crobato2 questions!
If PAF choosen a western radar. Who will carry out the intergration of the radar? Chinese side or Pakistan side?
It will have to be Grifo technicians, with the help of Pakistani and Chinese technicians.
But EU embargo of arms on PRC is still enforced,meaning if intergration of radar is carry out by Chinese side. They will have access of western radar and a lot of implication will come in…
As if the embargo has stopped European radars before…not. Ironically the most blatent “offender” was…Britain. Not only did they ship maritime patrol radars, but remember, the radar on the F-7MG prototype was a Super Skyranger.
Grifos had been displayed in Chinese defense exhibitions, and it appears they are not just aiming for the Pakistan market, but also on the Chinese side.
BTW,if using a western radar like Italian Grifo on JF-17,what kind of BVR missiles is available for it? I seriously doubt AIM-120 will be available for intergration on JF-17 with a western radar. Meteor will not be available soon….
SD-10 probably won’t be integrated with Grifo. because that would mean sharing confidential information with the Italians. The most likely is a third party, and that’s likely to be the R-Darters from South Africa.
So the PAF of considering of using western radar on JF-17 as unrealistic?
Not really. Pakistan is serious in rewarding Grifo for supporting them, having their radars on Mirage III and F-7P/PG. Grifo is also eyeing the F-16 upgrade market.
On the other hand, I think in the end, all the JF-17s will come with Chinese radars, nonetheless.
crobatoIf I remember, Sampson is located on top of the mast, which gives you better coverage looking down the horizon, extending your radar horizon and range further. The disadvantage of putting things in the mast, is you have to be more concerned with supporting weight and aerodynamic issues. If you have to put four arrays, it would have been too heavy and the mast has to be extended upwards to support the four arrays.
You put the SPY-1 and the 052C arrays on the superstructure because they are too big and heavy to be placed in a mast (note the mini SPY-1D for frigates are placed in a specially designed mast). The superstructure is the only thing that can soundly support them.
Now the problem of having two arrays instead of four is that ESAs don’t scan sideways well. For a 2 array arrangement you have to mechanically swing the arrays around. On a four array arrangement you can leave them fixed.
If you note the 052C array, you will see feelers on top and bottom of the golden disk. These are likely to be electrical pathways to the array.
Note the four holes. Since the array is enclosed, these are used for refrigeration. The array on the test ship perchant number 870 had large refrigeration tubes around the array. The whole thing generates a lot of heat, typical of current (considered early) AESA drawbacks. This is the one major clue that the array is AESA, not a PESA. The Sampson seems to have lowered its heat emissions low enough to be air cooled.
In the 052C, there is quite likely a seperate radar used for purely volume search, and in fact, there is a large enclosed bulb radome on top of the main mast. This location is more suitable for volume search due to its height, rather than on the superstructure for the same reason you got Fregat also located here in other ships. This radar can also seach and spot for surface targets, which can be used to cue the FCR for the AshM. This radar however is not capable of tracking. Tracking of multiple aerial targets, or even small fast moving ship targets, would be left for the four arrays on the superstructure, which will provide engagement information for the missiles.
crobatoAnd there are inherent disadvantages as well.
Of course the advantage for more units is redudancy.
The advantage for one integrated unit is that I have far fewer units to deploy, making my battery less visible. My radar unit is a truck, not a convoy.
When I have fewer units, I can shut down quicker and move away.
Oh plus in addition to that, if I have superior sidelob cancellling, or removal or very little sidelobs at all, the unit is more resistant to an ARM attack.
crobatoThere are inherent advantages to doing it that way.
And there are inherent disadvantages as well.
Of course the advantage for more units is redudancy.
The advantage for one integrated unit is that I have far fewer units to deploy, making my battery less visible. My radar unit is a truck, not a convoy.
When I have fewer units, I can shut down quicker and move away.
crobatoNo show yet crobato….it’s this weekend.
I’ll take tons of pics and maybe get a few low quality vids with my digital cam, but I don’t even know if it’s worth it to take the time to post them all here.
The last thread I did posting air show pics didn’t seem to get much attention. 🙁
I thought it had some great pics too……
Pics are nice. If you take videos is it possible to upload them in youtube?
I found youtube to be a nice source of aviation videos. Surprising all the stuff you can find there.
crobatoDid Hartmann shoot down a number of Mustangs too? Looks to me his style works everywhere. His mottos are still quoted today in every fighter school.
I would go with Hartmann, the cool calculating robot, vs. the hot boy Marseilles, which I suspect is a bit of a glory seeker.
crobatoDon Chan has this obsession to degrade and vilify any combat aircraft that has been used by the RoCAF and/or JASDF, that’s why all else gets ignored when he is active on a thread that he can twist onto that subject.
He also posts about PLAAF attrition, also posts general news about the ROCAF, JASDF and PLAAF, also post a lot of fanpics, fanart of JASDF aircraft. Unlike you, Bager, at least he can read both Chinese and Japanese and can peruse those websites. Frankly I am also deficient in both and I need his expertise and contributions to this board.
And Phantom, how was the show by the way? Any videos by Youtube?
crobatoI personally think it would be a silly thing to do, the regional players would go nuts.
They blew a sat in space and the regional players did go nuts too. But they did it anyway.
I do agree that the report is a major pile of BS. The only thing that is likely is that the Varyag may get up and running, but it may only function as a both a training carrier, and as an exploration into the field. Experience gathering is the most likely motivator for this rather than power projection. If you want power projection, just wave your swads of dollars.
crobatoWell, I find western mainstream media all like to quote the HH-9( Naval version of HQ-9A) is TVM/Semi-ARH SAM. However, as early as in 2002, the Chinese internet source already surfaced the saying that the improved HQ-9 is Active radar guided. Let’s also re-examine the 052C DDG’s phase arrayed radar and upstructure once more in addition to HQ-9 land based radar.
The lower picture suggests that the entire panel is monolithic, and that there is only one main array, not like the multiarray panel used in the MPQ-53. That rules out having illuminators underneath those panel.
crobatoAll that has its advantages and disadvantages at the same time.
None is surprised, that the Chinese did aim to the newer one design. More than a decade later is a lot of time in electronics. The Russian systems started in the 70s and entered service in the 80s.
But even the most recent system tells little about its true capabilities from external view. With out the related software there are no real performance gains. A PC with a 64 bit CPU gives you a promise for the future at best right now.
Its more than just that. Don’t you see the technical difficulties of putting multiple arrays on a single panel? Each array would be handing out sidelob interference on the other arrays. Collectively when you have a lot of them working at the same time, that adds up.
Its far more economical to consolidate all arrays into a single unit. But the reason why you don’t is because of the interference. What Raytheon did there was nothing short of revolutionary. They have either demonstrated ultra low sidelob characteristics or have side lob cancellation methods. The Russians were not able to achieve the same, and produce a similar all in one detection to kill unit until the S-400. For the Chinese to suddenly produce similar D-2-K units (the HT-233, H-200 and SJ-321) starting no less in the late nineties is a huge leap, the technology of which was probably espionaged from the US, then understood and mastered into a directly usable design and manufacturing capabiltiy.
crobatoThe radar on the JF-17 has been quoted at 125km. Previously the specs were set at 100km. However there is no mention in the circumstances for that. APG-67 (back in the eighties) was said to be tracking/locking targets at 67km. Despite being intended for the Tigershark, the APG-67 was actually better than the APG-66.
1553 bus is a dinosaur. That’s more of an expansion serial bus, used to support terminals, seperate from computer architecture. 1773 is better, being lighter, and uses fiberoptic, which is EMF resistance and a higher speed.
At 115kg, the MICA is only at the same weight as a PL-8. The MICA RF can be regarded as a radar guided dogfight missile like the Derby. I really really doubt both have a useful range past 40km, and ranges past that is mainly missile in a straight line ballistic. Unless for some reason your propellant technology is so totally advanced and not of the current generation. Add to this, the diameter of the missile is only 160mm, compared to 200mm, limiting the size of your seeker array.
AMRAAM C5 is now an older design. No matter what your brand name is, if you don’t update your missile electronics, someone will go ahead because the technology is moving so fast. And that’s why you have C7 down the pike. This is a race, nothing assures your hallowed position. I don’t buy any argument structured in a way saying I should automatically win a race because i use a car with perceived better brand name.
The problem with a lot of radar sets designed in the eighties is that they are assembly coded 30 years ago. By now the programmers have gone on to other things if they have not bit the dust. It is difficult to make fundamental changes on the code without the original programmers. The problem is also quite likely to be being assembly coded, its tied to the original processors and won’t be compatible with current modern processors. Which means it is very difficult to upgrade them with new, incompatible electronics, without rewriting, debugging, testing, hundreds of thousands of line code. This would be a significant investment, one whose cost benefit ratio may not be in line with this project, and which in better case would be better served with an all new radar design preferably with AESA. So the radar is likely to have additions aka hacks on top of the original architecture, undoubtedly will improve performance but still disadvantages you compared to designing a new system top to bottom from scratch.
The radar on the JF-17 101 and 102, if it is from Institute 607, would make it even newer than the J-10’s. The radar used on JF-17 PT04 and PT06 would be a smaller sibling of the one used on the J-10, and may not be as good. Certainly among the chinese radar options, the PAF didn’t pick the one on the PT04/06.
The radar on JF-17 101 and 102 may be so new, these are the first jets to have it, and unlikely hasn’t been OPVAL’ed yet. So at least the set on the F-CK-1 C/D is a mature proven one that is a known quantity, while on the JF-17 it has not been fully debugged. But that will surely be addressed.
I do agree with one thing completely—PRC/Pak committment on the JF-17 is way more deep than the the ROC on the F-CK-1. The fact that they intend to sell the JF-17 around the world, means the product will be honed, improved, modded upon continously.
crobatoThe JF-17/FC-1 is intended to compete against India, not Taiwan. And while it is considered highly likely that the PLAAF would be (politically obliged) to get the plane, the F-CK-1’s upgrades is more or less intended to catch up with the Su-30MKK. I think for the J-10 they need to try a bit harder.
Link 16 of course offers a very robust and capable datalinking. Not the place to relecture about the benefits of datalinking since you already know. The value of good IFF is underrated in this forum and every other forum in lieu for range detection, which on the other hand is an overrated trait. Good IFF is essential for BVR combat with confidence. If you have a better BVRAAM, but your IFF is not up to it, its of no use.
Having the ability to engage four targets instead of two isn’t what I would call that important. Again multiple targeting is another internet overrated trait. It is better to have fewer multiple targeting but with superior confidence against ECM and a faster lock, than one with more targets but with greater vulnerability to ECM and a slower lock.
The CFT maybe a helpful addition, but the drag it imposes on a plane that is not that powerful to begin with, sort of negates that. If a Ching Kuo gets jumped by a J-7, its going to have to lose those CFTs to fight. But at least with the CFT, it does clear the under carriagle pylons for other stuff.
I would say the biggest improvements are the AIFF and Link 16. The PLAAF does not have equivalent to those yet.
Lack of HMS/HOBS might be the biggest problem looming for the Ching Kuo, unless its allowed to integrate with AIM-9X. But again, HMS/HOBS may be a bit (internet) overrated. Even a missile designed for HOBS operation suffers declining PK rates the more offbore it is fired against its target. And often, pilots do not trust their eyes to make that targeting—they would still often bring the nose of their fighter on the target to make an IFF interrogation. It is easy to target the wrong person using HMS.
EVen without HMS, I don’t know much of the flare resistance capability of the TC-1. The PL-8B uses a four element multispectral InSb seeker that is nitrogen cooled. Flare resistance should be higher in the list than HOBS, so the PLAAF did their homework here.
Other features of the Ching Kuo vs. the Thunder. The Thunder is expected to use LGBs. The Ching Kuo appears to have ARM and Maverick support. Both appear to support AshMs. I suspect the Thunder in PLAAF service will end up using Beidou guided bombs given the presence of satellite links on the spine. So far the Ching Kuo itself is more versatile in the multirole aspect than the J-11 and J-10, at least for now.
On the TK-2. If they ever decided to upgrade the TK-2 with a dual mode motor, plus some other upgrades, the missile has great potential. It has 25% more weight than the AMRAAM, 205kg vs. 150kg, well make it more than 30%, since the missile has a 205mm diameter while the AMRAAM only has 175mm. The bigger you are, the more propellant you can stuff in. At the slight expense of maneuverbility, but having more propellant you can translate that with either having longer range, or faster speed for the same range. As a matter of fact, you also have 20kg over the PL-12, so the potential is there to match it kinematically. They just need to develop it further.
I think the weak point is the radar, which is an aging design. Even newer mechanically scanned array radars are able to take advantage of frequency agility, thanks to the latest traveling wave tube (TWT) designs; pulse compression with the help of solid state SAW devices, developments which give them better ECM resistance with LPI capability (pulse compression is a form of LPI). You can use newer processors, bigger memory, software to add more modes, better bandwidth databuses, more powerful digital signal processors, modularity, and trying to use all these simultaneously in a synergistic manner means best having a new design to begin with. Like a PC, you can only use your 286 computer to a point, and it won’t be a match to a Pentium 4 computer no matter the brand name or the cards you put in.
Since the radar and the fire control system is the seat and the foundation of everything, it can also provide the basis for other options such as HMS/HOBS. I suspect the improvements on the radar has been modest because that foundation is long on the tooth. Do realize that HMS is flexible, you can use other missiles with it, including your BVRAAM.
crobatoMPQ-53 is made up of multiple arrays, while the Tombstone is made up of one. For example the MPQ-53 not only has the main array, but also TVM illuminators, a sidelob canceller, an IFF interrogator. The MPQ-53 works as a single unit, from detection to kill, and does not require a supporting radars.
The HQ-9 radar unit looks closer to the MPQ-53 unit, is that it has multiple arrays. This suggest that the unit, unlike the S-300 units, is also a complete detection to kill unit. The unit has been displayed in defense expos for the FT-2000 and KS-1A and has never been seen or quoted with any other supporting unit. However the number of arrays is less than that of the MPQ-53, suggesting it does not have the same level of functionality.
crobatoSome speculation say the HHQ-9(and land based HQ-9A) is active homing guided. I opt for this saying as I believe the 052C DDG’s Active phased array radar works best with an ARH SAM and eliminates the need of any illuminators( Have we seen any illuminators on board 052C?). Although an active phased array radar also can guide a TVM SAM like PAC-2 but I doubt 052C’s Aegis alike radar is that dedicate because it has to handle so many other tasks meanwhile as well
Which is true. An AESA while frequency agile and capable of interleaving is simply not capable of multiple frequency, generating different waveforms and frequencies simultaneously, because you still have a standard main oscillator that synchronously sets the pace for everything. Until one can come up with a technology to make T/Rs work asynchronously, but we have yet to have this technology on this planet.
This will make it impossible for the radar to do TVM/SARH fire control and illumination while providing volume search and multiple target scan. If the main panels are doing fire control and illumination, then a seperate radar will have to do search and track. While there may be candidates among the “bulbs” in the 052C that may do just that, particularly the bulb on the mast, the size of the main panels are just way overkill for fire control. While it may be possible than illuminators can be placed on the main panel like the MPQ-53 such as on the corners, the curvature of the radome will not benefit such operations.
If simplicity and the most obvious is our rule to judge the most likely of alternatives, I would say HH-9 is likely to be active guided.
crobatoFirst of all, one of the prototypes managed to achieve a speed of Mach 1.2 early in its development phase. The media and later the internet later magnified, distorted and twisted that event into making it as if the plane’s maximum speed was only that. There was domestic opposition during the plane’s development, and certainly the distractors have their hand in that (among the distractors then was the current President of Taiwan himself).
The plane’s top speed could probably go Mach 1.5 to Mach 1.7 though not very long.
When it comes to BVR loading the plane and the FC-1 is just even. Both planes can carry four BVRAAMs. The FC-1 can theoritically carry four—inner and midwing.
When it comes to avionics, the F-CK-1 may have led at one time, but I doubt today. Even with a PRC made radar, according to some of the specs given, the advantage is strongly in the side of the JF-17. The PRC has the advantage of being able to start with a clean sheet of paper, then design a radar and avionics sets with the most current available electronics technology. From the beginning, the radar can engage four targets with ARH missiles. The GD-53 set on the F-CK-1 is based on the APG-67, and that goes back to the early eighties. Ditto with the RWR, and the fact that the JF-17 also features an optical MAWS. As far as I know, only the Typhoon has something similar. Also quite a comprehensive cockpit display, satellite uplink (probably GPS/Beidou/GLOSNASS support), and options for things like IRSTs and most likely HMS with HOBS missiles.
The plus side on the F-CK-1 C/D is the addition of AIFF and Link 16. Though these are noteworthy additions, plus the cockpit display and upgraded radar, but still these are packages added on top of an existing avionics and radar instructure that is dated back to the eighties.
As far as this statement goes,
As far as looking into the cockpit I’m curious as to what gap you’re referring to. Surely you don’t mean the standard avionics package on the FC-1 is more advanced than those on the latest F-CK-1 variants….
I would certainly most mean it.
As for the missiles, ROCAF now thinks that PL-12 is superior to both MICA and their own TC-2, fueling their need to acquire AMRAAM C7. I don’t have the complete article.
Aviation Week & Space Technology
5 March 2007
Douglas Barrie and Amy Butler
“U.S. sources suggest that Taiwanese air combat modeling showed unfavorable attrition ratios in engagements with Chinese air force fighter aircraft equipped with the PL-12.
“Taiwan’s AAM active radar-guided inventory includes the MBDA Mica, the nationally developed Tien Chien II and the AIM-120C5. The PL-12 has a dual-pulse solid-rocket motor, and is the heaviest of the weapons. It almost certainly kinematically outperforms the Tien Chien II and the Mica, and likely at least compares to the AIM-120C5.”
Except for one detail though. I disagree that the PL-12 is the heaviest of the weapons here. In fact its the TC-2 (200kg), which is more than the PL-12 (180kg), the R-77 (170kg), the AMRAAM (150kg) and the MICA (115kg). However, the TC-2 probably lacks the PL-12’s dual mode motor.
Sign In
