Which AESA radar fits better the JF-17 Block 3?

[CriticalThought]

I am also excited specially as I came to know that it could carry dual racks on both sides for BVR. I think Pakistan should induct 50 of these also by than BLOCK III will also be ready

Agreed. They are ideal for wild weasel, ground attack, recon, and also as a mini command/control for squadron leaders/wing commanders.

 

[Arsalan]

I am also excited specially as I came to know that it could carry dual racks on both sides for BVR. I think Pakistan should induct 50 of these also by than BLOCK III will also be ready

hein!!!!

So what were you thinking before? That it will carry a dual rack on ONE SIDE only?

Obviously it can carry dual racks on both wings. I am not sure where you were getting your information from as all this have been shared and discussed to death some year or so ago. In fact, if i remember correctly, there is an exact diagram available as well on the JF17 thread from mid 2016!!

Surely it can carry dual ejector rail on BOTH wings and not just one side.

 

[Zarvan]

hein!!!!

So what were you thinking before? That it will carry a dual rack on ONE SIDE only?

Obviously it can carry dual racks on both wings. I am not sure where you were getting your information from as all this have been shared and discussed to death some year or so ago. In fact, if i remember correctly, there is an exact diagram available as well on the JF17 thread from mid 2016!!

Surely it can carry dual ejector rail on BOTH wings and not just one side.

No I didn't knew JF-17 B will also have dual racks for BVR but when I saw the model than I came to know about dual racks. I hardly have information of How jet works and Missile systems I know about EF and SU-35 being thought but if you will ask me to tell there features I would fail. This dual rack with BVR in my opinion pretty much doubles the fire power. Also we need to develop light weight cruise missiles RAAD is way to heavy

 

[Arsalan]

No I didn't knew JF-17 B will also have dual racks for BVR but when I saw the model than I came to know about dual racks. I hardly have information of How jet works and Missile systems I know about EF and SU-35 being thought but if you will ask me to tell there features I would fail. This dual rack with BVR in my opinion pretty much doubles the fire power. Also we need to develip light weight cruise missiles RAAD is way to heavy

Well anyway, the dual ejector rails for JF17 were discussed and are known about for over a year or so now.

 

[The SC]

I say the moment AESA is ready for BLOCK I and BLOCK II fit in them

The Chinese expert says in the article that if you want to avoid problems, the AESA radar should be fitted to a new warplane, otherwise there will be serious problems, meaning that this not a plug-and-play kind of AESA radar..

 

[ziaulislam]

The Chinese expert says in the article that if you want to avoid problems, the AESA radar should be fitted to a new warplane, otherwise there will be serious problems, meaning that this not a plug-and-play kind of AESA radar..

personally believe better to buy 25-50 new planes rather than upgrading old one
block 1-2 radar is pretty much good and relevant till atleast 2030-40, as IAF fighters like migs, mirages and even su 30 will still have non Aesa radars, and few aesa can give good coverage among existing aircraft in the era of networking

 

[Thorough Pro]

Thunder already has 8 hard points.
They would probably add 4R dedicated for a targeting pod

I talked to my relative who is engineer in Pakistan Air Force he says AESA will be Chinese and JF-17 BLOCK III will have 8 hard points

I hope you realize fitting a radar in a jet is not the same as fitting a book in a shelve.

I say the moment AESA is ready for BLOCK I and BLOCK II fit in them


JF-17 B is coming in next few months it will arrive and this is just 7th April so even April is not over yet

 

[Falcon26]

Thunder already has 8 hard points

I hope you realize fitting a radar in a jet is not the same as fitting a book in a shelve.

What's the weapon on 4L

 

[Thorough Pro]

GSH-23/30 (30mm dual cannon)

hein!!!!

So what were you thinking before? That it will carry a dual rack on ONE SIDE only?

Obviously it can carry dual racks on both wings. I am not sure where you were getting your information from as all this have been shared and discussed to death some year or so ago. In fact, if i remember correctly, there is an exact diagram available as well on the JF17 thread from mid 2016!!

Surely it can carry dual ejector rail on BOTH wings and not just one side.

What's the weapon on 4L

 

[PakEye]

KLJ-7A weight =115kg
VIXEN weight=215kg
But what is the price difference between both radars ?

 

[ziaulislam]

Thunder already has 8 hard points.
They would probably add 4R dedicated for a targeting pod

I hope you realize fitting a radar in a jet is not the same as fitting a book in a shelve.

where would the gun go!?

 

[maximuswarrior]

No doubt the Block 3 will house the KLJ-7A. Apart from the brilliant specs, the KLJ-7A is tailor-made for the JF-17. The Chinese have put a lot of effort in this gem. Although, I wouldn't count the Vixen out of the race. In fact, I do believe that if possible the PAF should consider this high-end radar. Vixen is a highly capable radar. The Block 3 should ideally house a variety of high-end AESA radars. This would in turn also allow a variety of different weapons etc. Whether this is a wise idea from a maintenance and logistics perspective I'll leave up to the experts. As long as the radar can fit without too much hassle and changes I don't foresee major issues. In the end, it all comes down to budget constraints. Buying a Ferrari is one thing. Maintenance and fuelling is an entirely separate matter.

 

[Path-Finder]

Thunder already has 8 hard points.
They would probably add 4R dedicated for a targeting pod

I hope you realize fitting a radar in a jet is not the same as fitting a book in a shelve.

that means 8 hardpoints already exist or close to 8 hardpoints already exist.

 

[Ultima Thule]

GSH-23/30 (30mm dual cannon)

you shouldn't consider fixed gun port as a 8th hard point because its can't carry another weapons except the gun

 

[gambit]

However i was not arguing in favor of what was said in the opening article.

I knew that.

...what do you think about this new radar for JF-17? What are your views about KLJ-7A. How good it is and how well will you rate it. Some data is already given about it, rest you may be able to assume/educated guess based on your experience and knowledge.

On paper, the system seems to be excellent. But the reality is that we should take all claims -- even Americans' -- with caution.

All these on-paper specs were done under ideal conditions, which while does exist in open environment, they are very rare.

These are the normal target resolutions:

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

In normal situations, any radar system must contends with atmospheric losses that degrades target resolutions, unknown signals interference that enhance hence create false target resolutions, and geographical reflections which includes water that can produce ghosting effects.

Ghosting effects is the worst to encounter, especially in combat. Ghosting effects is when a radar system 'sees' multiple targets when in reality there is only target. Each ghost have its own target resolutions as above. A ghost can actually be higher altitude and/or with different airspeed. But a ghost will have the same heading and aspect angle as the real target.

An AESA system is not immune from these factors but their effects are far less noticeable to the system. A pilot that transition from the mechanical scanning system to the AESA will immediately notice the superiority of the latter.

For example...

Persistence and consistency are not the same. A target can have a persistent or even a permanent presence, like a fixed post in the ground, but fog or rain can make it visually inconsistent to the observer.

A radar system have two maximum ranges:

- The maximum travel range where the beam travels and at this point target resolutions degrades to the point of being statistically unusable, hence, tactically detrimental.

- The maximum usable range where target resolutions are persistent and consistent enough that it is tactically useful.

An AESA system is superior in both. We want the maximum travel range not because we want to reach as far as possible, but because the longer the maximum travel range, the longer the maximum usable range.

An AESA system is superior in signals-to-noise (S/N) ratio, which equals to finer target resolutions. It is like measuring in ones instead of in tens. This is useful in look-down-shoot-down situations where ground clutter interference is highest. Ground clutter often produces ghosting effects so the missile may end up calculating the interception point too far in front or too far aft of the real target.

What everyone want to know is the comparison between AESA systems in fighter A and fighter B. Unfortunately, that is not going to be available to the public in large part of the secrecy involved. The bottom line is that the superiority of the AESA system is so obvious that future air combatants, no matter which class, fighter or bomber or else, will insist on it.