J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Just for me to be sure. This is the E-7 that we are talking about, right? It is serving Australia.
I can see that the air inlet of the radar is on the supporting structure unlike Erieye and KJ-200. So technically you are right it is a 4 face radar and coverage is 360 degrees. But the size of its front and aft panels are much smaller than the sides, that means much less power emissions in front and rear 60 degrees, meaning much shorter ranges to target of the same RCS than from the sides.
So in effect, it is a slightly better configuration than a pure balance beam but much worse than a 3 face radar configured in a triangle like KJ-500. It is about raw power available within an angular range, there isn't much one can do other than physical arrangement.
Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array.
The front and aft panels are also responsible for less angular coverage: 60 degree vs. the 120 degree for the side faces. So the range is not necessarily shorter.
I agree. We won't know the real figure without some serious calculation by professionals.
It's a marketing buzzword from some US defense company. It stands for "multi-role electronically scanned array", but what it actually means is mediocre electronically scanned array. It's not an engineering term with actual meaning like PESA or AESA.
I must retract my earlier reply in #4,705
If the steering angle is 90 degrees perpendicular to the panel and if the beams are in the same shape, the more modules you have the more power reaches the target, or further in range. That means the front panel will have much shorter range than the side panel in their max ranges.
So the conclusion remains that E-7 in its current form has much shorter range in its front and rear 60 degrees compared to its sides. Its coverage is not a circle but a rectangular with unequal ranges.
I must retract this post. see #4707.
Just for me to be sure. This is the E-7 that we are talking about, right? It is serving Australia.
I can see that the air inlet of the radar is on the supporting structure unlike Erieye and KJ-200. So technically you are right it is a 4 face radar and coverage is 360 degrees. But the size of its front and aft panels are much smaller than the sides, that means much less power emissions in front and rear 60 degrees, meaning much shorter ranges to target of the same RCS than from the sides.
So in effect, it is a slightly better configuration than a pure balance beam but much worse than a 3 face radar configured in a triangle like KJ-500. It is about raw power available within an angular range, there isn't much one can do other than physical arrangement.
Yes, that is the radar I am talking about.
I am not sure how the "uniformity" of 360 degree coverage of the E-7 compares with KJ-500, but one could also argue that given the fact that AEWC usually fly racetrack style surveillance flight profiles, having more powerful side coverage arrays is actually more beneficial than a three sided fixed face configuration.
There are multiple ways to skin a cat, after all.
All of this is to say -- I think everyone is reading too much into the USAF general's words, and trying to compare the details of KJ-500 and E-7 is unhelpful and misguided.
There are no meaningful substantive differences between the two that can be viewed as barn door obvious deficiencies/advantages for either of them.
Not having uniform 360 degree coverage might hurt you with triangulating stealthy bogies. But the effective impact may not be significant.
- Status