tanlixiang28776
SENIOR MEMBER
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/Lt.Colonel.jpg)
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,948
- Reaction score
- 0
Is it true the F 2's radar is ineffective beyond 40 Km?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You don't know how good the J-20 could be.
Is it true the F 2's radar is ineffective beyond 40 Km?
In military matters no.
Their military hardware is either
1. license produced American weapons. ie Kawasaki OH 1, Mitsubishi F 15, Mitsubishi f 4
2. directly bought from America. ie Lockheed P 3, MLRS
3. Heavily based on existing US platforms. ie F 2, CX
4. Full of American subsystems, and armnament. ie Kongo class
5. average analogues of other modern equipment self produced.
They are perhaps 50 percent self sufficient on military weapons. Most of the truly high end weapons like fighters, and missiles are either directly imported or license produced.
So its actually you who has no idea what you are talking about.
They did develop it indigenously, which was later examined examined by Raytheon officials and found to be lacking in some areas and software glitches and has about 810 T/R modules. But has advanced jamming capability.
Emphasis on the highlighted part.
---------- Post added at 12:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 AM ----------
False, somewhere i read it's about 160 km.
This is the AESA radar built by Mitsubishi
![]()
![]()
It has around 808 T/R modules, now do you think this kind of radar can have so poor range?
That is a bit misleading. Effective radar range heavily depends on physical array dimension. Of course, you can simply pour as much power into a certain antenna as your power supply can give, but then your system would be no more effective than the MIG-25's radar where it could 'burn through' any jamming but the system was so crappy that it could give the pilot no more than the target's general direction. Personally, I prefer target resolutions over distance, those are: altitude, speed, heading, and aspect angle. Kinda like quality over quantity. With today's smaller aircrafts but increasing lethality per aircraft, resolution cell is even more important than ever...Is it true the F 2's radar is ineffective beyond 40 Km?
An AESA system is far superior in beamforming than the classical concave or flat planar array in creating very tight beams. The tighter the beam, the smaller the resolution cell. The smaller the resolution cell, the more difficult it is for small aircrafts to escape detection or hide their true numbers by grouping themselves together and appearing as a single blob.The volume of space that is occupied by a radar pulse and that is determined by the pulse duration and the horizontal and vertical beamwidths of the transmitting radar. Note: The radar cannot distinguish between two separate objects that lie within the same resolution cell.
My opinion is that this is more of an intellectual exercise, albeit a narrowly focused one, on the 'hows' of designing a genuinely low radar observable aircraft body from paper. If the Japanese are to design one such aircraft for deployment, we can scratch off what we see here, even more so if American technical assistance is offered.Do you know what is the proposed engine? Is Japan going to design one from scratch?? Or will they use one from P&W or GE?? Wikipedia says that its going to be developed indigenously and its 10-20 tons of thrust. Its wiki so I take it with a grain of salt but 10-20K thrust per engine is incredibly low. Its also supposedly smaller than the Gripen, which make no sense (your internal weapons bay is going to be small as hell). It would have issues with combat range.