tanlixiang28776
Junior Member
So you are saying we should assume the opposite of known configurations and patterns?
J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter crobato
- Start date
- Status
So you are saying we should assume the opposite of known configurations and patterns?
No...Am saying do not assume at all. At most, if there is a relationship between antenna real estate and shape and radome shape it will be because of the desire to maximize radome volume efficiency. For an AESA system that is fully capable of subarray partitioning and choreography, the larger the main array, the more subarrays can be created for diverse purposes. If one is going to make such an assumption of this relationship, one should be not surprised if the assumption is incorrect because mission statements may dictate otherwise.
Quickie
Colonel
No one here is making a wild assumption without knowing, in your own words, the mission statment. The mission statement is already fixed. That is, to build a AESA or PESA radar for a fighter jet for its usual functions, the most important of which is missile fire control and guidance.
In reply to your earlier post,
You said: "There is NOTHING that says antenna shape is dependent upon array type."
You're in effect saying: "Antenna shape is not dependent upon array type."
I'm saying antenna shape does have a dependency on the choice of array type of PESA or AESA.
Just look at some of the real life fighter jet examples. We have seen fighter jet AESA radar that's oval in shape with some, admittedly, rounder than oval. And we have seen fighter jet PESA radar that's round in shape but we've never seen one that's oval. Personally, I've never seen a fighter jet PESA RADAR that has its antenna elements arranged in an oval shape.
Just consider this: Would a PESA radar with its radar elements arranged in an oval shape, be able to perform beamforming to produce a cone shaped radar beam? Obviously it can't if it were to use all the available elements at the same time. It may be possible to do so if only 70% of the elements are used at one time and switching off the rest of elements, but then that's bad design by itself. This is true especially when the design priority is towards missile fire control and guidance, and never with the priority for volume search.
An AESA radar on the hand have the flexibility of beamforming which explain its more varied radar elements arrangement that include the oval shape for most of the examples we have seen. Even the arrangement of the elements themselves within the radar can be more varied as shown by one of the examples. End result: A more varied antenna element arrangement in the case of fighter jet AESA radar.
I will add a different perspective.
Most radomes are round because it is technically difficult and expensive to make an oval (or any shape other than around) one. The only 3G fighter with oval radome is F-16. Even J-10A has round radom. Even today, we can count the fighters with non-round radome with single digits - F-16, (F-20), F-22, F-35, J-10B, J-20, T-50.... that's it, isn't it?
I have read on WSJ that F-22 radome costs $700K EACH.
So, there is much more in antenna shape than real estate. It is a balance of aerodynamics, cost, and radar performance.
Most radomes are round because it is technically difficult and expensive to make an oval (or any shape other than around) one. The only 3G fighter with oval radome is F-16. Even J-10A has round radom. Even today, we can count the fighters with non-round radome with single digits - F-16, (F-20), F-22, F-35, J-10B, J-20, T-50.... that's it, isn't it?
I have read on WSJ that F-22 radome costs $700K EACH.
So, there is much more in antenna shape than real estate. It is a balance of aerodynamics, cost, and radar performance.
Hyperwarp
Captain
Well, the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo has an oval shaped radome -
Su-34 has a platypus nose but off-course its not used as a fighter. F-5/F-20 also oval.
Su-34 is a bomber. So I don't know what the impact of radome shape is on the radar performance. Also, if you look at varies line drawings on the net, you will see its radome is not single-piece. Rather, it is made of multiple panels.
IDF gets a lot of US assistance. I already listed F-20. Earlier fighters list F-5A/B/E/F don't have Doppler radar. IDF and F-20's radomes are also rather small thus easier to make.
So, if you look at oval-shaped radomes, we have F-16, F-20, IDF, Lavi and J-10B. Except J-10B, all of them have US origin.
Only F-22 and F-35 are in service with radome shape with edges. J-20 and T-50 are prototypes only, and so far, I am pretty sure neither have the radar installed.
The non-round radome shape (especially with the edges) is as much a barrier as frameless canopies for 4G fighter design.
Last edited:
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS POST!!!
Now hear this...All members are REQUIRED to read the forum rules;
FORUM RULES: Things to Remember Before Posting, important, please read!
Knock off the underhanded political comments.
Knock off the country bashing remarks.
Stop using text message abbreviations.
And ..NO FOUL LANGUAGE! The only swear words allowed in this forum are Damn, Hell & Ass.
You have been warned!
Now hear this...All members are REQUIRED to read the forum rules;
FORUM RULES: Things to Remember Before Posting, important, please read!
Knock off the underhanded political comments.
Knock off the country bashing remarks.
Stop using text message abbreviations.
And ..NO FOUL LANGUAGE! The only swear words allowed in this forum are Damn, Hell & Ass.
You have been warned!
that doesn't even make sense. I stated what Inst is saying certain thing and your reply is it is a wrong assumption?...... interesting.
so you are saying that aircraft designers don't design the nose with the type of radar they would like to fit in mind?.... interesting.
You apparently don't speack any form of English or completely lack comprehension. I did not state definitively that J-10B is using AESA radar or PESA radar.
I said that if the following two statements are true:
1) CAC designed J-10B with AESA in mind
2) and the most optimal shape of the AESA radar is not circular.
Then the following holds
They would design a fighter in J-10B with a non circular nose.
In no where there did I say 1 or 2 is true. So, either you are too busy trying to shot me down to read that or you have no comprehension of English.
This is obviously said in response to Inst who thinks the reason that J-10B's antenna were shaped non-circular due to the shape of J-10B's nose. He failed to see that they designed J-10B's nose non-circular in the first place possibly due to what kind of radar they had in mind.
btw, you also seem to be a new member here. Do you mind showing a little less arrogance?
Gambit is a well know ethnic Vietnamese served in the US Arm forces.
- Status