Sure it does. In fact, real facts, it is %99.999 -- does translate.
It is extremely rare that a technology would come from purely military incentives. How rare ? Try SR-71 rare. That is no exaggeration. Much of the SR-71 had to be in-house developed, meaning Lockheed could find no useful existing technology in order to adapt to make the SR-71. Even to today, there is no PW J58 engine equivalent in the civilian sector.
What is casually calls 'military technology' is actually adaptations of existing civilian technology. At least %50, if not most, of the adaptations are for environmental survivability under extremes such as temperatures and/or mechanical stresses. In other words, using my DRAM testing experience as example, if a DRAM module is rated as X speed, we do not tamper with that native capability, rather, we put the DRAM die into a different encapsulation process to ensure all native capabilities and features are not degraded under specified stresses, as specified by the government. The final product is usually larger in physical dimensions, which requires custom mounting solutions designed by another subcontractor, which is finally tested by the customer who is the end contractor to the government.
Phased array transmission technology is roughly the same age as the airplane -- 1905.
Radio signals have been bouncing off objects since its use in early 20th century. But radar, which is actually the discovery of how to exploit the echoes of radio signals that bounced off objects, did not came until the start of WW II with the British Chain Home system.
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/tools/radar/mpar/
The phased array radar have been around for 70 yrs. Project Diana of 1946 was the world's first functional phased array system that bounced a signal off the Moon.
But the reason why phased arrays did not become popular as radar on aircrafts, and eventually desirable, until now is because the technology to create a phased array signal did not make it suitable for military use. In other words, the military specs were too demanding.
I am not an 'expert' on Japanese military spec-ed AESA systems. Neither are you. If anything, your comment made it clear, at least to me, that you do not know what you are talking about at all. You do not know anything AESA about the JPNese or even of your own China.
It is non-disputable that the JPNese have had a much longer history of high quality electronics than your China. It is definitely probable, not merely possible, that such high quality civilian products and workmanship produced equally impressive military grade products.
So is it possible, or probable, that the F-2 may have a superior sensor package than the J-10 ?
In my opinion -- Yes, probable.