Utterly false conjecture. See the Oko brochure here (self correction, its 1.8, not 1.2) and check the old ACIG forum for the Kopyo-A MPR info I’ve posted.

X Posting,

<br />
Input power AC -3 phase 200 V,400 Hz<br />
DC: + 27 V<br />
MTBF : 200 hrs<br />
Mass : 100 kg<br />
AIR TO SURFACE MODE </p>
<p>Range: </p>
<p>Destroyer ( 3000 sq. m RCS ) -<br />
250-150 km in sea states 2 to 5 </p>
<p>Vessels of RCS - </p>
<p>200 sq.m - 180 - 100 km in sea states 2 to 5<br />
150 sq.m(missile boat) - 130 km;Sea state 3<br />
10 sq. m - 50 km<br />
1 sq. m - 30 km </p>
<p>Scan zone - 360 degrees<br />
Scan time - 0.5,5 and 10 seconds </p>
<p>Coordinate measurement accuracy<br />
(RMS error)<br />
In range - 20 to 150 m<br />
In azimuth - 20' </p>
<p>No of targets tracked in TWS - 10 </p>
<p>AIR TO AIR MODE </p>
<p>Range - 70 km for 5 sq.m RCS and 0.9 Pd<br />
Scan zone - 360 deg. in azimuth and +-25 de. in elevation<br />
Scan time - 4-6 seconds </p>
<p>WEATHER MODE </p>
<p>Detection range - 0.1 to 260 km </p>
<p>Max mapping range(km) : 40(HR1 mode),20(HR-2),30(HR-3)<br />
Mapping zone dimensions (kmxkm) - 10 x 10 , 5 x 5 , 2.5 x 2.5<br />
Azimuth and range resolution element - 20x20 , 10x10 , 5x5<br />
(At 250 km/h speed)<br />
Mapping zone azimuth angles relative to velocity vector(deg) - +-(30 to 90 ) , (50 to 90), (50 to 90) </p>
<p>

That’s a radar for helicopters, obviously it’s going to use different figure for A2A target. Really nice! You see, helicopters are generally smaller than fighters. And the Russians would actually have helicopters with RCS of 1.8m^2 to do the testing on. Now, the stuff you just posted seems to indicate the target is still 5m^2. It says:
AIR TO AIR MODE

Range – 70 km for 5 sq.m RCS and 0.9 Pd
Scan zone – 360 deg. in azimuth and +-25 de. in elevation
Scan time – 4-6 seconds

Now, do I need to post all the Russian radar pictures that also uses 5 sq m RCS?

Actually, Phazotron has been working on one for a while and it was posted that it will be flight tested soon.

No one is debating that AESA is technologically levels ahead but the actual raw performance still depends on traditional radar parameters and a miniscule APG-80 cannot acheive the same performance of a monster radar.

AESA has advantages over PESA radar of similar parameters. As I mentionned before, it’s harder to jam, generally more stealthy and probably are the only true radars that support multiple engagements.

Phazotron to this date has only come out with a prototype of 85 T/R modules, because 700 modules is too expensive. That tells me that the Russians haven’t mastered the technology to cheaply mass produce T/R modules. That doesn’t bode well at all.

I know many Venezuelans that have flead the country because they feared for there lives! Personally, I don’t know the inter workings of the Politics in that country. Yet, everyone I’ve spoken to. Says Chavez is crazy and dangerous……. 😮

yeah, wouldn’t you flee the country if you led a coup and failed at it? There is this crime called treason? And just for your information, Chavez is extremely popular amongst the poor people in Venezeula. It’s not one of those Mussolini things where he scared people into voting for him. Of course, the people who fled are the 20% of population that are rich. You are really going to get a fair assessment of Chavez from those who hate him, right?

AESA is a lot better than PESA. Seriously, it’s the only radar that gives true multi-mode and multi-engagement capability and such. It’s nearly impossible to jam since each T/R module can operate on a different frequency. Too many advantages over PESA that a simple range number cannot express.

I don’t know, the knaapo and IAIA airframes should be slightly different. In general, the fighters coming out of KNAAPO should be slightly higher quality and uses stronger aiframe.

there is plenty of discussion on J-10, just check the china threads or do a search on the thing. You can pick things up faster that way.

Hongdu K-8: the best selling Chinese aircraft currently with 120 sold to Egypt as the K-8E. Sri Lanka, Burma, Zimbabwe and Namibia among other customers. An advance version with glass cockpit was supposedly flight-tested late last year.

—————————————————————–

Jokes apart. I seriously thought that the K-8 was developed by Pakistan the way they trumpeted their sale to Egypt. Never paid it much attention and never bothered to find out. I must have been out of my mind to thing that 😛 . Just goes to show what marketing and perceptions can do. 😀

at one point, plaaf didn’t want to purchase K-8, because it had too much component produced in Pakistan. But yeah, I think K-8 is probably similar to JF-17, althought Pakistan might have been more involved, due to the simplicity of K-8 compared to JF-17.

A few points,

– The Shtil has a range of 45 km against a hovering helicopter, theoretic max 50. Against a fighter, its more like 36 km.

– Effectiveness of SAM against target vs Effectiveness of a fighter against target -> The fighter always! This is because the latter does’nt have horizon limitations against low flying targets and the interception can be flexible. But within SAMs, the S300F Fort system is something to respect, at least on paper.

– China still needs to feild a proper MPA force combined with fighters equipped with radar that have air-to-sea capability, in order to effectively attack ship formations. (Forget carrier groups for now). If that Phalcon-esque Y-8 is for maritime use, its a step in the right direction.

– From what I’ve seen, even the ancient Viraat (which is incidentally, also in good shape, will go on for many more years) will be quite a handful (against a well equipped enemy) and attacking carrier groups requires nothing short of massive coordination. Losing the tracking MPA to defending fighters for instance, can cause the attackers to go blind. R-33 Vikramaditya is going to be two steps ahead.

Y-8Js are good examples of Y-8s that are used to detect sea objects. There are probably 200 su-30 and JH-7/7A that have radars with okay A2S capability.