Chinese Radar Developments - KLJ series and others

N

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
Inst said:
===

The counterargument is that AESA is frequency agile in a way that PESA is not, since signals are generated by T/R modules under computer control, instead of being generated by a single magnetron and being phase-shifted.
Click to expand...
This is often brought up as an AESA advantage, but in fact PESA radars are just as frequency agile as AESA. What an AESA can do, unlike most (but not all) PESA, is transmit at different frequencies simultaneously. But that's not frequency agility.
Inst said:
In other words, AESA doesn't need IFF dipoles because it can be done via software instead of having dedicated dipoles on the face of the array. The counter example would be the F-16 with IFF dipoles built onto the sides of the radar, but the implementation, first, resembles legacy features (i.e, the F-16 had IFF systems that didn't rely on the dipole before the AESA was installed, and these weren't removed), and second, the implementation (with IFF dipoles to the side, not within the AESA) is different.

I think it's most likely that the J-10B went through a PESA phase, before transitioning off to AESA.
Click to expand...
Why must IFF be a feature of the radar? AFAIK, the F-35 has IFF functionality integrated in its wings.
1625869530000.png
 
Last edited:
I

Inst

Captain
latenlazy said:
No amount of software can change the transmitter band your hardware is configured for. IFF and fighter radars work on completely different bands. You still need dedicated antennas for the IFF bands independent of the AESA bands. That’s what those dipoles are for.

In fighters where you don’t see IFF dipoles in the radar, that’s often because the IFF transceiver and antennas are a completely independent subsystem, rather than integrated. I believe this modularized implementation became more common as transceivers became smaller and more efficient, so that you could depend on more distributed power sources rather than bandwagon off the radar’s.
Click to expand...
Not actually true. AESA and PESA work off interference effects that can change frequencies in a narrow area.

As for AESA vs PESA, PESA operates with phase shifters, meaning that the entire radar is on one frequency at a time. AESA is better suited for shifting frequency for IFF work. IFF is also not radar, where power matters a lot, so quarter or double wave dipoles, or more can provide sufficient reception sensitivity for IFF to work.

AESA vs PESA is mainly about the frequency agility, the LPI, as well as PESA's 2.5 dB signal loss. However, if you consider scaling, PESA might generate a higher signal reception level than AESA because it can resort to an arbitrarily large magnetron, such as in AEWC functions like the E-2D Hawkeye. It's just going to be more vulnerable to jamming, as well as energy inefficient.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Inst said:
Not actually true. AESA and PESA work off interference effects that can change frequencies in a narrow area.

As for AESA vs PESA, PESA operates with phase shifters, meaning that the entire radar is on one frequency at a time. AESA is better suited for shifting frequency for IFF work. IFF is also not radar, where power matters a lot, so quarter or double wave dipoles, or more can provide sufficient reception sensitivity for IFF to work.

AESA vs PESA is mainly about the frequency agility, the LPI, as well as PESA's 2.5 dB signal loss. However, if you consider scaling, PESA might generate a higher signal reception level than AESA because it can resort to an arbitrarily large magnetron, such as in AEWC functions like the E-2D Hawkeye. It's just going to be more vulnerable to jamming, as well as energy inefficient.
Click to expand...
Your IFF frequencies are an order of magnitude different from your radar frequencies.
 
by78

by78

General
CETC's 38th Institute has inaugurated a new production line for T/R modules, with 80% of the processes being automated. Annual production capacity is in the "hundreds of thousands" of T/R modules.


51313157725_c1eef4203d_k.jpg
 
A

antiterror13

Brigadier
by78 said:
CETC's 38th Institute has inaugurated a new production line for T/R modules, with 80% of the processes being automated. Annual production capacity is in the "hundreds of thousands" of T/R modules.


51313157725_c1eef4203d_k.jpg
Click to expand...

I am hopeful that all hardware and software are indigenous, no foreign part. What level of technology they are using, compare to the US radar ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top