LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Read this: https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20190209.aspxBut is the B-52G as capable as a B-1B?
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.
Read this: https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20190209.aspxBut is the B-52G as capable as a B-1B?
There is something called Moore's Law.Let us go by date of introduction into service:
F-22 - 2005
J-20 - 2017
J-20 has been in service for 3 years and so may not have had time for even one upgrade yet, whereas the 15 years for F-22 have allowed 3 so far and a fourth to come.
F-22 version 4 radar is going against J-20 version 1 or at most J-20 version 2 radar.
I don't think that China is that much behind the USA in radar tech but still think they are a good 5-10 years behind the USA now.
Oh come on your argument just simply does not make any sense. We know the first J-20 prototype rolled out in December 2010, which is almost 10 years ago, with the AESA radar on board then. Do you assume there has been no variation in that radar in the 10 years since then? Of course the J-20s produced in 2017 will have improved variants of the AESA radar in the original prototype. Regarding the 5 to 10 years behind ... I don't know but I feel throwing arbitrary numbers around is not a good practice at all. The baseline Type 1475 radar is already more advanced than upgraded APG-77 variants due to the much newer design used ... think about the capability of an upgraded Type 1475 radar now. Unlike something like aeroengines, which require long term investment and development, radar tech evolves a lot in ten years.Let us go by date of introduction into service:
F-22 - 2005
J-20 - 2017
J-20 has been in service for 3 years and so may not have had time for even one upgrade yet, whereas the 15 years for F-22 have allowed 3 so far and a fourth to come.
F-22 version 4 radar is going against J-20 version 1 or at most J-20 version 2 radar
I don't think that China is that much behind the USA in radar tech but still think they are a good 5-10 years behind the USA now.
Moore's Law does not really matter here because the chips used in radars do not have to be very small or advanced.There is something called Moore's Law.
Motherboard cannot be replaced?Sure, if the casing was the only issue. The problem is you're upgrading on the same motherboard. Like I said, new toys on a old platform makes a really nice old platform.
The baseline Type 1475 radar is already more advanced than upgraded APG-77 variants due to the much newer design used ... think about the capability of an upgraded Type 1475 radar now.
It is very difficult arguing with you because your underlying assumption is that the J-20s radar does not receive any upgrades from the time it was first developed to now whereas the F-22 receives continually upgrades. Note I am not disputing the latter but I am disputing the former.No, you are saying my argument does not make sense as it does not fit your narrative.
Of course it makes sense that you start off with the original start of service.
J-20 started off with production radar version 1 in 2017, like F-22 started off with production radar version 1 in 2005.
Shall we instead go all the way back to 1997 for the F-22 prototype radar then and say it would have been upgraded by 2005 when it came into service?
"The baseline Type 1475 radar is already more advanced than upgraded APG-77 variants due to the much newer design used"
What does "advanced" mean in this case?
Do you have actual figures for F-22 radar's detection range, multi-target tracking capability, jamming and LPI capability etc and figures for J-20 as a comparison?
Just because China's J-20 came into service 12 years later that does not necessarily mean it had a better radar than the F-22 at the time. I can concede that the current radar on the J-20 is probably better than the original F-22 radar but not the latest version that has had no less than 3 upgrades and design improvements from the F-35 and F-16 Block 70 radars incorporated into them.
So you believe that the J-20 radar that came out in 2017, which itself has already undergone upgrades in the nearly 10 years since its inception, only at the same level as the 2005 F-22 radar? Are you serious? This assumption would only make sense if Chinese technological advancement progressed at equal speed as that of the US and also the Chinese having a large gap in radar to begin with, both of which are faulty positions to say the least. Your radar argument is even less coherent and more mind-boggling than the engine argument you spewed out a couple of weeks back.Just because China's J-20 came into service 12 years later that does not necessarily mean it had a better radar than the F-22 at the time. I can concede that the current radar on the J-20 is probably better than the original F-22 radar but not the latest version that has had no less than 3 upgrades and design improvements from the F-35 and F-16 Block 70 radars incorporated into them.
So you believe that the J-20 radar that came out in 2017, which itself has already undergone upgrades in the nearly 10 years since its inception, only at the same level as the 2005 F-22 radar? Are you serious? This assumption would only make sense if Chinese technological advancement progressed at equal speed as that of the US and also the Chinese having a large gap in radar to begin with, both of which are faulty positions to say the least.
I could buy this if the F-22s were retrofitted with the APG-81 but not if its just some variant of the APG-77. Even you said it yourself that the J-20s radar was designed over ten years after that of the APG-77 ... please tell me then how does the APG-77 retain a lead over the Type 1475 (J-20s radar) considering both countries have similar developmental progress of AESA radars? As I mentioned earlier, you can upgrade the B-52 all you want (and maybe to the extent that it is a new aircraft entirely), but is it going to be better than a B-1B?No as I already said the 2017 J-20 radar is probably better than the 2005 F-22 radar.
What I think is that the 2020 F-22 radar is a little ahead of the 2020 J-20 radar, especially if the J-20 still has it's original production radar.
If you look at iterations of US fighters like the F-16, the later iterations of the radar in those fighters were some way better than the initial production radar.
I don't think it is fair to compare civilian electronics accessory with AESA radar development. Please tell me how this links to AESA radar?@Figaro
The YEAR based logic is not a sound metric when it comes to evaluating technologies across countries. To give you some perspective, have a good look at where the latest Chinese x86 microprocessors unveiled in 2020 stand relative to x86 microprocessors released by more established brands: https://www.tomshardware.com/features/zhaoxin-kx-u6780a-x86-cpu-tested
“It's clear from our tests today that Zhaoxin still lags the leaders of the processor market, which comes as a side effect of both lagging process technology and architecture. The Zhaoxin KX-U6780A suffered at the hands of its relatively tame 2.7 GHz clock speed throughout our test suite, and we don't think the flagship's extra 300 MHz would significantly change the overall outcome.
AMD and Intel have the advantage of decades of research and development, not to mention pioneering roles in the evolution of the x86 instruction set. That makes it extremely hard for any newcomer, x86 or otherwise, to establish a competitive product. We've often heard comparisons of the KX-6000 series to Intel's seventh-gen Core i5 series, but those are obviously borne of a very narrow selection of tests, if not a single test, used as a comparison point.
It's safe to say that Intel doesn't have to worry about meaningful competition from Zhaoxin yet, and the same goes for AMD. Even AMD's outdated Bristol Ridge chips with Excavator v2 cores were enough to stave off the challenger – we didn't even have to bring a Zen 2 processor into the test pool for AMD to enjoy a healthy performance lead.”
Get the memo now?
Not at all.
I'm not sure where you got the maximum detection range from. Nanjing never released any statistics on that ... the T/R module count was leaked out and that is correct. From the data published, the AN/APG-77 has 1500 T/R modules while the AN/APG-81 has over 1600. Of course, radar performance should not be solely based of T/R module numbers but how does this prove anything?@Figaro
I understand that China want to equip J-20 with best possible technologies at its disposal but what are the claimed performance parameters of NRIET Type 1475 radar system to begin with? There are so many variables to consider outside marketing hype.
The original AN/APG-77 is a 3rd generation AESA radar system in strictly American terms. The AN/APG-77(v)1 is a complete redesign of the original variant to bring it on par with 4th generation AESA radar systems in use.
1st generation AESA = URR (1985)
2nd generation AESA = ATF (1989)
3rd generation AESA = AN/AGP-77 (1996)
4th generation AESA = AN/APG-80; ANAPG-77(v)1; AN/APG-81; SABR
There are further advances in American radar systems – revolutionary advances to say the least.
Coming back to NRIET Type 1475 radar system:
T/R module count = 1856
Maximum detection range = 370 KM
LPI
What else?
Even in crude comparison, it is easy to pinpoint that AN/APG-77(v)1 have superior performance parameters.
Mistranslation by IHS Janes. The KLJ-7A itself uses technologies in the Type 1475 according to the Chinese report ... but Janes misinterpreted it to be the Chinese are going to use the KLJ-7A into the J-20. And given the size of the J-20s nose, a much more powerful radar than the KLJ-7A would be placed.@Figaro
Rumors are circulating that China is looking forward to replace Type 1475 with KLJ-7A radar system. True or not?
Sorry but what am I pushing here at all? The other poster was the one who started this whole mess. Never did I ever say that Chinese radar technology was equal or exceeded that of the US ... all I said was that they are roughly comparable (i.e. on a similar level). I called him out on making sweeping statements without any solid evidence, whether it be numbers or concrete developments, just as I did on the engine thread. If he came here with solid evidences and numbers, then we can have a meaningful discussion and come to an agreement. But when he says "I will bet my money" on this or that occurring, you know it becomes a poor discussion. Note @LeGenD I do not have any problems with your postings because you provide evidence, which makes the argument/debate substantive. But when someone comes in here with a blanket assertion and no solid evidence (especially numbers) to back up his/her claims, then that is a problem.@Figaro
Appreciate your advances man but do not push the narrative.
There is much more to F-22A Raptor than meets the eye.
This whole “Country ABC trying to bridge the gap” mantra is completely overblown in social media platforms. Americans are like 2 – 3 decades ahead than all countries in the world when it comes to fielding technologies, mind you.
Not yet at least. And what do you mean "what is the prize"?Is there a export version?
And if there is, what is the prize?
@Figaro
The YEAR based logic is not a sound metric when it comes to evaluating technologies across countries. To give you some perspective, have a good look at where the latest Chinese x86 microprocessors unveiled in 2020 stand relative to x86 microprocessors released by more established brands: https://www.tomshardware.com/features/zhaoxin-kx-u6780a-x86-cpu-tested
“It's clear from our tests today that Zhaoxin still lags the leaders of the processor market, which comes as a side effect of both lagging process technology and architecture. The Zhaoxin KX-U6780A suffered at the hands of its relatively tame 2.7 GHz clock speed throughout our test suite, and we don't think the flagship's extra 300 MHz would significantly change the overall outcome.
AMD and Intel have the advantage of decades of research and development, not to mention pioneering roles in the evolution of the x86 instruction set. That makes it extremely hard for any newcomer, x86 or otherwise, to establish a competitive product. We've often heard comparisons of the KX-6000 series to Intel's seventh-gen Core i5 series, but those are obviously borne of a very narrow selection of tests, if not a single test, used as a comparison point.
It's safe to say that Intel doesn't have to worry about meaningful competition from Zhaoxin yet, and the same goes for AMD. Even AMD's outdated Bristol Ridge chips with Excavator v2 cores were enough to stave off the challenger – we didn't even have to bring a Zen 2 processor into the test pool for AMD to enjoy a healthy performance lead.”
Get the memo now?
...
This whole “Country ABC trying to bridge the gap” mantra is completely overblown in social media platforms. Americans are like 2 – 3 decades ahead than all countries in the world when it comes to fielding technologies. They are not sitting idle.