J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
These sorts of statements should be taken with a grain of salt. Radar performance is not so simple as to be reducible to a single number where you can say abc radar has 3x the detection range of xyz radar. It's like how SAMs are quoted as having a certain range but in practice it's a lot more complicated than just "aircraft within range, I can hit it!"
We never really get all the specifics of modern aircraft radars for obvious reasons. So the best we can really say is that the new tech is promising and could deliver major improvements. You should not assume things like "if I could detect F-35 at 40km now I can detect it at 120km!" Things are a lot less straightforward than that.
i m not going into this ''3X or 4X but Semiconductor 3rd/4th generation material will be game changer..
Gallium oxide (Ga2O3) and gallium nitride (GaN) are fourth- and third-generation semiconductor materials.
GaO on diamond will be next revolutionary material and can be very well use on radars and military applications. GaO is immature for now.. need more time. China/USA and Japan three countries are working on this.
Gallium oxide is 10 times more efficient than GaN.
Harbin institute successfully got diamond substrate to work with CETC's GaN devices.. So China is moving to GaN-on-Diamond soon.
China is moving really fast..
antiterror13
Brigadier
You meant "at least 4 more J-20AS ...."
Tech is definitely advancing quickly, I agree that upcoming new materials might be much better than current stuff. I'm just saying we shouldn't go overboard. Let's let things develop a bit before we throw around claims like detecting F-35 at 150km or whatever. This tech is not yet ready so we shouldn't get too carried away. Things don't always pan out and frequently the new tech, while an improvement, isn't like 3x better than the old stuff.
In this case I think 3x is reasonable just based on experimentally verifiable data. I think if people want to lay out the more cautionary case they’re first going to have to lay out why transceiver power scaling at the component level won’t translate to the system level. That would be the most effective direction to take discussion if we want to steel man the claim.
Keep in mind that we don’t know what criteria are for detection range. Is it 50 percent probability of detection or 75 percent?
I think it is just good practice to avoid being too confident with things like "detect XYZ at ABC range" (like what Sequ wrote in a previous post that ENTED64 replied to)
Those sort of statements tend to be over-confident, and for people who read things here and then proceed to participate in discussions elsewhere, it risks people making claims that they don't fully understand the rumours or logic behind and being unable to properly defend themselves if challenged to front up with receipts.
Making no comment about specific ranges on my part, but there’s I’d argue some good reason to believe the claims on relative performance gains. Ultimately the physics and engineering questions will speak for themselves.