chola wrote:Karan ji, if they went the traditional commie route they would have spent even more money and ended up with even less performance had they just one program. That had always been the weakness of the soviet system versus the Western market place. Cheen is aping the US system.
I actually don't think they spent more money (as in specific program directed money for all of these radars.)
The fact they have multiple firms making airborne AESA -- and we know from the experience of their drone industry that there are always others who can enter the race - actually means they are getting prototypes of products being pitched to the military without funding.
You are just repeating the same thing again. Their drone industry is nowhere comparable to making radars. Its not the same. Please understand how complex and expensive making radars is, especially airborne ones, as versus just going to a field and launching drone designs to experiment.
You also don't understand the depth of competence in the Soviet system which the PRC has copied, and are disparaging it without understanding how technically proficient the Soviet system was. NIIP and Phazatron were the 2 primary Soviet designers, with their manufacturers & suppliers being shared amongst them. NIIP is part & parcel of the Almaz Antey group which to this date makes some of the leading SAM systems in the world. And in recent years, to avoid duplication of efforts, KRET is the umbrella defence avionics organization under which all these firms now operate. And it was Phazatron which supplanted Elta in providing technology transfers to China for its airborne radars.
Hence, it makes absolute sense why PRC copied the Russian system with 2 labs and yet, even the Russians realize the amount of waste they had by duplicating efforts in 2 labs, once the Soviet Union collapsed and funding for multiple programs dried out and are now forcing standardization. Zhuk MSE vs N011, Zhuk MSFE vs Bars, then Irbis. Multiple AESA designs at Phaza none of which enter service (but design gets transferred to PRC). Phaza is to NIIP what LETRI is to NRIET.
The LETRI air cooled model (LKF601E) is most likely an unfunded product versus the NRIET KLJ-7A which is a follow-on to the current Bandar KLJ-7. In fact, the KLJ-7A might not be funded by the PLA either and is only an export product. The sanctioned AESA sets on the J-20/-16/-10C are different from these and probably from each other. So domestically there are many options for Cheen and possibly for the PAF. (Many being a relative term since even the US has two main airborne suppliers in Northrup and Raytheon.)
Air cooled is a fancy way of saying, here's a radar which may perform worse but at least you don't have to fit in expensive and heavy cooling equipment. PS: NRIET/LETRI are the manufacturer of the entire fighter radar line up for the PLAAF. And no, domestically there are *not* many options for these fighters, only 2 designers.
If this gets complex, the US will likely move to block it. At this moment its most likely component suppliers given the license after they proved the Russians were providing similar gear and it would be stupid of the UK to miss out on the deal.
Its fairly obvious that the PRC worldview is very much shaped by taking what other's do and improving upon it, to get things done "quickly". This is the reverse of the Indian indigenization fetish, wherein we have to prove we can do everything on our own.
Cao Yunhe, an award-winning military radar scientist at Xidian University in Xian, capital of northwest China’s Shaanxi province, said the export licence was good news for China’s military strength and radar research.
“If they are willing to sell we are willing to buy,” he said. “We want to know how their systems operate. It will help us improve our own design,” he said.
However, it was unlikely the technology and equipment being sold by Britain would be its most advanced.
“There will always be some restrictions. If not on quantity, then on quality,” he said.
Award winner is all too eager to copy other folks work.. yet to see a single desi scientist jumping up and down over Su-30 TOT gasping at how copying Russian stuff would help desi MMR. And is ok with lesser quality gear too..
..and confirmed by..
Wang Tong, who is also from Xidian University and works on radar systems for China’s military aircraft and satellites, said the exchanges between Chinese and British experts would not go “too deep”.
Britain shares a lot of intelligence with the US, so China could not possibly allow British experts to get directly involved in its military radar programmes, he said,
“Sharing information about models and specifications is strictly prohibited. I believe both sides are fully aware of the consequences,” Wang said.
We have American and British guys visit and provide general information, they also get awards etc. US/Brit suppliers also supply us many subsystems for prototypes.
At the end we have to do the heavy lifting, period.
The PRC approach has been to take other peoples designs & instead of working things out from first principles, take what works and then try to improve it for rapid gains.
And this approach can flop or cause severe issues if the external TOT is not easy to master OR has growth limitations.
The Russians themselves ditched the Gen1 AESA designs at Phazatron and moved to newer architectures.
The real power behind the Chinese FCR throne is Phazatron. The initial Chinese FCRs (variants of which made their way to the Flankers) were virtual replicas of Phazatron prototypes and I had posted an interview from the head of Phazatron who was happy his organization was supplying components and designs en masse to China.
That was Phase1 of the Chinese FCR program and ended up giving them FCRs that went on the J-10, the various Flanker variants.
Phase 2 was to move to AESA. Again, a Ukrainian firm gave them the design & production assistance for their first large Naval AESA (with whatever they had at the time) & the Israelis helped them with manufacturing AESA modules with reliability for their AWACS programs. Before assistance could get to the critical X-Band area, the US had Israel pull the plug.
The Russians were themselves behind the compact AESA game but were all too eager to share what they had from Phazatron to keep that agency going. The initial FGA-29 tech ended up with Russia.
Russia was ok with this as its primary radar house was now NIIP and its Irbis-E was also made available later, once the Byelka AESA program for the PAK-FA picked up.
Today, PRC are struggling with the fighter AESAs. Instructive. This just shows how their approach has been to cobble together whatever they could spread across multiple programs, rather than a single methodical approach driven by one lab working from first principles.
This article quotes events which have occurred from quite a long back & is upset the Israelis continue to show some amount of deference to the PRC. No evidence of radar transfers or tech transfers. It doesn't in anyway state that the Israelis never left the Chini market. If they hadn't left, there would be no space for the Russians.
Heck, the initial PRC AESA' FCRs were virtual architectural clones of the Phazatron Zhuk AE FGA-29 which was languishing as NIIP was chosen to supply the PAK-FA radar.
IMHO the PAF has options for AESA because the chini system resembles the US one with multiple firms/agencies hawking models on their own.
The effectiveness of their AESA sets can be argued but not the fact that they have them and have them in various varieties on established PLA aircraft and in export forms.
You are just repeating the same things again & again, with zero evidence that for the airborne segment, there are any other options beyond the first 2, NRIET and LETRI.
You have come to a conclusion the Chini system resembles the US one to a T, and are force fitting the facts to fit the narrative, which makes for a flawed analysis. Nor is there any evidence the Chinese AESAs are available in quantity on their domestic birds. Fuzzy pics/staged PR are a PRC specialty.
And, here as I had expected above, PRC's public song and dance apart, here is the reality noted in the latest submission of the USG to the Senate etc.
the J-20 may have begun active service in small numbers, possibly with a testing and training unit. A modified FC-31 prototype made its first flight in late December 2016, although production is unlikely to begin until at least 2019. China is having difficulty with the engines and radars for these aircraft.
The entire USG submission is about playing up the Red China threat to get more funds. And yet, this bit was included. Says it all, really.
JF-17 RWR, not Chinese, replaced with Indra (Spain's) RWR. Why? Even India had to struggle a lot with RWRs, we are still mastering them. Look simple, but for supersonic fighters, anything but. And clearly PRC is in the same boat.
For entire avionics kit, PAF did everything it could to replace RWR/EW/Radar/SD-10 with French RC-400/EW/RWR/Mica/IRST. India scuppered this deal with its own deal for expensive Mirage 2000 upgrades. One of our rare diplomatic successes re: military gear which we don't advertise for obvious reasons. Again, the bigger reason is why did PAF prefer a "less powerful" radar/missile etc combination than what it was getting from PRC?
The answers are obvious. PAF Chief went to international airpower conference (where he made a presentation on PAF using US Goodrich pods, FLIR on C-130 as BDA tools for F-16 PGM strikes) and complained about Indian interference in his procurement. Very angry, lol.
It added up then, and clearly still remains an issue.
I am glad PRC remains stuck with some of its own pork barrel inefficiencies. These structural issues are not easy to change, e,g. India with OFB, especially in a country like PRC with complex political ties of patronage and power.