Chinese Radar Developments - KLJ series and others

Hyperwarp · Nov 23, 2017

How does the PRC military especially the Air-Force classify RADAR ranges? Is it using 3m^2 or 5m^2 targets? USAF uses nautical miles for 1m^2 target. ATF requirement was 1m^2 target at 125 nm. Russians for a long time used 5m^2 targets but in recent times that has changed to 3m^2 targets.

Type-1493 on the J-11B according to Hui Tong is 150+ km. So the KLJ-7A at 170 km has already gone past that. But what is the target size?

Totoro · Nov 23, 2017

Assume 5 m2, as CETC brochure for original KLJ radar variant featured 5 m2.

FORBIN · Nov 23, 2017

Hyperwarp said:
How does the PRC military especially the Air-Force classify RADAR ranges? Is it using 3m^2 or 5m^2 targets? USAF uses nautical miles for 1m^2 target. ATF requirement was 1m^2 target at 125 nm. Russians for a long time used 5m^2 targets but in recent times that has changed to 3m^2 targets.

Type-1493 on the J-11B according to Hui Tong is 150+ km. So the KLJ-7A at 170 km has already gone past that. But what is the target size?

Totoro said:
Assume 5 m2, as CETC brochure for original KLJ radar variant featured 5 m2.

Ofc and yes 5 m2 for KLJ7-A AESA
This radar is much less capable than APG-81 with 1676 modules range 240+ km / 5 m2

duncanidaho · Nov 23, 2017

FORBIN said:
Ofc and yes 5 m2 for KLJ7-A AESA
This radar is much less capable than APG-81 with 1676 modules range 240+ km / 5 m2

Ofc KLJ7-A is less capable than APG-81, but there is no need using an APG-81 size radar on a JF-17, that would be like putting a V12 turbo engine in a serial VW Beetle.

Quickie · Nov 23, 2017

FORBIN said:
Ofc and yes 5 m2 for KLJ7-A AESA
This radar is much less capable than APG-81 with 1676 modules range 240+ km / 5 m2

duncanidaho said:
Ofc KLJ7-A is less capable than APG-81, but there is no need using an APG-81 size radar on a JF-17, that would be like putting a V12 turbo engine in a serial VW Beetle.

A better comparison would be between radars of the size. The KLJ7-A is meant to fit into the smaller nose cone of the JF-17. The APG-81 should be compared to a larger variant of the KLJ7-A or another AESA radar type meant for larger aircraft.

FORBIN · Nov 23, 2017

duncanidaho said:
Ofc KLJ7-A is less capable than APG-81, but there is no need using an APG-81 size radar on a JF-17, that would be like putting a V12 turbo engine in a serial VW Beetle.

Quickie said:
A better comparison would be between radars of the size. The KLJ7-A is meant to fit into the smaller nose cone of the JF-17. The APG-81 should be compared to a larger variant of the KLJ7-A or another AESA radar type meant for larger aircraft.

Completely agree and also i like the JF-17 for this price he is a good fighter but no comparison with F-35 different categories.
With others we point in relation with article posted in the last page, doubtful infos...

Although CCTV did not disclose the model of the radar, according to the information previously disclosed at the Zhuhai Air Show, this type of airborne radar should be KLJ-7A active phased array fire control radar with a detection range of about 170 kilometers. It is based on KLJ-7 model with active phased array technology.

An anonymous military expert said that with the active phased array technology, the detection range of FC-1 Xiaolong has reached or even exceeded that of the J-11B heavy fighter jet which uses flat-panel crack antenna pulse doppler radar.

The anti-jamming performance and the anti-reconnaissance performance of the new radar are much better compared with that of the mechanical scanning radar on the third-generation fighter jet.

The new radar has similar performance with F-35 strike fighter's radar. FC-1 Xiaolong fighter jet with the new radar may have a certain extent of advantage at mid-range confrontation with the F-16C / D fighting falcon (not equipped with active phased array radar) and even the basic F-15C / D heavy eagle fighter.

ougoah · Nov 23, 2017

Photos sure make the new radar look cheap and nasty compared to other ESAs around including other Chinese ESAs. Wonder if that's just for early testing stages. Finishing probably doesn't effect performance that much, but hope they make it look a little nicer for publicity sake if nothing else. PLAAF ESAs are more or less hidden from public view. Should really make export products look good. That's what western manufacturers are best at. Making things look good on the surface if nothing else.

FORBIN · Nov 23, 2017

Hyperwarp said:
How does the PRC military especially the Air-Force classify RADAR ranges? Is it using 3m^2 or 5m^2 targets? USAF uses nautical miles for 1m^2 target. ATF requirement was 1m^2 target at 125 nm. Russians for a long time used 5m^2 targets but in recent times that has changed to 3m^2 targets.

Type-1493 on the J-11B according to Hui Tong is 150+ km. So the KLJ-7A at 170 km has already gone past that. But what is the target size?

170 km vs 5 m2 do what range for 3 m 2 or eventualy 1 m2 ? exist on the web a chart or formulas or a converter for that please

Hendrik_2000 · Nov 23, 2017

ougoah said:
Photos sure make the new radar look cheap and nasty compared to other ESAs around including other Chinese ESAs. Wonder if that's just for early testing stages. Finishing probably doesn't effect performance that much, but hope they make it look a little nicer for publicity sake if nothing else. PLAAF ESAs are more or less hidden from public view. Should really make export products look good. That's what western manufacturers are best at. Making things look good on the surface if nothing else.

I don't see any problem with KLJ-7A look. What you think radar should look like? "Form follow function" that is dictum of engineering
There is no need to compare it with western radar on the look. If it can be built cheaply than it is bonus
Who care!
If it can detect fighter at 170 km that is good enough for small fighter like JF 17

manqiangrexue · Nov 23, 2017

FORBIN said:
Ofc and yes 5 m2 for KLJ7-A AESA
This radar is much less capable than APG-81 with 1676 modules range 240+ km / 5 m2

I see; thanks for the figure for APG-81. So APG-81 is capable of 240km while this new smaller one can do 170km for the same 5m^2. So maybe when the article said they are similar in performance, it meant similar in performance when scaled to size as smaller radars of similar level are naturally weaker than scaled up ones.

Chinese Radar Developments - KLJ series and others

Hyperwarp

Captain

Totoro

Major

FORBIN

Lieutenant General

duncanidaho

Junior Member

Quickie

Colonel

FORBIN

Lieutenant General

ougoah

Brigadier

FORBIN

Lieutenant General

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

manqiangrexue

Brigadier