*New J-10 Thread*

If this aint a hoax, its great to see the Chinese improving the J-10. This addition allows the J-10 to possibly carry more fuel, But what other benefits does this have on the aircraft and the views of other countries that are likely to purchase it?

I've never seen it before. When was this particular J-10 made...which production line (CAC?)is it in service?What effects does it have on the J-10 itself?Are there any other new additions further more to this?

Thank you for answering my questions,i really appreciate it

simonov said:

I ever read that J-10 used KLJ radar, what KLJ stand for? Is any chance of J-10 improvement which match F-2 in the future, The F-2 is the first fighter which get AESA radar is it true? thx

Click to expand...

I just know that J-10 uses a radar developed by 14th institute and it used KLJ-3 when it first came out. I'm sure it has been ugpraded since to allow it to fire PL-12 and probably with upgraded capabilities. As for J-10 vs F-2, you guys are really overrating F-2's radar. It really isn't that good. An AESA radar does not make it automatically better than a slotted array radar. In the case of F-2, it has low detection range and F-2's lack of attacking weapons doesn't allow the radar to take advantage of the greater multimode capabilities of AESA radar.

As for that J-10, it's simply a photo of a new J-10B. There is a debate on CDF on what it is used for.

Generally that's a two seater J-10B. The spine is too small to carry fuel, and might possibly carry some avionics. But the main purpose appears to smooth out the drag caused by the enlarged bubble canopy.

KLJ is the NRIET factory designation for one of its radars, mainly for use with fighters. NRIET makes all sorts of radars for different applications, and is also said to be responsible for the radar on the KJ-2000. There are at least 3 radar institutes in China, No. 02 (606?), 607, and no. 14 which is NRIET.

Basically the radar is conservatively estimated to be a mechanical slotted array radar that would put it on the same generational league as the APG-66/68, RDY, Russian Zhuk and ELTA M 2032. Only one photo of a radar exists alleged to to be the KLJ-3. However, there are official pictures of the KLJ-1, KLJ-6E, KLJ-6 and KLJ-7 radars, all are slotted array planar, monopulse with dual lobes, which is very much standard. However, since NRIET has expertise in phase array radar, it's not inconcievable that the plane may have/will have phase array in the near future or even now.

I am considering the prospect that the current radar on the J-10 may not be KLJ-3 but KLJ-7. KANWA has suggested the radar on the FC-1 is KLJ-10.

But what the KLJ stand for? Is KLJ-7 J-10 still capable to engage 2 target? or more target.
Its mean FC-1 radar more advanced than J-10 when they used KLJ-10?

simonov said:

But what the KLJ stand for? Is KLJ-7 J-10 still capable to engage 2 target? or more target.
Its mean FC-1 radar more advanced than J-10 when they used KLJ-10?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the newer PD radars have multi-target engagement capability.

KLJ is most likely an acronym for a Chinese word, like KJ-2000 is Kong Jing 2000. These names are typically used by the developer/manufacturer. If and when it enters service with the PLA/PLAAF, the military assign a "Type" number to it, like "Type 204" Radar. Some day when the KLJ is being marketed at a defense expo, maybe we'd find out exactly what KLJ stands for.

The manufactuer of KLJ radar is Nanjing Research Institute of Electronics Technology (NRIET), they have a web site () but does not show the KLJ radar product, but I think there might be a few pics of the YLC mobile/static radar there. NRIET also includes Nanjing Institute 14, Nanjing Radar Plant 720, and so on.

I guess back when the communist first established all these research institutes, they preferred to use the then-politically correct way of naming by numbers to make it sound more egalitarian. Like Research Institute No. 2, Primary School No. 10, and so on. Then after Deng started economic reforms, these institutes adopted new names to commercialize their civilian/export products.

The other company that's well known for making fighter radars in China is China Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute (LETRI/CLETRI). They make missiles (AMR-1) and radars (JL-10). Here's an interesting find on the net:


If you click on the resume for "Ji Jie":


Ji Jie, a fellow of the Chinese Institute of Electronics, has worked in radar for over 30 years. His career has been spent with the China Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute, Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, China. Mr. Ji has worked on a variety of Chinese airborne radars, including the JL-10.

There are also many other companies and institutes in PRC that makes radar related products. Like Shanghai Instutute of Electron Physics make the HAL-3 radar for Y-10, East China Research Institute of Electronic Engineering (ECRIEE) makes the JY-9, and so on. Wikipedia has a large collection of Chinese military radar listing, it'd be nice if someone would actually create the actual entries and fill in the info. LoL.

Can someone provide a reliable spec on the J-10's radar?

simonov said:

But what the KLJ stand for? Is KLJ-7 J-10 still capable to engage 2 target? or more target.
Its mean FC-1 radar more advanced than J-10 when they used KLJ-10?

Click to expand...

KLJ is factory designation. NRIET uses 3 letter designations. They have radars that they call CLC and SLC for example. If a radar has two letter designations, like JY or JL, its from the other company, Institute no. 607 which I think is Leihua.

So far we know that the KLJ-1 can simultaneously engage two targets but that means nothing when it comes to the radar on the J-10. The APG-68 engages only two targets in all its earlier variants (V3 to V7) and only in its V8 and V9 forms can it engage 4. As a note the APG-66 V2 ROCAF F-16s use only engage 2 and so does the GD-53 radar on the F-CK-1. The RDY on the Mirage 2000-5 however is said to engage 4 and the J-10's parameters are said to be designed to counter it. Furthermore, the Russian Zhemchug proposed for the J-10 also engages 4, which makes me think that the design parameters for the J-10 has this requirement. For that reason, although lacking direct solid evidence, I am betting the J-10's multiple targeting might be at 4.

I suspect that the FC-1's radar might be a little bit more advanced than the J-10 because the FC-1 has the advantage of later design input, just like we have seen with the cockpit design. But that advancement is more on the refinement level, not a big leap like say, in the design of the antenna. Both radars are likely to be still mechanically slotted planar arrays with monopulse. Despite any refinement, the FC-1 faces a disadvantage that the radar cone is smaller than the J-10's and that means its array is smaller and less receptive.

crobato said:

KLJ is factory designation. NRIET uses 3 letter designations. They have radars that they call CLC and SLC for example. If a radar has two letter designations, like JY or JL, its from the other company, Institute no. 607 which I think is Leihua.

So far we know that the KLJ-1 can simultaneously engage two targets but that means nothing when it comes to the radar on the J-10. The APG-68 engages only two targets in all its earlier variants (V3 to V7) and only in its V8 and V9 forms can it engage 4. As a note the APG-66 V2 ROCAF F-16s use only engage 2 and so does the GD-53 radar on the F-CK-1. The RDY on the Mirage 2000-5 however is said to engage 4 and the J-10's parameters are said to be designed to counter it. Furthermore, the Russian Zhemchug proposed for the J-10 also engages 4, which makes me think that the design parameters for the J-10 has this requirement. For that reason, although lacking direct solid evidence, I am betting the J-10's multiple targeting might be at 4.

I suspect that the FC-1's radar might be a little bit more advanced than the J-10 because the FC-1 has the advantage of later design input, just like we have seen with the cockpit design. But that advancement is more on the refinement level, not a big leap like say, in the design of the antenna. Both radars are likely to be still mechanically slotted planar arrays with monopulse. Despite any refinement, the FC-1 faces a disadvantage that the radar cone is smaller than the J-10's and that means its array is smaller and less receptive.

Click to expand...

sales brochure radar range for FC-1 quote at 130km .(3m?)
selex is offering AESA for PAF FC-1,the radar will have 500 T/R module.

Is anyone know the J-10 Specs? In CDT only said the range is 550km, and load capacitys is 4,5t. how about the others like G-limit, lenghth, n otehrs?

simonov said:

I ever read that J-10 used KLJ radar, what KLJ stand for? Is any chance of J-10 improvement which match F-2 in the future, The F-2 is the first fighter which get AESA radar is it true? thx

Click to expand...

The Japanese F-2 is most likely the first fighter to be fitted with the AESA radar. The F-2 became operational in the mid-1990's. Likewise Japan first deployed an AESA radar on a warship in 1989(sourced from a posting in CDF).