Indonesia eyes Eurofighters to check China’s threat

[antonius123]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter

From there, you should know now that claiming SABR is 5th generation radar is stupid.

The 5th generation category is for air fighter, not for radar; and AESA is the radar required for 5th generation fighter. Understand?

What makes the APG-83 superior to any Chinese made radar because it can receive billions of data within second, stealth versus adversary radar, wide area surface scan more than >20 objects at over 300km, high definition visual on air & land targets to the point that it can differentiate which type of hardware they're targeting, not to mentioned it is designed to go up against cruise missiles in the 1st place but most importantly it can also target low & slow threat like Drones (the small one you take picture with) of which in the future will be more prevalent.

You can't claim APG-83 better than the latest Chinese AESA if you dont know the spec of the latest Chinese AESA, period. Again, only a fool who compare data with assumption.

Can Chinese radar do that? Cause I searched & they don't have anything close to it. The longest I check was around 150-180 & it can only target around 10.

Again... INCORRECT.

This is the detection range APG-83: 370km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-83

And this is the detection range of KLJ-5 or Type 1475 : 370.4 km; and it has 1860 T/R

So it is equal right?

That is about the detection range; now we are talking about the number of T/R:

SABR is the scaled down of APG-81, which only has 1200 T/R modules, while the best APG-81 of F-22 has 1500 T/R, still lower than Type 1475/KLJ-5 with 1860 T/R.

So from there we can conclude that Chinese best AESA is still better than US best AESA

The quality of Chinese made weapons is already a meme.

Meme from & for the ignorant

The main reason why we bought Chinese weapons was because it's cheap & we are fresh straight out from embargo. And it is a decision that we all soon came to regret horribly. In the case of the clurit test failure the real reason why it failed was horrifyingly shocking. The engineers from CAIC in charge of fitting the ship did such a horrible job at doing the job that it failed spectacularly in front of the president. The main reason was caused by the wiring the investigators found out that it is the wiring & it is placed so poorly that the investigator even mentioned that it is more in line with a civilian work than a military one. Remember that this is the engineer sent from CAIC possibly not even actually from CAIC, flown into the country, they did their work & the work was so horrible that Indonesia basically scrap further deal with china in working with the clurit class & went with the Danish Terma instead for the last 2 ship & possibly replacing the Chinese electronic in the other class. Also not to mentioned the Clurit class was discontinued because of china piss poor job at it that even the naval command abandon the missile boat concept.

So in summary the Chinese messed up so badly angered the entire high command which led to the killing of an entire class of ship & the removal of the doctrine from the naval tactical book. It's not everyday you hear this level of buffoonery on an international scale to that I have to say china really is something incredible.

& On the Giant Bow remember it was brand new & it broke under it's own weight when firing proving it self as a testament to Chinese quality. The point is that if China can't even build a simple artillery piece what hopes do they have on building something much more complicated like an AESA radar especially compared to western made one?

This is your logic remember.

Mate Indonesia was already discontinuing their military contract with china over quality concerns that's the point & with Russia it's different it's because of their annexation of Crimea.

So try again mate.

You repeat the same argument that I have answered above. Then I will repeat my answer:

To say weapon is bad in quality just because failure in one trial is idiotic. Failure sometimes happen, it could be because of handling, operating, simply accident, not necessarily quality issue; learn how western missile and rocket failed, you will see so many failure in western missile, rockets, and fighters.

Everything on F-35 is brand new ... but ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike-fighter-program.html

Hydraulic failure caused F-16 to crash near March base last year, Air Force says
https://www.pe.com/2020/04/23/hydra...ash-near-march-base-last-year-air-force-says/

F-16 Burned

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/indonesian-f-16-catches-fire-and-burns-on-the-runway-1698187404
F-16 slipped

https://tirto.id/pesawat-f16-tergelincir-lanud-hentikan-operasional-f16-ckLo

By your logic, we can say US fighter quality is very bad

 

[Daniel808]

Why should we trust you? This statement revealed you know nothing about testing and actual operations.

Failure rate during testing can -- and do -- come from test criteria, in other words, we test to failure.

The wiki source you brought on is also meaningless in that it give no valid comparison to other sources that come close to how we do things. For example, two pilots flew 5 hrs a week. Does that mean anything? Very little. But when we dig into the details and found pilot A flew with more maneuvers, acceleration, and different altitudes in those 5 hrs a week than pilot B, guess who is the better pilot overall?

Trust you who are so bad at being an armchair warrior?

Because He @antonius123 always give Data and proof to backup his statement.

Meanwhile, you use your personal assumption to backup your claim. That's bias

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

From there, you should know now that claiming SABR is 5th generation radar is stupid.

The 5th generation category is for air fighter, not for radar; and AESA is the radar required for 5th generation fighter. Understand? [emoji23]



You can't claim APG-83 better than the latest Chinese AESA if you dont know the spec of the latest Chinese AESA, period. Again, only a fool who compare data with assumption.



Again... INCORRECT.

This is the detection range APG-83: 370km.
View attachment 658125
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-83

And this is the detection range of KLJ-5 or Type 1475 : 370.4 km; and it has 1860 T/R

View attachment 658120

View attachment 658124

So it is equal right? [emoji23]

That is about the detection range; now we are talking about the number of T/R:
View attachment 658128

SABR is the scaled down of APG-81, which only has 1200 T/R modules, while the best APG-81 of F-22 has 1500 T/R, still lower than Type 1475/KLJ-5 with 1860 T/R.

So from there we can conclude that Chinese best AESA is still better than US best AESA [emoji23]



Meme from & for the ignorant




You repeat the same argument that I have answered above. Then I will repeat my answer:

To say weapon is bad in quality just because failure in one trial is idiotic. Failure sometimes happen, it could be because of handling, operating, simply accident, not necessarily quality issue; learn how western missile and rocket failed, you will see so many failure in western missile, rockets, and fighters.

Everything on F-35 is brand new ... but ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike-fighter-program.html

Hydraulic failure caused F-16 to crash near March base last year, Air Force says
https://www.pe.com/2020/04/23/hydra...ash-near-march-base-last-year-air-force-says/

F-16 Burned
View attachment 658126
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/indonesian-f-16-catches-fire-and-burns-on-the-runway-1698187404
F-16 slipped
View attachment 658127
https://tirto.id/pesawat-f16-tergelincir-lanud-hentikan-operasional-f16-ckLo

By your logic, we can say US fighter quality is very bad

The proof of the matter is that China's can't even build a proper artillery piece.

So I can just disregard every claim about Chinese technology being better than the US based on this fact alone.

Again this is your logic not mine.

 

[Kai Liu]

The proof of the matter is that China's can't even build a proper artillery piece.

So I can just disregard every claim about Chinese technology being better than the US based on this fact alone.

Again this is your logic not mine.

What artillery piece?

Like last time you guys said China can't build machines?
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/some-awesome-machines-made-in-china.609170/

 

[antonius123]

@Reashot Xigwin

Detection range of a radar subject to the size of the target; the smaller the size of the target, the shorter the detection range of the radar.

The detection range of APG-83 at 370km is the maximum detection range for very big object like jumbo jet.
For smaller object like fighter, the detection range of APG-83 is : 120KM.

Not many may be aware that F-16v Block 70/72 Super Viper has been fitted with a state of the art AESA fire control radar APG-83. It has a detection range of 120 km and engagement range of 84 km.
https://fighterjetsworld.com/weekly...over-other-4th-generation-fighters-jets/2365/

http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/ANAPG-83-SABR_a002089001.aspx

In the meantime, for target sized 1m2, the detection range of APG-83 is less than 40 n.m or less than 90km.

Source
​

Meanwhile the detection range of Chinese KLJ-7 (for JF-17) is 150km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLJ-7

That means for fighter size target (~5m2), detection range of KLJ-7 (150km) is possibly farther than detection range of APG-83 (120km).

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The difference lies in the data processing.

Electronic Scanning Array (ESA) have been around for decades, as in the 1960s with the 'passive' or PESA version. Miniaturization -- or the lack thereof -- pretty much grounded the concept. As electronics technology progresses, including solid state which raised the bars on miniaturization, airborne ESA became reality. The 'active' technology is the latest iteration.

These are the most common target resolutions...

- Airspeed
- Altitude
- Heading
- Aspect Angle

The difference between an ordinary radar and an AESA system lies in the granularity of each item. Take aspect angle, for example. Aspect angle, to put it simply, is how the target is 'with respect to' (wrt) the radar, even if the target is 'looking' up or down (pitch) and moving away from the radar. The difference between the so-called generations is 1 deg vs .1 vs .01 and so on. The finer these target resolutions, the better the PREDICTIVE algorithms that eventually feeds the intercept (collision) paths of gunnery and missile solutions.

No one is going to reveal the technical details of what they designed. Sales brochures are quite meaningless. The results from exercises to test manufacturers' claims are secrets. Pilots know but they will say nothing. Movies are worst sources on how basic radars works, let alone something like AESA systems in actual operation.

So you are saying there's no such thing as a 5th generation radar and that each AESA radar is qualitatively similar due to the requirements of the physics involved, and is qualitatively different from PESA and old school mechanically scanned radars.

 

[antonius123]

The proof of the matter is that China's can't even build a proper artillery piece.

So I can just disregard every claim about Chinese technology being better than the US based on this fact alone.

Again this is your logic not mine.

So are you saying US can't even build a proper plane and missile too? because so many US fighter and missile failed. This is your logic

The failure of the artillery most probably is because of improper operation or simply accident.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Because He @antonius123 always give Data and proof to backup his statement.

Meanwhile, you use your personal assumption to backup your claim. That's bias

The evidence is simple: if Huawei can build civilian phased array antenna for 5G which has very high multiplexing requirements in complex electromagnetic conditions (middle of a city with massive RF noise, limited line of sight, etc) then state owned enterprises can probably build a competitive AESA radar.

The thing is, radar semiconductor elements don't require leading edge processes. MMIC (monolithic microwave IC) are fabricated on low resolution (micron) processes using chemicals similar to those used for optoelectronics. Take a list of fabs and see how many optoelectronics fabs are in China.

So on the design side you have proven civilian phased array antenna, and on the other you have proven optoelectronic fabrication capability. And you also have the specific aerospace military knowledge required to integrate this into a plane.

 

[gambit]

So you are saying there's no such thing as a 5th generation radar and that each AESA radar is qualitatively similar due to the requirements of the physics involved, and is qualitatively different from PESA and old school mechanically scanned radars.

The technological advances in the general ESA category made possible the label '5th gen'. The features that the AESA type is such that we might as well call it '5th gen'. But if you couple an AESA hardware with lesser software, then even the mechanical planar system can beat it. That is why if you have an AESA hardware you must have matching software to label it '5th gen'.

For example...

If your AESA can manage only 2 targets in true multitasking operation, a mechanical scanning planar array with pseudo multitasking of 6 targets can beat the AESA system. The latter system, even though it has only one beam, its memory is most likely larger and can keep more of target data during the same time duration as the AESA system.

 

[gambit]

Because He @antonius123 always give Data and proof to backup his statement.

Meanwhile, you use your personal assumption to backup your claim. That's bias

You are just as confused as he was.

The wiki source have a list of US aircraft accidents. So what? If we do not fly, we would have no accidents, right? But if we fly a lot, then our mishaps rate and quantity would increase. This bit of standalone data does not mean the USAF is better or worse than other air forces. Now, in order to opine what is 'better' or 'worse', you must have flight data from other air forces that have flight operations similar to ours. Then you can compare mishap rates and quantity and finally make a statement.

So who is the real bias, here?

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The technological advances in the general ESA category made possible the label '5th gen'. The features that the AESA type is such that we might as well call it '5th gen'. But if you couple an AESA hardware with lesser software, then even the mechanical planar system can beat it. That is why if you have an AESA hardware you must have matching software to label it '5th gen'.

For example...

If your AESA can manage only 2 targets in true multitasking operation, a mechanical scanning planar array with pseudo multitasking of 6 targets can beat the AESA system. The latter system, even though it has only one beam, its memory is most likely larger and can keep more of target data during the same time duration as the AESA system.

So in your professional opinion, what is the likelihood that an organization that can design, fabricate and test/operate AESA radar will have software so terrible that it makes their AESA radars inferior to mechanical scanned radars?

Does this sound likely to you?

And furthermore, given the proof that Chinese civilian companies and defense companies have both demonstrated their ability to design and fabricate phased array transceivers, and at minimum the existence of military AESA radar AND the deployment of civilian phased array transceivers in a highly complex electromagnetic environment, what is your estimate of the probability that Chinese AESA radar has shit software and is inferior to mechanical radar?

 

[mejikuhibiu]

Smart people debate with base from wiki..

 

[gambit]

So in your professional opinion, what is the likelihood that an organization that can design, fabricate and test/operate AESA radar will have software so terrible that it makes their AESA radars inferior to mechanical scanned radars?

Does this sound likely to you?

And furthermore, given the proof that Chinese civilian companies and defense companies have both demonstrated their ability to design and fabricate phased array transceivers, and at minimum the existence of military AESA radar AND the deployment of civilian phased array transceivers in a highly complex electromagnetic environment, what is your estimate of the probability that Chinese AESA radar has shit software and is inferior to mechanical radar?

Likely? No. But that is not cause for celebration.

The military is conservative by nature. Does not matter whose military is it. We share that common philosophical bond. In general principles, we do not like new technologies. If you break down any weapons system to the component level, now it is LIKELY that your average 'shade tree mechanic' with Craftsman DIY garage tools can make something similar or even identical. You will also find that the technologies involved would be around five yrs old. Five yrs is usually enough time for civilian industries to stress test any new technologies, be it hardware or software.

If you have an AESA hardware, a critical component of the software package will be the subarray partitioning and choreography section, in other words, multi beams management. Here is where it is highly possible that the software package will make the entire AESA system operationally inferior to the mechanical scanning planar array. Just because China is capable of producing both separately, that does not mean China can create an entire AESA system that is the equivalent of competitors -- that minimum five yrs maturity requirement. What was the software technology level in China five yrs ago? Remember, am using five yrs only as a rough baseline. In reality, a manufacturer may consider the current software level too risky and use an established code base 7 or 8 yrs old.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Likely? No. But that is not cause for celebration.

The military is conservative by nature. Does not matter whose military is it. We share that common philosophical bond. In general principles, we do not like new technologies. If you break down any weapons system to the component level, now it is LIKELY that your average 'shade tree mechanic' with Craftsman DIY garage tools can make something similar or even identical. You will also find that the technologies involved would be around five yrs old. Five yrs is usually enough time for civilian industries to stress test any new technologies, be it hardware or software.

If you have an AESA hardware, a critical component of the software package will be the subarray partitioning and choreography section, in other words, multi beams management. Here is where it is highly possible that the software package will make the entire AESA system operationally inferior to the mechanical scanning planar array. Just because China is capable of producing both separately, that does not mean China can create an entire AESA system that is the equivalent of competitors -- that minimum five yrs maturity requirement. What was the software technology level in China five yrs ago? Remember, am using five yrs only as a rough baseline. In reality, a manufacturer may consider the current software level too risky and use an established code base 7 or 8 yrs old.

Software in China, ok. Baidu was founded 2000. Tencent was founded 1998. Alibaba was founded in 1999. Directly military/DSP related? No. But it proves there's a base of skilled software engineers.

Embedded systems engineering, this is more directly related: Huawei was founded 1987, ZTE in 1985. Huawei's semiconductor design branch, HiSilicon, was founded in 1991. As wireless telecom hardware companies, RF embedded systems is their entire business. They've been at it for 30+ years.

More examples of physical signal processing software (as opposed to telecom): NEUSoft has been producing software for medical MRI, CT and ultrasound since 1993 and count heavyweights like Toshiba, Fujitsu, Intel, Boeing and IBM as customers.

 

[antonius123]

Why should we trust you? This statement revealed you know nothing about testing and actual operations.

Failure rate during testing can -- and do -- come from test criteria, in other words, we test to failure.

This is not only during testing, read carefully.

The wiki source you brought on is also meaningless in that it give no valid comparison to other sources that come close to how we do things. For example, two pilots flew 5 hrs a week. Does that mean anything? Very little. But when we dig into the details and found pilot A flew with more maneuvers, acceleration, and different altitudes in those 5 hrs a week than pilot B, guess who is the better pilot overall?

Trust you who are so bad at being an armchair warrior?

You should talk this to @Reashot Xigwin not me; I am just showing him what happen when we use his logic; and you also follow to falter.