Chinese Radar Developments - KLJ series and others

SamuraiBlue said:

Kinda interesting reading the NYT article making me wonder "Doesn't PRC have LED lighting manufacturers?" since it states that the material had been in use for decades in LEDs.

Click to expand...

The NYT article seems like it is being written by someone who is more familiar with what the US may view as sensitive technology, not someone who is familiar with the state of Chinese industry.

That's why I've emphasized that the article only tells us what the US viewed as a potential danger to their national security and doesn't tell us much about the domestic Chinese industry.

Bltizo said:

That's why I've emphasized that the article only tells us what the US viewed as a potential danger to their national security and doesn't tell us much about the domestic Chinese industry.

Click to expand...

Does anybody frankly know what is the state of the Chinese domestic industry? Typically available are claims, marketing materials or suppositions. For example, does anybody know anything specific about Chinese AESA like output and average power besides the often quoted T/R module count?

Brumby said:

Does anybody frankly know what is the state of the Chinese domestic industry? Typically available are claims, marketing materials or suppositions. For example, does anybody know anything specific about Chinese AESA like output and average power besides the often quoted T/R module count?

Click to expand...

First, I should mention that when I said "domestic industry" in my last reply I was talking about technologies such as materials within LEDs (or semiconductors and MMICs) which are known to have meaningful correlations to radar applications (specifically AESAs in this case).

If you're talking about the Chinese domestic radar industry -- then no, typically we only have very limited information. What marketing materials we do have (which sometimes have specifications) are almost always for export oriented products, which are obviously not representative of whatever present state of advancement the Chinese domestic radar industry is at during the time itself, because China is very coy about exporting anything near what is similar in capability to their mainstay technologies or capabilities in sensitive sectors.

Other sectors such as medium end UAVs, ATGMs and AFVs and artillery they seem to be more willing to export without too much restriction.

Bltizo said:

First, I should mention that when I said "domestic industry" in my last reply I was talking about technologies such as materials within LEDs (or semiconductors and MMICs) which are known to have meaningful correlations to radar applications (specifically AESAs in this case).

If you're talking about the Chinese domestic radar industry -- then no, typically we only have very limited information. What marketing materials we do have (which sometimes have specifications) are almost always for export oriented products, which are obviously not representative of whatever present state of advancement the Chinese domestic radar industry is at during the time itself, because China is very coy about exporting anything near what is similar in capability to their mainstay technologies or capabilities in sensitive sectors.

Other sectors such as medium end UAVs, ATGMs and AFVs and artillery they seem to be more willing to export without too much restriction.

Click to expand...

I am simply making a point that whatever claims pertaining to technological advances like AESA radar that China has achieved is unknown let alone verifiable. We cannot even make a reasonable judgement without knowing anything. I am laboring on this because after all this is a thread on Chinese radar developments.

Brumby said:

I am simply making a point that whatever claims pertaining to technological advances like AESA radar that China has achieved is unknown let alone verifiable. We cannot even make a reasonable judgement without knowing anything. I am laboring on this because after all this is a thread on Chinese radar developments.

Click to expand...

I think we can make very broad estimates based on credible rumours, occasional tidbits of technical information, occasional research articles, and examination of other more open industries which may have applications for developing the military technology, all integrated with some common sense.

But not many here would seriously consider trying to estimate or make solid statements about the kind of solid technical specifications that you described before.
That applies not only for radar developments but virtually every domain of Chinese military watching.

Bltizo said:

But not many here would seriously consider trying to estimate or make solid statements about the kind of solid technical specifications that you described before.

Click to expand...

Power output is a basic technical spec to determine state of AESA capability. If such basic information is not known, how can you reasonably conclude or speculate that the Chinese have made progress to western standards? T/R module count is insufficient because it doesn't give a qualitative dimension.

Brumby said:

Power output is a basic technical spec to determine state of AESA capability. If such basic information is not known, how can you reasonably conclude or speculate that the Chinese have made progress to western standards? T/R module count is insufficient because it doesn't give a qualitative dimension.

Click to expand...

The power output of a radar is definitely a very important indicator, but range of a radar vs a specific RCS or a specific type of target is also a decent substitute for power output (more often than not, range is the most marketable specification that companies use, and one usually needs to dig a bit deeper to find the power output for a radar).
The problem is that we do not even have reliable range estimates for many more recent Chinese radar systems.

At the end of the day, we simply do not know many of the details or even basic parameters of many Chinese military products which are essential to determining how competitive a product or product type is in comparison to other products even on the more basic levels.
This applies for a wide range of products from radar, to stealth, to sonar, to missiles, datalinks, EO sensors, so on and so forth.

The best we can do is to take information which we know to be true or very likely to be true and play around with certain assumptions and premises to reach an estimate... with full knowledge that the conclusion is only an estimate and will change if new information comes to light.
It's never been about making unassailable conclusions, but about making the most accurate estimates we can despite limited information and evidence, for the purposes of discussion.

T/R Module Packages don't tell the whole story but they seem to indicate to me a general idea on the level of advancement the particular radar set has reached. Comparing AESA radar between aircraft based on T/R Module counts should also be in the context of internal volume per each aircraft's nose cone, because it varies.

I have a question for anyone in the know on this subject. Is the output power also largely a component of the radar architecture in addition to T/R module density? I tend to imagine it being something along the lines of GPU's, where differences between design architecture (even on the same process node ex. 28nm) can mean differences in energy efficiency and power output between sets. If that were the case it would be impossible to do a 1 to 1 comparison between two AESA of the same rough volume and module density, without the actual manufacturer specs.

Bltizo said:

The power output of a radar is definitely a very important indicator, but range of a radar vs a specific RCS or a specific type of target is also a decent substitute for power output (more often than not, range is the most marketable specification that companies use, and one usually needs to dig a bit deeper to find the power output for a radar).
The problem is that we do not even have reliable range estimates for many more recent Chinese radar systems.

Click to expand...

Range information is probably the most used and deceptive number that can be quoted to inflate or camouflage performance. Range performance is highly subjective to dwell time, search area, probability assumption and seldom disclosed targeted RCS profile. The key attribute of AESA especially "X' band is not in range but in track and target. Power output IMO is the single most important measure to tell us how advance is Chinese AESA.

Brumby said:

Range information is probably the most used and deceptive number that can be quoted to inflate or camouflage performance. Range performance is highly subjective to dwell time, search area, probability assumption and seldom disclosed targeted RCS profile. The key attribute of AESA especially "X' band is not in range but in track and target.

Click to expand...

No disagreements, but I don't think that invalidates what I said -- i.e.: that range performance vs a target profile/RCS profile is an accessible substitute for power output, even if it could be tweaked based on how it is measured.
Power output itself also doesn't tell us how the radar performs depending on conditions or demands including some of the which you listed such as dwell time, search area, and also the modes which a radar has and how it performs in those modes, the number of targets it can manage, so on and so forth.

Power output IMO is the single most important measure to tell us how advance is Chinese AESA.

Click to expand...

But more often than not we do not have power output even for some marketed western radars unless one really goes digging for it, and we do not even have power output estimates from rumours for Chinese radars... so we have to work with what little information we do have.