China should ‘worry’ about Taiwan 2027 timeline, J-20 is just ‘OK’ fighter and “isn’t anything to lose sleep over”: US PACAF chief

[huanghong]

If you have a single eye on all 4 side, you can see a field of view of 95 degree of all 4 sides, you are missing 85 degrees from each side, hence it is not omnidirectional.

Even with 2 eyes, our vision on a single plane is not 180 degree, it's 170 degrees, which mean there are roughly 10% of your eyes cannot see. In fact, even with 3 or 4 or 5 eyes, you cannot never achieve 180-degree vision on a single plane. That's some principal regarding stereoscopic vision I forgot the name.

So no, even if you stack the entire side of a KJ-500 with sensor, the sensor cannot pick up a certain degree depends on the field of transmission of that antenna. Like human eyes, anything with an arc will not achieve true omnidirectional.
And with 1 sensor, depends on that sensor antenna field of view. Say if that side sensor is 120 degrees side to side and 90 degrees up and down, then you will have 60 degrees on both sides and 90 degrees on elevation they cannot see.

Unlike the human eye, radar antennas can be deflected.

 

[jhungary]

Unlike the human eye, radar antennas can be deflected.
View attachment 882884

And like eyes, Radar needs to follow LOS, both inbound and outbound.

Again, unless you can claim Chinese Physics that Chinese Radar beam itself can bend too, that's only mean you deflect on a different planer level.

It's like you move your eyeball left and right, if you look right, your field of vision unchanged, you can see more to your right because you looked right, but that compensated by losing the vision on your left, because your eye move to the right....

 

[gambit]

No, you confirmed my opinion. For example, the three radar stations in Fujian are located on Meihua Mountain, Yanding Mountain and Jiufeng Mountain.
The heights of these three towers were more than 1800 meters.

Am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts you did not know about line-of-sight (LOS) limitation. I did not 'confirmed' your opinion in any way. I educated you about some basic radar principles and you just happened to find some mainland radar stations that obeyed the laws of physics, real physics, not 'Chinese physics'. Your original argument implied that any location on mainland China would work. I just debunked you on that.

 

[huanghong]

Am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts you did not know about line-of-sight (LOS) limitation. I did not 'confirmed' your opinion in any way. I educated you about some basic radar principles and you just happened to find some mainland radar stations that obeyed the laws of physics, real physics, not 'Chinese physics'. Your original argument implied that any location on mainland China would work. I just debunked you on that.

Yes, yes, like jhungary thinks I don't know that ground-based radar can't work on the east coast of Taiwan due to the curvature of the earth, and said a whole lot of how radar works. But didn't find that the target of the ground radar that I emphasized at the beginning was the west coast, and the target on the east coast was specially excluded. Now you're assuming I don't know the radar distance formula, man, don't keep living in your dreams.

 

[gambit]

Unlike the human eye, radar antennas can be deflected.
View attachment 882884

You continued to expose your ignorance.

In that image, the array is angled but NOT for the reason you think.

 

[gambit]

Yes, yes, like jhungary thinks I don't know that ground-based radar can't work on the east coast of Taiwan due to the curvature of the earth, and said a whole lot of how radar works. But didn't find that the target of the ground radar that I emphasized at the beginning was the west coast, and the target on the east coast was specially excluded. Now you're assuming I don't know the radar distance formula, man, don't keep living in your dreams.

If you learned anything about radar, it will come from me, not from any personal experience on your part. You are treading into subjects you know nothing about.

 

[huanghong]

You continued to expose your ignorance.

In that image, the array is angled but NOT for the reason you think.

Ignorance guy, this is a radar antenna that can be deflected in different directions, this is just the upward deflection in this picture

 

[gambit]

Ignorance guy, this is a radar antenna that can be deflected in different directions, this is just the upward deflection in this picture

Wrong. You get one more chance to do some research before I make a fool out of you.

 

[huanghong]

Wrong. You get one more chance to do some research before I make a fool out of you.

Ignorance guy, The Zhuhai Air Show data of this radar, the detection angle limit is ±100°, do you understand how this data is achieved?

 

[gambit]

Ignorance guy, The Zhuhai Air Show data of this radar, the detection angle limit is ±100°, do you understand how this data is achieved?

The image in post 92 is most likely an ESA system.

A radome is radar transparent in order to allow outgoing transmissions. But the transparency is two way meaning if the radome allow outgoing transmission, the radome will also allow incoming radar signals. If the array is position vertical, the array act as a reflector to those incoming radar signals, so the solution is to angle the array so that any reflection will be away from source direction. An angled array is intended to be installed in a 'stealth' fighter.

Now, I can tell that your English is partial so am going to be kind in that regard. But I will tell you right now that you are wrong on why those arrays are angled that way. An ESA system have a radar beam that is electronically steered so there is no need to have the array assembly on any motorized platform like conventional radar systems. So to protect the 'stealth' capability, the array itself is fixed with an angle.

 

[nahtanbob]

You seem to have forgotten about the establishment of a "Maritime Exclusion Zone" 200 miles (322 kilometers) around the Malvinas Islands?
You don't seem to know that due to geographical conditions, there are few ports on the east coast of Taiwan?
A vast coastline doesn't mean you have a ton of targets to dock.
And it's hard to fathom how someone with extensive family navy experience would think that minelaying cannot be carried out by submarines and aircraft, but must be carried out blatantly with escort? The Americans themselves officially had planes and submarines to mine Taiwan on a large scale during World War II

Even stranger, when you mention Taiwan's minesweepers, you seem to think that minelaying are threatened by missiles, and minesweepers with more difficult tasks are not? Early warning and long-endurance drones seem to have suddenly lost their ability to monitor the port? ?

Argentina has a military not worth mentioning

 

[huanghong]

The image in post 92 is most likely an ESA system.

A radome is radar transparent in order to allow outgoing transmissions. But the transparency is two way meaning if the radome allow outgoing transmission, the radome will also allow incoming radar signals. If the array is position vertical, the array act as a reflector to those incoming radar signals, so the solution is to angle the array so that any reflection will be away from source direction. An angled array is intended to be installed in a 'stealth' fighter.

Now, I can tell that your English is partial so am going to be kind in that regard. But I will tell you right now that you are wrong on why those arrays are angled that way. An ESA system have a radar beam that is electronically steered so there is no need to have the array assembly on any motorized platform like conventional radar systems. So to protect the 'stealth' capability, the array itself is fixed with an angle.

Dude,You seem to think that I think the radar antenna can be deflected because the radar antenna in the picture is tilted upwards? Odd thought, note that the other radar antenna in the picture without the swivel is also tilted upwards.
you're talking about 2 completely different things, there are 2 configurations of the same radar in the picture. Yes their antennas are all tilted upwards, but radar antennas with rotating gear are not only deflected upwards. Otherwise, how can the front of a fixed antenna achieve a detection angle of ±100°?
Like the ES-05 radar I show you below

 

[nahtanbob]

the question will become would PLAN can survive a fight with USN in open ocean, because you can't board ship with mine and sub, you SINK them, and if you are sinking a US flagged ship, you are going to war with the US.

I high lighted the last point for your convinence.

do not expect a response. or their response would be US would not fight China

 

[casual]

do not expect a response. or their response would be US would not fight China

You are wrong. Most Chinese here expect US to go to war with China. After Biden said it the 4th time that US will go to war with China over Taiwan, there is no more doubt. However, US navy does not scare China. Going to war with US does not scare China. In fact it is what China is planning for. Just like how US's military spending and doctrine is now all for preparing for a war with China later this decade, China's military spending and doctrine is also focused on winning a war against US later this decade.

 

[jhungary]

do not expect a response. or their response would be US would not fight China

lol, that or all of a sudden it changed the topic to AWACS.

I don't even know how it goes from talking about naval blockade is boarding and turning ship around not sinking them to how far or what can an AWACS pickup......