J/APG-1

[Cjc]

The one thing am curious about this radar is, could it have been made small enough to fit in a regular f-16 or was the increased size of the f-2 nessary inorder to fit it.
And how much would that have effected its range because as is, iv seen the J/APG 1's range as described as in between the apg-66 and the apg-68 which frankly could mean its range only dealt with its increased size and not that it was asea.

 

[F-2]

The one thing am curious about this radar is, could it have been made small enough to fit in a regular f-16 or was the increased size of the f-2 nessary inorder to fit it.
And how much would that have effected its range because as is, iv seen the J/APG 1's range as described as in between the apg-66 and the apg-68 which frankly could mean its range only dealt with its increased size and not that it was asea.

You beat me to making this topic lol. I have a FOIA for test data on the Enginnering model flight test data given by Japan to the DoD as part of the technology transfer agreement. The paper you talking about I am actually quite familiar with. The Author is actually referring the document I want. The reason he says that J/APG-1 is in between APG-66 and APG-68 is because the Engineering model is considerably less powerful then the final J/APG-1. He mentions the T/R modules between the EM and FM (flight model, final production hardware) are virtually equivalent (3w) but what he didn’t know, or rather couldn’t have know is the FM has over 1200 T/R modules vs 808 for the EM. Almost all publications including several GAO reports cite the 808 number However looking at the unit

You can see 1216 units which is a dramatic difference in power.

There are quite a few antidotes to show the J/APG-1 outranges early 2000s incarnations of APG-68(v)5

USFJ Commander takes a spin in Japan's new F-2 fighter

MISAWA AIR BASE, Japan — The top U.S. military commander in Japan rode Tuesday where no American has sat before — in the back seat of Japan’s newest fighter aircraft, the F-2.

www.stripes.com

J/APG-1のレーダー視程について（修正） : 週刊オブイェクト

110km look up 65km look down. I have a few mentions of the early F-2 doing well against Misawa block 50 aircraft. That would only really be possible if this was true because in the early 2000s the F-2 only had AIM-7F and USAF F-16 had AIM-120c5.

As to putting J/APG-1 in an F-16, it’s 150KG so a bit lighter then APG-68 but antenna size is 70cm (j/apg-2 is listed as 72cm) this is closer in size to apg-65. The real issue is cooling though only the block 60 has the needed cooling system and APG-80 is in between j/apg-1 and j/apg-2 in power so it’s not really needed.

 

[stealthflanker]

Well APG-66/68 family antenna is 75 x 48 cm in size. Since F-2 is based on F-16, particularly Agile Falcon program back then the J/APG-1 antenna size must not be far off.

As to putting J/APG-1 in an F-16, it’s 150KG so a bit lighter then APG-68 but antenna size is 70cm (j/apg-2 is listed as 72cm) this is closer in size to apg-65.

Not really, you see, F-18 family have circular nose cross section while F-2 is eliptical. Thus APG-65 is bigger than APG-66/68 and thus the J/APG-1.

 

[F-2]

Well APG-66/68 family antenna is 75 x 48 cm in size. Since F-2 is based on F-16, particularly Agile Falcon program back then the J/APG-1 antenna size must not be far off.

As to putting J/APG-1 in an F-16, it’s 150KG so a bit lighter then APG-68 but antenna size is 70cm (j/apg-2 is listed as 72cm) this is closer in size to apg-65.

Not really, you see, F-18 family have circular nose cross section while F-2 is eliptical. Thus APG-65 is bigger than APG-66/68 and thus the J/APG-1.

The F-2 has a nose that is longer and wider then the F-16s. If you look closely it droops down compared to the F-16.

 

[F-2]

Future fire control system, the precursor to J/apg-1. Started in 1981 and came as a surprise to several US technical teams. First flow on a modified C-1 in 1986; early on the Japanese teams had some difficulty getting the T/R modules to work together. Problem seems to have been solved by April 1987. Used very large (Six inch long!) T/R modules and nicknamed the “Dragonfly’s eye” to to AESA being superficially similar to a compound eye. Software was later used in J/APG-1.

 

[Kota]

I guess tangentially related since this thread is about the J/APG-1, but do we have any info on the J/APG-2 improvements. Early on I saw that it was simply integration of the AAM-4 capability for the F-2, but that doesn't make much sense to increment the number simply for that since the F-15J integrated the AAM-4 on it's existing radar with no designation change.

I think it was the website where this photo is from made the claim that the J/APG-2 changed to GaN from the J/APG-1 GaAs

I also saw something a while back that an F-2 flew as a testbed for an F-X radar development. I think it was this one. Any info would be appreciated.

 

[F-2]

I guess tangentially related since this thread is about the J/APG-1, but do we have any info on the J/APG-2 improvements. Early on I saw that it was simply integration of the AAM-4 capability for the F-2, but that doesn't make much sense to increment the number simply for that since the F-15J integrated the AAM-4 on it's existing radar with no designation change.

I think it was the website where this photo is from made the claim that the J/APG-2 changed to GaN from the J/APG-1 GaAs

I also saw something a while back that an F-2 flew as a testbed for an F-X radar development. I think it was this one. Any info would be appreciated.
View attachment 684110

Hi friend!

J/APG-1 was built with the support fighter role in mind the idea of upgrading for air superiority missions is old dating back to Mitsubishi’s bid to replace the F-4

Mitsubishi investigates F-2 air superiority development

Andrzej Jeziorski/TOKYO Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) is considering the development of a dedicated air superiority version of its new F-2 support fighter. According to Junichi Miyakawa, MHI military aircraft design section manager, the variant is being considered as a potential replacement...

www.flightglobal.com

When the Fs-x program was underway Aesa radars where expensive. The dem Val radars in the ATF program cost as much as a new F-16. The investment from the ATF program ended up making other systems more affordable. Japan got around this by designing its modules very conservatively. In the late 2000s when Japan’s security situation had changed the F-2 was upgraded to have enhanced air to air capability. AAM-4 requires a separate command transmitter. J/apg-1 was large and there was no place to put it. J/apg-1 predates XAAM-4 and for whatever reason JASDF never seemed to have any interest adding AMRAAM to the F-2 (JMSIP F-15j and the F-35 both can carry AMRAAM).

What's the J/APG-1's detection performance?

Can you provide any info about it? Is its range longer than that of both the AN/APG-68 and -80?

www.key.aero

J/APG-1 - Wikipedia

ja.wikipedia.org

This key topic sites an Avation week article on the subject no Jwiki has a lot of interesting info


Basically new radar modules and undisclosed modifications to antenna (rumor was 6w GaN citing a 2001 TRDI paper I can’t find)

New signal processor

New search algorithms and software

Said to be APG-79 class

New Radome

Unknown if cooling has been upgraded

It’s made by modifying the existing radar but I’m not actually sure how similar the two are in terms of modes search algorithms ect. I don’t believe any pictures exist of it


As for the new radar yes it was tested on the F-2 at Gifu I attached one image but I have a very detailed article. The XF-2 with the light grey nose are carrying it. It’s described as a J/apg-2 derivative. I saw some tweets implying it might be added to line F-2.

次期戦闘機・アビオニクス（2-1） : 軍事あれこれとかのblog

«アビオニクス関連（2-1）»低ＲＣＳ目標を見つけるGaN送受信モジュールアンテナのフレキシブル化技術の研究先進統合センサ・システムに関する研究赤外線画像の高解像度技術に関する研究次世代赤外線センサ技術の研究　[低ＲＣＳ目標を見つけるGaN送受信モジュール]2011年（

hitomaru10.livedoor.blog

 

[stealthflanker]

The F-2 has a nose that is longer and wider then the F-16s. If you look closely it droops down compared to the F-16.

Well by how much wider it is.

 

[GARGEAN]

BTW what's the story about early production -1 having software problems leading to beamforming failure and thus limiting range much?

 

[F-2]

BTW what's the story about early production -1 having software problems leading to beamforming failure and thus limiting range much?

I heard their where some software integration issues but the actual problem was the Radome changed from the early test program and it wasn’t accounted for (Pitot tube placement seems to be the most commonly cited issue) it apparently was never a problem for air to ground and resolved fairly quickly (2002? With the F-2 on air defense patrol definitely by 2004) for air to air with some unspecified countermeasures. J/APG-2 apparently uses a different Radome.

Stealth I’m still looking for the answer to your question, I might not have it till I get some documentation related to the design which may be up to six months.

 

[GARGEAN]

BTW what's the story about early production -1 having software problems leading to beamforming failure and thus limiting range much?

I heard their where some software integration issues but the actual problem was the Radome changed from the early test program and it wasn’t accounted for (Pitot tube placement seems to be the most commonly cited issue) it apparently was never a problem for air to ground and resolved fairly quickly (2002? With the F-2 on air defense patrol definitely by 2004) for air to air with some unspecified countermeasures. J/APG-2 apparently uses a different Radome.

Stealth I’m still looking for the answer to your question, I might not have it till I get some documentation related to the design which may be up to six months.

Ah, so it wasn't software but radome. Interesting. Do you have any details?

 

[F-2]

BTW what's the story about early production -1 having software problems leading to beamforming failure and thus limiting range much?

I heard their where some software integration issues but the actual problem was the Radome changed from the early test program and it wasn’t accounted for (Pitot tube placement seems to be the most commonly cited issue) it apparently was never a problem for air to ground and resolved fairly quickly (2002? With the F-2 on air defense patrol definitely by 2004) for air to air with some unspecified countermeasures. J/APG-2 apparently uses a different Radome.

Stealth I’m still looking for the answer to your question, I might not have it till I get some documentation related to the design which may be up to six months.

Ah, so it wasn't software but radome. Interesting. Do you have any details?

Not really unfortunately, I just heard it mentioned a lot and it was considered for J/APG-2.

次期戦闘機・アビオニクス（1-1） : 軍事あれこれとかのblog

«アビオニクス関連（1-1）»コンフォーマル空中線スマートスキンの研究コンフォーマル・レーダー・システムの研究スマートRFセンサの研究3次元高精度方探システム[コンフォーマル空中線]ぺ〜ぶ♡すぱぃく氏のツイートより転載1987〜1997年«概要»　曲面薄型構造空中線の実

hitomaru10.livedoor.blog

Japanese AESA research with a genealogy of Japanese Phased array technology.

 

[F-2]

One thing I’m curious about is the Future fire control system’s T/R modules. They are fairly long at about Six inches compared to the 3.5 for the j/apg-1 and 2.5 for the ATF dem Val. Are they True MMIC or Hybrid MIC like THE CONTEMPORARY SSPA. The sources I’ve seen are ambiguous.

 

[F-2]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1186984553690193921

View: https://twitter.com/thabos47747375/status/1186984553690193921


This was the basis of the idea the F-X test radar might have been installed in the F-2.

 

[F-2]

I wanna thank my buddy Nemo KB for the translation

 

[Kota]

I wanna thank my buddy Nemo KB for the translation

Do you have any idea if the conformal antennas were mounted on any test airframe? From the looks of it, it was planned for the original concept of FS-X, but that wasn't built. Was there an XF-2 that maybe tested them?

 

[F-2]

I wanna thank my buddy Nemo KB for the translation

Do you have any idea if the conformal antennas were mounted on any test airframe? From the looks of it, it was planned for the original concept of FS-X, but that wasn't built. Was there an XF-2 that maybe tested them?

Yes fairly recently too, it’s at the bottom of one of the links up top “3d search system”

次期戦闘機・アビオニクス（1-1） : 軍事あれこれとかのblog

«アビオニクス関連（1-1）»コンフォーマル空中線スマートスキンの研究コンフォーマル・レーダー・システムの研究スマートRFセンサの研究3次元高精度方探システム[コンフォーマル空中線]ぺ〜ぶ♡すぱぃく氏のツイートより転載1987〜1997年«概要»　曲面薄型構造空中線の実

hitomaru10.livedoor.blog

https://www.melonbooks.co.jp/detail/detail.php?product_id=618142

 

[Ronny]

any information about the range of J/APG-2

 

[F-2]

any information about the range of J/APG-2

Japanese mod claim APG-79 class

Military periscope claims a 300 precent power increase over J/apg-1 along with a new signal processor for a 120km range without stating what rcs.

That one blogger above had access to an mod pdf with some information on GAN T/R modules under development at the same time seems to agree with the APG-79 comparison but I don’t have access to the PDF he’s talking about so I can’t see for myself. (I’d like to run it through Stealthflankers calculator)

 

[F-2]

A document I meant to share a while ago

 

[F-2]

Possibly a picture of the J/APG-2 TR module. Trying to find the document this came from. It matches the antidotal description.