F-35 BTFO by Pakistani JF-17

File: 212331pm7tut75lpylpx6t.jpg (173KB, 900x1216px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 900x1216px

>>31860414

It say KLJ7A is a AESA specially designed for JF17 with performance equals to radar of F35. Operational mode including:

Tracking and searching
Single/multiple targets tracking
Dogfight
Real beam mapping
Doppler beam sharpening
Synthetic aperture imaging
Identify and track moving ground targets
Sea targets searching and tracking
Meteorological mode
Missile guidance and multi targets attack mode

Merits

-long detection range
-High accuracy
-Multi operational modes
-Multi target processing ability

File: 173608zxp5yd2y5zd6dbia.jpg (744KB, 3264x2464px) Image search: [Google]

744KB, 3264x2464px

>>31860422
I hope they will remove the cover and unveil the T/R modules later in the show.

But as it stands, the overexpensive APG-81 and the F-35 is getting BTFO by a Chinese small size monkey model AESA for a fucking upgraded MiG-21.

File: 212333k8jceatagbmfsla8.jpg (135KB, 1200x916px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1200x916px

>>31860432
AESA will be equipped on the JF-17 Block III and B variant.

>>31860414
>capability as the APG-81 of the F-35
And how are the chinks supposed to know the specs of a classified radar?
Sage for low quality bait thread.

File: 123728r6w4xvo4vsbxw46k.jpg (322KB, 1709x960px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1709x960px

So, when even a small export fighter like the JF-17 will have comparable radar to the F-35... What monster would the much larger J-10B/C have?

>>31860450
>And how are the chinks supposed to know the specs of a classified radar?

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-hacked-f22-f35-jet-secrets/

File: thunder 1.jpg (56KB, 1169x759px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1169x759px

>>31860422
Also, the lensflare masks the sentence:

Excellent ECCM capability.

ie. Shit is unjammable

>>31860463
>great, Pong, we now know how many modules there are in an AN/APG-81!
>This means we can produce them!

You're an idiot.

File: 054149zztqlbi23q62pauy.jpg (182KB, 1600x941px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1600x941px

>>31861287
It means that they know the specs.

And China's radar technologies have been superior to that of the US for at least 5 years.

AESA everywhere. Om ships, on SAM, on planes, on AWACS - all while the US still slugs on with obsolete PESA shit that actually needs mechanical rotation for 360° coverage.

TOP KEK.

PS.
Even the non-AESA predecessor of the KLJ-7A could detect the F-22.

>>31861299

We're assuming that, however we don't know to what extend and how much data was stolen.

File: pic.gif (3MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x180px

>>31860422
>Dogfight
They have a radar that dogfights for the jet? Impressive

>-long detection range
>-High accuracy
>-Multi operational modes
>-Multi target processing ability
An AESA with a long detection range, high accuracy and the ability to do more than one thing at a time? See pic

>>31861299
Easiest way to tell that this is BS; the radar equation says that either it should be detecting the F-16 at something like 400km+, or detecting the F-22 at something like 5km, not 120km and 30km.

>>31861375
>They have a radar that dogfights for the jet? Impressive

vertical scan mode.

You dont seem to be a radar buff at all.

kys.

>>31861384
>vertical scan mode.
But how can it scan vertically? Everyone knows radars can only scan left to right and right to left

>>31861392
Stop making me kek during this serious conversation! (Other Anon)

>>31861392
>what is electronically steered array

vertical scan modes is old shit, it just means that the radar beam scan up and down in a fixed line, so that you can pick up the enemy aircraft faster during a turning fight.

AESA scan an entire cone is a matter of mircoseconds, so it will actually have even better dog-fighting capability, as it tracks all enemy fighters within sensor cone.
Dog fight mode just means that the AESA filters out all returns that are not in a set distance close to your own aircraft.

>>31861415
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyM27ofFsmk

At about 1:30 an illustration of the Vertical Scan (VS) mode onboard a Su-27.

>>31861423
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRZIzi80hMY

1:45 using the VS mode during close combat.


I imagine that the AESA will be able to do more than just scanning a tight vertical line of 3 degrees. It will probably be able to scan all 180 degrees towards the front.

>>31860414
>Believing Chink marketing
I expected better, /k/

>>31861433
Lies of a cuckold, please lurk more. You're embarrassing yourself now.

>>31861439

The people posting this are chinks or vatniks.
There are 1-5 threads on Chinese "superweapons lol murrika BTFO" active at all times.

>>31861415
>so that you can pick up the enemy aircraft faster during a turning fight.
What if they're flying in a straight line though? Or what if you're doing a loop?

>AESA scan an entire cone is a matter of mircoseconds
But how many mircoseconds does it take? I heard that the Raptor scans in one mircosecond.

>the AESA filters out all returns that are not in a set distance close to your own aircraft.
But what if you set the distance wrong? Like what if I'm flying my JF-17, I set my KLJ-7A to scan at 200m and the enemy is at 201m?
Or what if I set it to 201m and they get closer so that they're 200m?

>>31861469
>What if they're flying in a straight line though? Or what if you're doing a loop?

if the enemy happens to be within the bracket of the VS scan mode, it they will be locked on. Vertical Scan is just a convenient way to lock on the enemy while you are turning yourself. You know how aircraft turn - you have to point your nose to a direction where your enemy is and pull up. The radar is just set to follow your movement to scan up and down, so that you will get your enemy in a convenient way, as he is equally attempting to out-turn you.

>But how many mircoseconds does it take? I heard that the Raptor scans in one mircosecond.

With an AESA, likely even less than on microsecond.

>But what if you set the distance wrong? Like what if I'm flying my JF-17, I set my KLJ-7A to scan at 200m and the enemy is at 201m?
>Or what if I set it to 201m and they get closer so that they're 200m?

That's unimportant. if you set to dogfigth mode, the radar will lock on all targets that are flying within visual range distance. If any target is further away, chances are that you do not even have any weapons capable of attacking them - and vice versa.

>>31860463
the clintons, most likely

>>31861502
>you have to point your nose to a direction where your enemy is and pull up.
But what if the enemy isn't up?

>With an AESA, likely even less than on microsecond.
But how is that possible? What's smaller than a mircosecond?

>the radar will lock on all targets that are flying within visual range distance
What if they're invisible?

>>31860414
>people will respond to this bait
>people will believe the 50cents
>people will take this seriously

Daily reminder to sage 50cent threads and ignore 50cent posters.

>>31861299
>And China's radar technologies have been superior to that of the US for at least 5 years.

top kek.

>>31861543
if the enemy is in the cone, it will be locked on

a nanosecond

there's no invisibility to a chinese AESA

American radars, on the other hand, are pretty shit and have problems identifying targets, as we could see from the numerous shootdowns of civilian aircraft by Aegis ships...

File: KJ-500H 8509x - 9. NDiv - 1.1.16.jpg (257KB, 1024x590px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1024x590px

>>31861556
You can kek about America's inferiority.

>tfw america will never know the joys of having a three-faced fixed S-band AESA with 470km range.

>>31861565
Begone ching hong.

>>31861557
>one
>numerous

The system identified it as a civilian aircraft. The crew either didn't notice or didn't care.

>>31861565
Too busy keking at chinks utter lack of force projection or offensive military capability. But hey, I'm sure that totally legit and not propaganda in any way radar will be real great for shooting unarmed Tibetans while the big boys fight real wars.

>>31861557
ive never seen someone get as rickrolled as youve been by that other anon youre seriously taking yourself too seriously for daycare

>>31861637
Truly a masta troler 2012.

File: getAsset[1].gif (348KB, 1200x698px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1200x698px

>>31861565
>instead China will never know the joys of having UHF-band AESA with an even longer range

>>31861565
But the an/apy-9 is better then that already.

>>31861693
UHF isnt really accurate, you know...

Good for early warning, but not for accurate track

>>31861999
S-band is UHF

File: radarfrequencies.png (36KB, 1300x280px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1300x280px

>>31862428
...what.

http://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/Waves%20and%20Frequency%20Ranges.en.html

>>31860414
This fucking show just gets better and better.

The credibility of the manufacturers (i hope to god the PLA is not in on this) just slides and slides.

>>31862440
That chart is not accurate, UHF goes up to 3 GHz. S-band is 2-4.

>>31862495
The chart is accurate for IEEE designations.

S band is not UHF in IEEE.

>>31860414
>radiating
>ever

kek

>>31861999
The E-3D can track targets, thats its entire job. With CEC it ill direct missiles to other missiles.

>>31861439
>I expected better, /k/
wait, why?

>>31861375
>>31861392
>>31861469
>>31861543
Thanks for making me chuckle. Someone should cap this gold

>>31861543
Dragon, stop hurting this poor Anon's brain when you know fully well that the scan time for the radar is much less than even a single mircosecond. While it is classified, many report that with how fast the radar controllers operate, it can scan in VSM in only a few pikaseconds.

You also know fully well they use a laser rangefinder to automatically set the radar's bracket distance, which means that as long as the target is visible to infrared, it can be ranged accurately by the radar.

>>31862753
But what if the targets invisible to infrared?

File: 1476373871186.jpg (53KB, 444x467px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 444x467px

>>31860414
Yes Mr. Ching Chong, "Merikkka" totally btfo by [insert latest chink "superweapon"]

>>31862762
Than you can see it with your eyes. Everyone knows stealth is binary and only for one arbitrarily defined wavelength of light.

Can we ban this faggot already? He makes these shit quality bait threads 4 times a day.

>>31862657
>direct a missile towards a 2D 50x50km box

fixed

>>31862831
Nope.

Target ident at over 500 km.

>>31862851
Yes, but with the accuracy of a UHF radar, the best accuracy you will have is a 50km square box where the target 'might be'.

Which is why NFIC whatever was only tested with a F-35 that actually has an X-band radar.

>>31862862
E-2D's are a huge step above the hawkeye E-2C's.

CEC is a cornerstone mission of the E-2Ds, cant do that without quality target tracks.

Based USN cracked the UHF problem.

https://news.usni.org/2014/06/09/u-s-navys-secret-counter-stealth-weapon-hiding-plain-sight

>>31862898
Still question remains whether the E-2D can track a target on its own or only provides general azimuth data to more accurate assets.

>>31862940
Being that the USN stated its qualities, its not really a question.

>"“The E-2D APY-9 radar provides a significantly enhanced airborne early warning and situational awareness capability against all air targets including threat aircraft and cruise missiles"

>>31862959
Yeah, sure. But so does a Type 517H Yagi antennae operating in the VHF band.

Question is the accuracy. VHF/UHF are early warning radars not typically associated with accuracy, since the wavelength is physically too low-energy and long to generate accurate reflections, not to mention updates of fast movign targets.

>>31862976
ASEA in UHF is more advanced than a yagi antenna.

USN did it. Others might catch up.

>>31862976
I guarantee you we're not going to figure it out in this thread.

File: JY-26-radar counter stealth.jpg (51KB, 725x483px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 725x483px

>>31862994
Well, the chinese have shown some VHF AESA some years ago, claiming that it could detect the F-22 from across the yellow sea over South Korea.

Of course, the question about the capability of an AESA in VHF band still remains.

>>31863001
The USN is obviously not relaseing specs, but they outright stated it is better than the already great E-2C

>>31863012
If the E-2C is so great, why is is being so widely exported.

The F-22 isnt exported. Neither the M1A2 with DU armor.

>>31863006
Of course the chinese make grandiose illogical claims (see just about every weapon from the recent show) but the USN is not the chinese.

The capability of the APY-9 is not really in question at all.

File: pcPMhZM.jpg (1008KB, 1550x1033px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 1550x1033px

>>31863029
why not.

as it stands, the chinese have equipped VHF AESA onboard their new Divine Eagle drone and it is being marketed as a counter-stealth surveillance UAV.

Also, the USN arent any better - see LCS and Ford Class.

>>31863017
E-2Cs have been heavily upgraded over the years.

They range from 1977 to the late early 00s.

>>31863017
really makes me think.

>>31863044
>why not.

Because a ground based radar seeing something over another landmass and across a yellow sea speaks volume about the veracity of the claims.

>>31862753
What if i find myself in a negative 4-g dive with a MiG-28?

File: 5685368.jpg (247KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1000x586px

>>31863069
if the F-22 flies close to its ceiling of 18km, it is entirely possible.

Note that Shandong Peninsulla is very close to Korea. Barely 400km. And if the F-22 trained over the Yellow Sea, it is even more possible

>>31860414
I know you are a troll, but, radars are not all made equal. Saying someone has AESA does not equal someone else's AESA. Sort of like saying that two people have 11nm process chips, or both parties have v8s, or anything else.

Great. they have aesa. now get on our tier.

File: CH-805 - 1.jpg (73KB, 980x735px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 980x735px

>>31863006
China doesnt even need the F-22 for target practize: They use the CH-805 stealth target drone which simulates the B-2, F-22 and F-35's signatures to train PLA SAM operators

>>31863109
>they definitely know the radar signature of planes that have never been flown close to them
>china doesn't make felonious claims
pick fucking one.

>>31863087
VHF is pretty well restricted to the horizon unless you're up high. Like the E2

>>31863087
But being over a landmass presents problems, and why would a f-22 be at its service cealing?

>>31863133
F--22s are based in Japan. China's intelligence ships are deployed all around Japan.

>>31863133
They dont need the radar signature of th F-22.

They just need a drone with an RCS of 0,001m2. And that drone provides it.

>>31863155
Actually, its only .01 m^2.

>>31863196
right. overall 0.01 square meters, or -30 dbqm

F-22's vaunted 0.001m is just from its frontal nose aspect.

>>31863206
-20 Dbm

But yeah, its optimized for the front.

>>31863249
Yep, looks like average chinese claims.

>>31863249
>LCA

kek

>>31863249
>Chinese PLAAF food track radar

>>31861543
>What's smaller than a mircosecond?

Nanosecond and picosecond. Raptor is actually into the nanosecond range

>>31862809
What if it's nighttime?

>>31863087
Pretty sure F-22's always fly with their luneberg lense on when outside the US.

>>31860414
$0.50 has been added to your account

>>31863074
Your engine will shit down and you'll have to worry about that instead. See, with those pesky coal fired engines, when you pull negative G the fuel flies out of the boiler all over everything and stops heating steam for the spinny shit.

>>31863509
You should be wearing NVGs, because if you're in the military they have to give you cool shit.