistan. I posted it long time ago but that link has been removed or updated by Selex Galileo.

Notice technical characteristcis The Average Transmitted Power is 560 that is Average not Peak.
http://www.selexgalileo.com/EN/Common/files/SELEX_Galileo/Products/GRIFO_S.pdf

Grifo 7 radar​

The Grifo 7 is designed to be installed in the nose of CAC F-7 aircraft. It has full look-up and look-down air-to-air capabilities
through the use of pulse Doppler and medium PRF waveform, plus an air-to-ground ranging mode to support CCIP/CCRP. The
system also incorporates a dual-channel receiver and extensive Electronic Counter-Counter Measures (ECCM) provisions.
Two modes are selectable in air-to-air: Super-Search (SS) is used for the acquisition and tracking of the highest priority
target in the HUD field of view. The radar allows the missile seeker to be slewed to the target line of sight for offset delivery. In
Boresight (BST), fixed antenna pointing is used for automatic acquisition and tracking of the nearest target. Both of these
modes feature automatic transition to Single Target Track (STT).
Most of the hardware is common with the other versions of the Grifo family. Grifo 7 has compatibility with IR missiles,
rockets, guns and free-fall bombs.

Specifications

Frequency: X-band (8-12.5 Ghz, NATO I/J Band)
Power: 850 W
MTBF: >200 hrs
Weight: 55 kg

Operational status

In production for the CAC F-7. 100 ordered by Pakistan for retrofit to the PAF F-7 fleet.

Grifo M3 radar​

Similar to the Grifo F, the 87 kg Grifo M3 has been developed for the Mirage III. It makes use of a different antenna array to fit
the nose of the Mirage III. Modes are as for the Grifo F.
The Grifo M3 is compatible with a variety of weapon systems including semi-active missiles. The Grifo M21 is similar to the
M3 and is under development for the MiG-21.

Specifications

Frequency: X-band (NATO I/J)
MTBF: >200 hrs
Power: < 1.5 kW

Operational status

In production for the Mirage III, 35 ordered by Pakistan.


J's avionics

 

[Manticore]

darky , i will take an experienced fighter pilot's opinion regarding JFT's rcs over yours any day -- particularly till we get some official release on the matter

Just eyeballing the airframe... as others have said, I would place it in the F-16 class, which is not bad at all. The F-16 has one of the lower RCS of traditional fighters.

 

[DARKY]

That graph looks familiar..
where did you get it from btw??

Wait a minute.. its from Carlo Kopp's website..

and I believe this sums its up best for Mr Kopp..
"
Kopp is not an analyst of any sort, bar in his own fantasy land where tech demonstrators such as the J-20 and PAK-FA already completely outclass in production and in-service aircraft. His "reality" is no more real than the hysterical rantings of the sort that rabid anti-communists used to froth from the mouth, ie: "a good red is a dead red."

His antics in front of Australian Senate Committees are nothing short of an embarassment and for those who actually saw them, you have NO trouble understanding the exact reasoning as to why the "shrift" he was given couldn't have been shorter.

He has never held a position within any defence or intelligence service. He has never had formal training in any defence related field at an accredited institution.

He has been provided with classified briefings by the Australian Defence Force as well as "ride a longs" by quite a few major Defence manufacturers, most notably Boeing with their Super Hornet and he speaks glowingly of such experiences and indeed uses them to try and boost his own credibility.

Until some of these things directly impacted on his own pecurniary interests that is...

He is a part time University lecturer and his formal qualifications are in eletrical engineering and computer science. He is nothing more than an enthusiastic fanboy who writes articles in trashy defence magazines, many of which also appear on his own personal website that morphed out of an F-111 fanboy website to become a self declared "thinktank" and his articles are generally so loaded with bias and mistruths that anybody who takes them seriously needs to have a good hard look at themselves and wonder WHY it is that virtually every single professional defence force in the Western World is pursuing a path that is diametrically opposed to what he writes is THE way of things."

You bought in a fanboy's assessment to counter a fanboy.. ingenious.

I thought you were mature enough..........but here you are quoting some nerd who has some serious issues with Kopp........I don't have anything to do with his love for F-22 its such a beauty........any body would've fallen for it........Again I did mention you that if his works on flankers and their electronics were looked into without any prejudice and with open eyes........he/she would realize the difference a part time university lecturer who holds doctorate in Electronics and Computer Science has from some nerd who spends his day reading wiki//hunting google.......to prove his point on some defense forum.......enough said let's not spoil another thread on this.
This my last post on Kopp/his capabilities/whatever..........I guess its easier to believe anyone who thinks like you........but hard to listen the one who speaks truth(don't relate it to Kopp).........on topic..

 

[DARKY]

darky , i will take an experienced fighter pilot's opinion regarding JFT's rcs over yours any day -- particularly till we get some official release on the matter

Just eyeballing the airframe... as others have said, I would place it in the F-16 class, which is not bad at all. The F-16 has one of the lower RCS of traditional fighters.

I guess you didn't read my post #47 did you??..........you so readily jumped in with a quote of some fighter pilot's assessment based on looks........If it were so simple I guess they would've never shown planes like B-2 spirit, F-22 etc in public.

Note: I put the RCS of JF-17 @0.0001m2 comparable to speculated RCS of F-22 but considering that it doesn't have any internal weapons bay added 2m2 RCS for combat configurations.......which is usually added as 3-5m2 in normal circumstances........go through the post #47 again before jumping anywhere.

 

[Manticore]

I guess you didn't read my post #47 did you??....

i gave the fanboys comment so that newer , more authentic numbers can be plugged into what he was speculating -- so that we can see what it wouldve been if their were no awacs on both sides------ however no one answered me and to top it off you qouted [and most probably based your assessment on] the same fanboy comment which i only gave as i liked the approach of that fanboys argument , that is why i didnt read your post completely aswell

i even wanted to take the speculation a bit forward with adding tracking range of the radar which allows it to fire a missile at that range aswell as the ranges of the missiles both nations employ , should be considered

 

[SQ8]

I thought you were mature enough..........but here you are quoting some nerd who has some serious issues with Kopp........I don't have anything to do with his love for F-22 its such a beauty........any body would've fallen for it........Again I did mention you that if his works on flankers and their electronics were looked into without any prejudice and with open eyes........he/she would realize the difference a part time university lecturer who holds doctorate in Electronics and Computer Science has from some nerd who spends his day reading wiki//hunting google.......to prove his point on some defense forum.......enough said let's not spoil another thread on this.
This my last post on Kopp/his capabilities/whatever..........I guess its easier to believe anyone who thinks like you........but hard to listen the one who speaks truth(don't relate it to Kopp).........on topic..

Congratulations on his doctrate..
And you can keep supporting you own fanboy.. Ill bring in others... Mature answers are best given for self deduction.. not toeing the line of a part time analyst..who has been rejected by his own government and Air force for his self-projecting assessments.
Read on his history before boo hoo'ing over his qualifications.

The truth you seem to be towing.. is that the JF-17 will lose.. no matter what.
Every other link you provide seems to point in that direction.
Unlike you side which claims the MKI invincible, the LCA indomitable...
we have a more balanced approach on things.

 

[bc040400065]

Grifo 7 radar​

The Grifo 7 is designed to be installed in the nose of CAC F-7 aircraft.
J's avionics

i think you missed his point. For JFT the radar is Grifo S7 not Grifo 7, which is installed on Paf F7s.

There is another version as well Grifo 2000/16, which im not sure whether can fit in JFT's nose.

 

[DARKY]

The truth you seem to be towing.. is that the JF-17 will lose.. no matter what.
Every other link you provide seems to point in that direction.
Unlike you side which claims the MKI invincible, the LCA indomitable...
we have a more balanced approach on things.

Incase you misunderstood my last line......it was just a proverb I used and on topic was separate words can't help with my habbit of using dots.......it confuses a lot of people.

I never said JF-17 can't bring down the MKI.......but that would be very less.......I dare to say very rare in one on one scenario.....how every thing doesn't go by book......and practical application might bring out surprising results......MKIs are a complex flying platform......which can't be compared to JF-17.......even M-MRCA EF2000/Rafale would be an overkill going by current status of JF-17 program........however I would rest my case until block II arrives.....The best comparable aircraft going by operational roles would be LCA Tejas as of now.


Note: This post must be viewed without any nationalistic prejudices.

 

[DARKY]

Watch out for mechanical steering.

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------

Watch out for mechanical steering.

 

[DARKY]

Irbis-E (Snow Leopard) Radar

The most powerful PESA radar to be mounted on a fighter plane

 

[DARKY]

F-15C AN/APG-63 Pulse-Doppler Radar

 

[Manticore]

A. Style of antenna:
1. APG-63V3/V4: AESA, 1,500 T/R
2. APG-77: AESA, 2,000 T/R
3. APG-79: AESA, 1,100 T/R
4. APG-80: AESA, 1,000 T/R
5. APG-81: AESA, 1,200+ T/R
6. CAPTOR: Mechanic
7. CAESAR: AESA, 1,200~1,500+ T/R
8. RBE-2: PESA
9. RBE-2AA: AESA, 1,000~1,200 T/R
10. PS-05A: Mechanic
11. NOAR: AESA, 1,000 T/R

B. Effective tracking range for RCS = 1 m2 target
1. APG-63V3/V4: 144~185 km
2. APG-77: 200~230 km
3. APG-79: 120~130 km
4. APG-80: 110~120 km
5. APG-81: 140~160 km+
6. CAPTOR: 110~125 km
7. CAESAR: 165~220 km
8. RBE-2: 65~80 km
9. RBE-2AA: 110~130 km
10. PS-05A: 50~60 km
11. NOAR: 100~120 km+

C. Horizontal tracking angles
1. APG-63V3/V4: +/- 60 degrees
2. APG-77: +/- 60 degrees (May equip conformal lateral AESA in the future)
3. APG-79: +/- 60 degrees
4. APG-80: +/- 60 degrees
5. APG-81: +/- 60 degrees (May equip conformal lateral AESA in the future)
6. CAPTOR: +/- 70 degrees
7. CAESAR: +/- 60 degrees ~ +/- 100~110 degrees
8. RBE-2: +/- 60 degrees
9. RBE-2AA: +/- 70 degrees
10. PS-05A: +/- 60 degrees
11. NOAR: +/- 100~110 degrees

D. Target number of TWS at the same time:
1. APG-63V3/V4: > 20 targets
2. APG-77: 100 targets
3. APG-79: > 20 targets
4. APG-80: 20 (now) ~ 50 (potential in the future) targets
5. APG-81: unknown
6. CAPTOR: 20 targets
7. CAESAR: unknown
8. RBE-2: 40 targets
9. RBE-2AA: unknown
10. PS-05A: 14 targets
11. NOAR: unknown

E. Performing A-A and A-G modes at the same time:
1. APG-63V3/V4: Yes
2. APG-77: Yes
3. APG-79: Yes
4. APG-80: Yes
5. APG-81: Yes
6. CAPTOR: Perhaps
7. CAESAR: Yes
8. RBE-2: Yes
9. RBE-2AA: Yes
10. PS-05A: No
11. NOAR: Yes

F. LPI capability:
1. APG-63V3/V4: Yes
2. APG-77: Yes
3. APG-79: Yes
4. APG-80: Yes
5. APG-81: Yes
6. CAPTOR: No
7. CAESAR: Yes
8. RBE-2: Yes
9. RBE-2AA: Yes
10. PS-05A: No
11. NOAR: Yes

G. High speed capability of Data-link/communication:
1. APG-63V3/V4: Perhaps
2. APG-77: Yes
3. APG-79: Yes
4. APG-80: No
5. APG-81: Yes
6. CAPTOR: No
7. CAESAR: Perhaps
8. RBE-2: No
9. RBE-2AA: No
10. PS-05A: No
11. NOAR: Perhaps

H. Advanced functions for Microwave-weapon / CPU virus spreader/ Net-Hacker:
1. APG-63V3/V4: Perhaps
2. APG-77: Yes
3. APG-79: Yes
4. APG-80: No
5. APG-81: Yes
6. CAPTOR: No
7. CAESAR: Perhaps
8. RBE-2: No
9. RBE-2AA: No
10. PS-05A: No
11. NOAR: Perhaps

I. MTBF (mean time between failures)
1. APG-63V3/V4: 800~1,000 hrs
2. APG-77: 800~1,000 hrs
3. APG-79: 1000 hrs
4. APG-80: 500~800 hrs
5. APG-81: 2000 hrs+
6. CAPTOR: 194~300 hrs
7. CAESAR: Unknown
8. RBE-2: Unknown
9. RBE-2AA: Unknown
10. PS-05A: 250~300 hrs
11. NOAR: Unknown
Defunct Humanity: AESA radars for fighters. Brief review.

 

[Dazzler]

Grifo M3 has a peak power of 4 kws, KLJ has more! need INTERNET proof?

Grifo radar is multimode pulse Doppler all weather fire control radar. PAC has the capability of not only producing the airborne fire control radars but also has vast experience in maintaining three variants of Grifo radars. PAC has produced a number of Grifo radar systems for PAF Fleet in collaboration with M/S Selex Galileo Italy. . Grifo family of radars is digital fire control system designed to improve air to air and air to ground performance. Radars are capable of detecting and tracking the targets at all altitudes and all aspects. Radars have powerful and accurate Built-In Test (BIT) system followed by auto calibration for the ease of smooth operation and better maintenance. Appended below are salient features of the radar:

X- Band Radar
Peak Power 4KVA
Forced air cooled
Multi mode radar
High MTBF
34 cm antenna array

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex