Chinese Radar Developments - KLJ series and others

Bltizo said:

One thing the article I think doesn't mention is the fact that China has had experience with AESA for ships, AEWC, and some ground based radars prior to coming out with their AESAs for fighters. Of course, I can appreciate operating in different bands and on different physical scales might cause a difference, but I think they definitely do have experience to draw on that could explain what is claimed regarding chinese fighter AESAs.

Click to expand...

Personally, I have no idea what type of complexity is involved in packing it into a confined area and so it boils down to normal experience path. It can aslo be likewise argured that there was a significant lapse between what was put on a ship until they got it into the F-15.

All this indignancy can be done away immediately If there is a bit more transparency on the Chinese side. Speculation assumes a void in the absence of facts.

Brumby said:

Personally, I have no idea what type of complexity is involved in packing it into a confined area and so it boils down to normal experience path. It can aslo be likewise argured that there was a significant lapse between what was put on a ship until they got it into the F-15.

All this indignancy can be done away immediately If there is a bit more transparency on the Chinese side. Speculation assumes a void in the absence of facts.

Click to expand...

We default to "normal experience path" when we're not sure about the technology we're talking about, but it's rarely ever a "normal experience path" .

I concede the point on being indignant, but I'm even more indignant at the poor analytical frameworks than the conclusions.

latenlazy said:

We default to "normal experience path" when we're not sure about the technology we're talking about, but it's rarely ever a "normal experience path" .

I concede the point on being indignant, but I'm even more indignant at the poor analytical frameworks than the conclusions.

Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion. I did not write the article and so I will not labor beyond the norm.

Brumby said:

Personally, I have no idea what type of complexity is involved in packing it into a confined area and so it boils down to normal experience path. It can aslo be likewise argured that there was a significant lapse between what was put on a ship until they got it into the F-15.

All this indignancy can be done away immediately If there is a bit more transparency on the Chinese side. Speculation assumes a void in the absence of facts.

Click to expand...

Thing is, I don't think the US mass produced any large AESAs prior to fielding a fighter sized AESA. And the larger AESAs aboard ships and AEWC tend to have a proportional number of TR modules compared to fighter AESAs of the same generation, so it isn't the case that a larger ship borne or AEWC AESA will have lower TR module density compared to a fighter AESA of the same generation.

Obviously I'm not saying that developing ship borne or large AEWC AESAs is a direct substitute for developing fighter AESAs, but I imagine there will be a lot of cross applicable technology and experience, in particular the progressiec miniaturisation of AESA TR modules which is the subject of discussion.
However I do acknowledge that there may be some differences in regards to the band in which different AESAs operate in, which might lead to differences in ease of miniaturisation, however given how early the PLA had started to develop AESAs (even if it is for ships and AEWC), I personally think the stated TR counts of the various PLA AESAs are not inconceivable.

And of course I agree with your second paragraph.

@Deino, maybe move the last few posts to a PLA fighter radar thread if there is one? Or maybe just the PLAAF AWACS thread?

Bltizo said:

I personally think the stated TR counts of the various PLA AESAs are not inconceivable.

Click to expand...

If the stated TR counts of the PLA AESA is accurate, it means the Chinese have not just caught up but surpassed the US in this AESA technology and all within one generation. It is also not inconceivable that there is a technology limitation with the miniaturisation technology with both the US and Europeans that they have ended up where they are today. Implicit in your statement is that the Chinese have breached the technology wall that has until now limited the US and European. Given such significant strides in technology advancemen, it is not unreasonable to expect some evidence beisdes inconceivability.

Brumby said:

If the stated TR counts of the PLA AESA is accurate, it means the Chinese have not just caught up but surpassed the US in this AESA technology and all within one generation. It is also not inconceivable that there is a technology limitation with the miniaturisation technology with both the US and Europeans that they have ended up where they are today. Implicit in your statement is that the Chinese have breached the technology wall that has until now limited the US and European. Given such significant strides in technology advancemen, it is not unreasonable to expect some evidence beisdes inconceivability.

Click to expand...

Well, we have to remember that some of these Chinese fighter AESAs may have started development later than some of the US and western AESAs, that is to say they are able to leverage more modern technology even by a few years, which may account for the difference.

In other words, if the US were to develop a new fighter AESA starting today, it would likely have much higher TR module density than the J-20's AESA (assuming equal radar size).
Or a practical real world example.: APG-80 equipped F-16E/Fs were first delivered in 2003. This radar has a TR count of 1000. Over a decade later, J-10B starts deliveries in 2014, with a similar sized radar but with a slightly higher claimed TR count of 1200. Given the decade gap between deliveries and likely similar gap in start of development, is the difference in TR count really that contentious, considering the past experience Chinese industries have had in developing and mass producing AESAs prior to this? Recall that 052C and KJ-2000 with AESAs were delivered in mid 2000s, so development would have begun years before that, with research even further back. So it is definitely conceivable for them to have gathered experience from previous endeavours to reach parity, and when combined with developing a new radar for J-10B (or J-20, J-16 etc) they would have the benefit of using more modern and recent advances for their TR modules as well.

So while I can understand the skepticism and I do think it is worth discussing, in this case I think there is a plausible explanation for it.

a little bit off topic ... in 1995 (only 20 years ago) China only had 1 entry in TOP 500 supercomputer, rank 141, designed and built by IBM ( )
But now (the latest in Nov 2014), China has had the fastest supercomputer designed and built by China ( ), even in 2010 China had the fastest super computer already. My point is, yes China can develop best supercomputer (hence could develop AESA radar as well, .... is not impossible)

Bltizo said:

Well, we have to remember that some of these Chinese fighter AESAs may have started development later than some of the US and western AESAs, that is to say they are able to leverage more modern technology even by a few years, which may account for the difference.

In other words, if the US were to develop a new fighter AESA starting today, it would likely have much higher TR module density than the J-20's AESA (assuming equal radar size).
Or a practical real world example.: APG-80 equipped F-16E/Fs were first delivered in 2003. This radar has a TR count of 1000. Over a decade later, J-10B starts deliveries in 2014, with a similar sized radar but with a slightly higher TR count of 1200. Given the decade gap between deliveries and likely similar gap in start of development, is the difference in TR count really that contentious?

So while I can understand the skepticism and I do think it is worth discussing, in this case I think there is a plausible explanation for it.

Click to expand...

Let me rephrase the issue in a different light as I understand the Chinese AESA development. It is generally assumed (maybe confirmed) that the Chinese have put AESA on its plane. The details of it are unknown. What we are working on today are basically rumours, inconceivability, and indignancy. There is no collaborative evidence. Am I right or wrong?

antiterror13 said:

a little bit off topic ... in 1995 (only 20 years ago) China only had 1 entry in TOP 500 supercomputer, rank 141, designed and built by IBM (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)
But now (the latest in Nov 2014), China has had the fastest supercomputer designed and built by China (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), even in 2010 China had the fastest super computer already. My point is, yes China can develop best supercomputer (hence could develop AESA radar as well, .... is not impossible)

Click to expand...

Except that it has taken more than one generation of built to get there.

Brumby said:

Let me rephrase the issue in a different light as I understand the Chinese AESA development. It is generally assumed (maybe confirmed) that the Chinese have put AESA on its plane. The details of it are unknown. What we are working on today are basically rumours, inconceivability, and indignancy. There is no collaborative evidence. Am I right or wrong?

Click to expand...

Of course you are correct, but in that case it would be as equally incorrect to make speculation "X" as it is to make speculation "not X".
The question is whether we can use open source information, common sense, and some of the more reliable rumours to draw certain conclusions and judge the degree to which they are possible or impossible.

That is the typical nature of PLA watching in my experience, and that is what makes it so much more interesting to me, compared to watching other military forces.