After asking for help for the Nth time to my friend , MK2-5 pilot here in Dijon , he told me that what want the UAE is crystal clear :

– actually , the RBE2 (Pesa OR Aesa) is not capable to provide “velocity vectors” on moving ground targets (or fast moving boats) to the fire control system (to be able to put a weapon on it) because the logiciel (software code) hasn ‘t been written yet . So , GMTT/GMTI is only a matter of time and not a hardware bottleneck .

– “interlacing between A-A and A-G modes” only refers (one more time) to the software and not to the hardware ~the radar itself~ . Presently , the RBE2 (Pesa) is already capable to “detect here” for air targets and tracking some of them while ‘tracking there” for static ground targets detected by Spectra .
My friend doesn ‘ t understand what the UAE want exactly , since the Aesa RBE2 will give even more flexibility with regards to real time simultaneous detection and tracking of air and ground targets .
What hasn ‘t been done is the link in between the hardware and the MMI : ground moving targets can ‘t be displayed on the HUDs .
This is a software update and not a hardware bottleneck .

He also told me that as far as he knows , the actual onboard processing power (back end) since the F2 upgrade took place is good enough for the AdA planned path .

When I asked him about the “look” of the RBE2-AA and when he saw the pictures posted on the Net , he told me that he didn ‘t have a clue but he wouldn ‘t be surprised if that was the real end product .
So , I bothered him a bit more by saying that the amount of T/R modules was only 838 and he responded with a smile , saying that this is not the way to rate a radar effectiveness and power because the modules used in the Aesa RBE2 have a more efficient power/ratio than the ones used by other foreign Aesa radars . He added that the maximum range and output power of a radar is not that important when one can count on third party “global eyes” , what is important is what your radar can do to put a weapon on a target without being noticed .

Then , the discussion went on and on , until I asked if the new radar could be used as a jammer and help (or replace) Spectra . He told me that using the best Aesa radar on Earth as a jammer would be counter productive because its is NOT its primary purpose and a dedicated jammer does not use the same hardware and “ideas” .
It is ~for now~ better to have a dedicated system than to use a radar .
Regarding the capability for an Aesa radar to transmit data to other aircraft through high bandwidth, it is bound to distance and angular reception . He told me that the max range for a 5KW radar was about 15 nm and the receiver had to be (obviously) within the emitting radar cone , which is not possible when you fly a CAP or SEAD mission because your mates or wingmen are rarely that much in front of you .

Then , the discussion went on and on again and he did burst some of my bubbles regarding the radars in general . He told me that without an AWAC or ground radars to help , a fighter is basically blind and relies mostly on its electronic “ears” rather than on its own radar to know what is going on around . A radar is only good when you know where to search .
Since everybody , from the AWACs to the ground radars , is scanning on every frequency they can think of to detect hostiles from far away , it is better to listen than to emit . You learn far more and much quicker about the adversary when you want to penetrate , then it is stealthier .

So , what ‘ s the fuzz about Aesa radars so , I asked ?
Because there are extremely good at multitasking and rather discrete , he said .

When he left , I was thinking of the countless fights I had on some US forums (like StrategyPage) with some idiots …
Some names comes to mind but I can ‘t decently name them , unfortunately 😡
And they think that the old AN-APG serie is better than the new RBE2-AA .
They ‘ll better look at the APG-82(V)1 , it would be a closer call …

Cheers .

We never left, there was never any joining back.

?? :confused: You said :

France joined back NATO command

which is true , so make up your mind … :rolleyes:

Cheers .

@Mercurius

Could you give us your personal view on that J-20 , please ?

This is not the end product yet I believe , most probably an advanced demonstrator , just before to go to the real prototype stage . Maybe its final shape could even be slightly different .

What are they trying to archive and for what purpose ?
As I said before , I see a stealth long range multirole fighter .
You ?

Cheers .

alfakilo :

A weapon system like this is only needed if one has an aggressive intent. Do you think the Chinese have an aggressive intent?

kgblue nailed it with his answer :

the US deployed F22 and B2 in Guam, was that a aggressive or a defensive move to fly a “stealth fighter” thousands miles away home???

I would like to come back to the first phrase :
“”A weapon system like this is only needed if one has an aggressive intent.””

Which is true wrt the USA+F-22 . :diablo:
No one in the World would even dare to try to gain the air superiority over the US soil even if the USA were using F-16s only .
The F-22 has never been needed to defend the US airspace . It has been built exclusively to archive air superiority in enemy airspace , which shows that the USA are always building stuff to go to war and not to defend the motherland .
As far as we know , this is the only Nation is the World to act this way … Maybe with North Korea :rolleyes:

If I was chinese , I would ask my Gov to spend even more on R&D and national defense .
No alfakilo , the Chinese don ‘t have any aggressive intent , by that I mean that they are not going to go to war with anybody unless they are seriously threatened . The only possible adversaries are India or the USA .
By 2025 or so , China will be unbreakable .
They ‘ll better be or the trio India/Japan/USA (with S. Korea et Oz) could decide to attack for whatever reason backed up by the UN (Russia would not move , too much to lose . Better side-up with the Europeans) .

So , an aircraft like the J-20 makes perfect sense and it has been planned long ago already .
Some experts are already saying that it is going to be a “newer” Mig-31 like Interceptor , or a long range striker “a la” F-111 , etc …
I say that the J-20 will be used as a stealth multirole fighter , with the intended capability to fight against other stealth aircraft on equal ground (?) or to run strikes against a well defended Naval Force .

Its top speed should be around Mach 2 (or Mach 2.2 , depending on the engines and on the RAM coating quality) , its range and payload should exceed US 5th gen fighters .

From what I know and from what I read , its RCS head-on during cruise with canards deflected by no more than 5 degrees should be rather low , lower than “discrete” 4.5 gen fighters .
Its first operational radar should be a Chinese/Russian Pesa radar similar in capability than the early French RBE2 but with a greater range . I guess a 180km detection range against a F-16 size target .
AtoA and AtoSea modes will be developed first .
It will have a long range focal array based IRST and a domestic HMS .
From chinese papers posted on some military forums , it seems that the operational J-20 could use local low power plasma generators placed on the airframe where the radar spikes are . Diagrams and translations have been provided .
ECMs are unknown at this point .

250 J-20s (or more) should give China a big edge in Asia .
From the videos I ‘ve seen and from the numerous photos of the aircraft taking off or landing , the fly by wire works correctly . The different moving surfaces move as expected and the aircraft looks very stable .
I would ‘t be surprised to see a “fly by light system (optical fibre) like the one on Rafale .

Sensor fusion is still unknown at this time but when one look at the latest pits on display at the recent air-shows and at some photos from the Net , it is rather neat at least regarding the MMI .

Just to say that if the program is going well and if the J-20 ends-up as it should be , it is going to be a very capable aircraft .

Cheers .

mabie to Amiga500 :

how can you not accept accept the Brawler modeling conclusion that the F-35 achieves a loss:exchange ratio 400% better than its nearest competitor?

Personally , I discard every modelling simulation wherever it comes from .
It is 100% BS everytime because some parameters are simply wrong and some are unknown .
Then , you can ‘t compute pilot effectiveness and tactics you are unaware of .
Virtual “wargames” never reflect reality , never .

We better use Joint exercises like Red Flag , Cruzex , NATO Tiger meet , etc (there are dozens of them) or real war Ops to judge how perform an aircraft and its pilot .
The operational F-35 doesn ‘t exist yet .

Cheers .

Lindermyer :

Mein GOTT B.W- Is SATAN himself Ice skating to work, has the sky falling. Me and thee actually agree on something. 😀

Good ! It shows that you get clever by the day :D;)
(kidding)

P.P. Question 1 youre target is 500miles the wrongside of Bogrovias border how do you propose to get within strike range undetected (un intercepted) without being down in the weeds.

Question 2 as per question 1 but you are a small nation without hundreds of spark varks/ growler/prowlers etc.

May I answer !? Please , please , may I ? :p

Cheers .

PParker :

I’m fairly certain if the RAF had to strike those same targets again today they would go for an LGB attack from medium level.

I hope not unless the SEAD/DEAD work has already been done or it would be very … dangerous .
They would use cruise missiles (Storm Shadow) from stand-off range .

Cheers .