JF-17 Thunder Discussions

That last video is about the LKF601E AESA radar. We don’t have a DTT mode with KLJ-7

Yes it does. They even show it in their Air to Air video...

The point isnt AESA vs Slotted Planar Array Radar.

The point is that DTT, fundamentally, only detects the two targets. It will not scan for any other targets like they showed in their video.

I forgot it will have DTT, but it seems the video is showing TWS, not DTT, does it show DTT in the academic video somewhere?

EDIT: watching the video again I see DTT as a sub mode of TWS

I forgot it will have DTT, but it seems the video is showing TWS, not DTT, does it show DTT in the academic video somewhere?

1:27 in the video

I meant the academic video by Deka, but I did find it in the TWS section. Being TWS I would think that would mean utilizing the full number of searched for targets, not only two. IIRC ten in TWS, while DTT probsbly referring to a hard lock only on two but not precluding the tracking of other targets up to ten

Looks like a lot of different symbology in that video, not sure the software is the same, especially for the one with LKF601E

EDIT: I will credit that video with being the only thing I’ve seen showing that the two panels on the bottom inboard the chaff dispensers are air brakes in addition to the two on top

Being TWS I would think that would mean utilizing the full number of searched for targets, not only two. IIRC ten in TWS, while DTT probsbly referring to a hard lock only on two but not precluding the tracking of other targets up to ten

 

Looks like a lot of different symbology in that video, not sure the software is the same, especially for the one with LKF601E

DTT.. In all radars that have "DTT".. is just STT switched out between two targets.

Otherwise it would just be normal TWS with two bugged targets.

The reason is really beyond the scope of this conversation, but since ppl want to debate things they have no knowledge about:

-------

What you are describing (tracking multiple targets while still scanning for others) is called TWS.

DTT is separate from TWS and SAM. It does not track targets while scanning, otherwise its existence wouldn't be necessary.

Unlike TWS, DTT only cares about two targets. It quickly switches between the target its locked on to to ensure a very high update rate on both threats.

Now you may be thinking, 'well if the antenna has to sweep between each of the targets, it mine as well try to detect some new targets while it sweeps back and forth between the two targets..

However, you'd be wrong to think this. The speed at which the radar antenna scans is actually limited by the amount of time on target the radar needs to detect on object at range. These radars integrate many pulses in order to detect a target. If the radar scanned too fast, it may not transmit enough pulses on the target. Thus, fighter radars are slowed down to ensure the radar has enough time on target (which is also a factor of the 3dB beamwidth) to perform an integration of N pulses.

In the case of DTT, the priority as determined by the pilot is just those two targets. To accomplished 'duel single target track' the radar needs to spend as much time as possible on each target, and as little time as possible scanning between them.

In TWS/RWS/Every other scan mode, the speed is slowed down to emit N pulses within each beam width.

In DTT the antenna speed = the max gimbal speed (just like how STT has a different antenna speed than RWS in other radars). Thus the radar moves too fast to transmit enough pulses to perform sufficient pulse integration. If it slowed down its scan, it's update rate on the two priority targets would suffer to the point that their "track quality" would come down to the quality level of normal TWS.

Using the video of the JF-17 AESA was just used as an example of DTT logic, because it showed the radar ignore the azimuth areas that did not have the two targets.

-------

Why is DTT shown in different places? In the AESA video it’s under top OSB 1, but in the Deka video under top OSB 1 it shows TWS and then DTT is under top OSB 2, as if it’s a sub mode of TWS. Hard to read what’s under top OSB 2 in the AESA video. Exact implementation of TWS changes radar to radar, why wouldn’t DTT?

I do appreciate this conversation, I have learned a bit about DTT I didn’t notice before

I’m not trying to pick a fight, I just think it’s within feasibility that an AESA would operate quite differently and the software as well

I'll share a little info from the ASM team.

1. The radar is shown to have 4 bar 120 degree scan capability in TWS. Is this a bug or do you guys believe the radar can do this? I would think full TWS would limit scan volume to maintain trackfile update rate. The images below shows TWS go to a plus/minus 25 degree scan (50 degree total scan).

Radar scan patterns are still being tweaked ATM. For TWS, the supported scan patterns are:

±60°, 2 bar

±25°, 3 bar

±10°, 4 bar

2. SAM mode should also limit the azimuth and bar area as seen in available SAM mode picture below. (plus or minus 30 degrees)

Correct.

3. The left azmiuth indicator should read the plus & minus azimuth scan, not the total scan.

Correct.

4. In VS and RWS you show trackfiles (target ALT and vector) instead of "hits" or "bricks". Was this intentional or another bug? VS definitely shouldn't have a target vector, and RWS probably wouldn't either unless Latent TWS was being performed.

Those should be IFF symbols but it wouldn't show target vector. Still being tweaked.

5. Will the "EXP" option be added to TWS as seen in the first 2 pictures?

Would definitely be added.

6. The lower left bearing and range indicator looks like it can also work when a target isn't locked or soft locked. Thus is must be relative to your own aircraft in that case. See pic below.

It actually shows the direction/distance from the cursor to HPT according to our source.

7. DTT mode should not continue to scan for additional targets. DTT is like STT but switching back and forth between the two targets. Proof below in KLJ-7 replacement footage. Watch the antenna position while radar is in DTT.

Correct. In the video you provided, the AESA radar actually tracked 4 targets at the same time, but somehow kept the term DTT.

Questions about the radar shown in the Air to Air video

 

1. The radar is shown to have 4 bar 120 degree scan capability in TWS. Is this a bug or do you guys believe the radar can do this? I would think full TWS would limit scan volume to maintain trackfile update rate. The images below shows TWS go to a plus/minus 25 degree scan (50 degree total scan).

 

 

 

Footage from this video shows TWS limited to a 50 degree sweep in a 3 or 4 bar (hard to tell) scan.

 

2. SAM mode should also limit the azimuth and bar area as seen in available SAM mode picture below. (plus or minus 30 degrees)

 

 

Going off the information above, (SAM mode with a 4 bar / 60 degree total scan) the KLJ-7 would be able to do a 2 bar / 120 degree scan but not a 4 bar / 120 degree scan.

 

 

 

(time start: 1:25)

 

I really hope we get cappabilities based on real documentation, not guesstimates that results in an OP fighter with AESA like features.

I guess most of them are bugs and they will be corrected.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Thank you LJQCN101! Guess I was wrong about DTT! Thanks for the patience Beamscanner

Thanks LJQCN101

You guys are killing it

not guesstimates that results in an OP fighter with AESA like features.

As I've already stated, that video has nothing to do with the JF-17's KLJ-7 radar. I showed it because it shows that DTT modes do not search for targets and only track to two locked targets. The DTT in Deka's air to air video had the radar doing a normal 120 degree scan while in DTT, which was not correct.

Why is DTT shown in different places? In the AESA video it’s under top OSB 1, but in the Deka video under top OSB 1 it shows TWS and then DTT is under top OSB 2, as if it’s a sub mode of TWS. Hard to read what’s under top OSB 2 in the AESA video. Exact implementation of TWS changes radar to radar, why wouldn’t DTT?

I do appreciate this conversation, I have learned a bit about DTT I didn’t notice before

 

I’m not trying to pick a fight, I just think it’s within feasibility that an AESA would operate quite differently and the software as well

There is without a doubt different software, and AESAs do operate much differently than Slotted Planar arrays.

But that's not what I was referring to. DTT is a technique, not a technology.

Similar to say how High PRF detection logic is similar between many radars of different manufacturers and even between AESAs and mechanical radars.

I know Beamscanner, I was just stating a concern. I hope any current bugs will be corrected though, to stay true to RL limitations.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Can we learn how the SD-10 will compare in DCS to AIM-120B/C? Also, will SD-10 and PL-5EII be usable by J-11 in the future?

Can we learn how the SD-10 will compare in DCS to AIM-120B/C? Also, will SD-10 and PL-5EII be usable by J-11 in the future?

According to the range we saw at around 25k altitude, it's somewhere between the aim120b & c.

Our coders were fix/tweak/moidify ing the code while the video is recording:)

bit by bit, limitations will be applied, bugs will be fixed.

All we want is, your guys point out which is wrong or not reasonable.

About the French strike we even know how much failed. So need to go into conspiracy. :music_whistling:

My simple point in the discussion is that I wouldn't trust either claim too much. The syrians/russians probably did get some of the missiles, maybe even a minority, and demonstrably they didn't get them all. Look, if you are in the hardware selling business you want your product to look good, and everyone lies or exaggerates to some degree. No conspiracy required.

So I came across this article

 

http://defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=581797 which is almost a year old, I wonder what the outcome was.

 

Would be really nice to include JF17 forn Iran in DCS even though mayne not realistic.

What do you think?

 

By the way, art in this article looks familiar ...

Well, for MP servers in the gulf its not much of stretch to have it the iranian side, especially for balance reasons (If the gulf states get the f16 which they operate, and the F18 representing USN/USMC). Though credibly it could be on either side, since I think the Saudis, or some of the other gulf states showed interest too.

I am not sure I am getting your point Harlikwin, but that's coz I don't have any experience with DCS multiplayer other than a single flight with one other person. I guess you know what you are talking about, and possibly this is also not related, but are you suggesting that people who play MP don't want Iran because map is too small for them?

Anyway JF17 by Deka looks good in the air so far, and it also helps that Pakistani border is included in the PG map, so there are options for some scenarios at least.

I am not sure I am getting your point Harlikwin, but that's coz I don't have any experience with DCS multiplayer other than a single flight with one other person. I guess you know what you are talking about, and possibly this is also not related, but are you suggesting that people who play MP don't want Iran because map is too small for them?

Anyway JF17 by Deka looks good in the air so far, and it also helps that Pakistani border is included in the PG map, so there are options for some scenarios at least.

Iran also considered getting the JF17 (and may still be) I don't know how far negotiations got. But just on that premise its no issue to imagine Iran could have them.

I am not sure I am getting your point Harlikwin, but that's coz I don't have any experience with DCS multiplayer other than a single flight with one other person. I guess you know what you are talking about, and possibly this is also not related, but are you suggesting that people who play MP don't want Iran because map is too small for them?

Anyway JF17 by Deka looks good in the air so far, and it also helps that Pakistani border is included in the PG map, so there are options for some scenarios at least.

In SP, I'd say have the JF17 available for all plausible colalitions/users, it is after all an export fighter.

For MP I generally meant this. The JF17 is considered my most to be a "red" "bad guy" aircraft. On most MP servers Iran is the "bad guy". Currently if you look at the MP servers plane sets, they try to vaguely balance it so its fun, so Iran typically gets F14B's even though they don't have them, an viggens (to approximate F4's?) and on some servers M2K's to approximate clicky pit mig29's in terms of capabilities (ironic since they are operated by the UAE IIRC) in addition to the various FC3 aircraft. My point was simply that since it is a plausible aircraft for Iran (as opposed to the F16), then Iran will most likely get them for MP use. And they desperately need some sort of modern clicky multirole aircraft to "balance" out the F18, and most likely the F16 will go to the gulf states/US coalitions since they are all operators of the F16. Given the EA state of the F16, its not going upset anything, since its less capable than the hornet right now. Anyhow, hopefully that makes sense.

Also there aren't any pakistan airbases on the PG map so thats a moot point/scenario.

I'm sure the MP caucus servers will also give the JF17 to the "red" side, since its the best thing going for "red air" and capability wise is probably about like a modernized mig29.

Iran also considered getting the JF17 (and may still be) I don't know how far negotiations got. But just on that premise its no issue to imagine Iran could have them.

Well if we are talking premises, they could get the F16 too, since Venezuela considered selling their F16's to them.

Our coders were fix/tweak/moidify ing the code while the video is recording:)

bit by bit, limitations will be applied, bugs will be fixed.

 

All we want is, your guys point out which is wrong or not reasonable.

Careful... you guys may end up getting another customer (me) if you keep being reasonable like this :)

What do the non-trackfile radar hits look like?

I've only found one picture of a Chinese radar brick, but from a different chinese fighter radar.

Perhaps no IFF return = red rectangle??

What do the non-trackfile radar hits look like?

 

I've only found one picture of a Chinese radar brick, but from a different chinese fighter radar.

 

 

Perhaps no IFF return = red rectangle??

Or red is dead? Though that could get confusing since this is a "red" bird :megalol:

Red = Mode 1-3 got reply but code mismatch.

Yellow = no response (including Mode 6 challenge failed)

Green = code match or Mode 6 challenge passed

Red = Mode 1-3 got reply but code mismatch.

Yellow = no response (including Mode 6 challenge failed)

Green = code match or Mode 6 challenge passed

Can you explain what Mode 1-3 represent in the JF-17? From the wikipedia definition, you'd expect Mode 1-3 to come back as a mismatch for lots of friendlies because mode 1 is the mission type and other friendlies might be on a different mission, and mode 2 is the code for your tail number which should be unique, and mode 3 is assigned by the ground controller / is used to provide altitude information.

Or is there a different definition in the JF-17?