Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
An "AFAR" is an "AESA", "active electronically scanned array".
Morpheus, can you plz explain which missiles will be using these AESA radars. Thanks.
Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
An "AFAR" is an "AESA", "active electronically scanned array".
jhelb wrote:Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
An "AFAR" is an "AESA", "active electronically scanned array".
Morpheus, can you plz explain which missiles will be using these AESA radars. Thanks.
Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Small AFAR (MAFAR)
Cyberspec wrote:Thx Morpheus![]()
Austin wrote:Thanks Nice post
Is the advantage by Aesa is huge enough to cancel procuring Irbis pesa like capability ? Would jamming Irbis say using Aesa antenna will be easier done compared to jamming Aesa ?
Austin wrote:Thanks Nice post
Is the advantage by Aesa is huge enough to cancel procuring Irbis pesa like capability ? Would jamming Irbis say using Aesa antenna will be easier done compared to jamming Aesa ?
So if I was flying lets say a Su 35S that has Tikhomirov's AESA radar and you were flying a Su 30MKI that has Irbis, I will find it easier to jam your radar. In this case Tikhomirov's AESA radar would do the following: increase power trying to burn through jamming, change frequency in order to evade jamming or in some cases ignore the jammed sector.
http://www.tscm.com/rcvr-typ.pdf
sepheronx wrote:Irbis isnt even full on PESA anyway. Kinda a mixture between both really. Hybrid radar it was called.
higurashihougi wrote:Using of PESA in Su-30/35 is actually a good thing, not bad thing. PESA has the distinctive advantage of signal power, cleanliness and purity, something that AESA currently cannot achieve yet. And Su-30/35 radar antenna still have the traditional surface shape, it does not have unconventional shape like T-50 L-band radar, therefore people do not need to use AESA in Su-30/35.
higurashihougi wrote:The disadvantage of AESA, till today, is the quality, purity and power of the radar signal. Each of F-22's AESA modules has its own phase shifter and transmitters. That cause numerous distortions both in frequency and phase. Newer generation of AESA radars have only one transmitter, but each phase module has its own shifter. That fixes the problem of distortion, but still the power of AESA is still not strong enough.
higurashihougi wrote:
The difference between AESA and PESA dynamic shifted phase (like Irbis, Bars), is that each phase module of AESA has its own phase shifter, while the phase shifting of all PESA modules is generated by one shifter only.
Stealthflanker wrote:Why PESA radar can't do the same ? PESA can have frequency hopping... can also have guard channel for sidelobe blanking and ignore the jammed sector.. can also have leading edge tracking to counter some types of deceptive jamming.
PESA can also have high power transmitter to attempt to burn through.
PESA isn't more powerful based off of design, rather, it depends on the model. AESA panels are harder to "lock on to" (they can hop frequencies, blend frequencies etc), harder to jam, and also higher resolution. A good example of this, is how many AESA panels can map the ground.victor1985 wrote:i wanna ask something: as far as i know the PESA radar has a single beam but powerfull than AESA well in a combat the PESA will detect from far away than AESA ? so why AESA?
at what help if PESA will detect first and fire a missile?
Mike E wrote:
PESA isn't more powerful based off of design, rather, it depends on the model. AESA panels are harder to "lock on to" (they can hop frequencies, blend frequencies etc), harder to jam, and also higher resolution. A good example of this, is how many AESA panels can map the ground.
Mike E wrote:PESA isn't more powerful based off of design, rather, it depends on the model. AESA panels are harder to "lock on to" (they can hop frequencies, blend frequencies etc), harder to jam, and also higher resolution. A good example of this, is how many AESA panels can map the ground.victor1985 wrote:i wanna ask something: as far as i know the PESA radar has a single beam but powerfull than AESA well in a combat the PESA will detect from far away than AESA ? so why AESA?
at what help if PESA will detect first and fire a missile?
higurashihougi wrote:
In general PESA does have advantage about the purity, cleanliness and power of the signal. Many AESA models suffer from the distortion of both phase and frequency, like F-22 AESA. Newer AESAs fix the distortion problem, but seems like the power is still not strong enough.
The distinctive advantage of AESA is that, each phase module can be shifted individually, thanks to the fact that each phase module has its own phase shifter. That means, you can put the AESA module in any kinds of unconventional surface instead of the traditional phase plane. Easy to see, you can individually change the phase of each module to create desirable total radar beam, disregard of the position of each module.
Many people usually emphasize one advantage of the AESA that is dynamic shifted phase, that it can rapidly move the direction of the radar beam due to the rapid shift of the phase of each modules. But PESA like Irbis and Bars can have dynamic shifted phase, too. PESA dynamic shifted phase is relatively bulky and heavy, and the movement of the radar beam is slower, but well the size of Irbis and Bars is acceptable.
There are radars who use one common transmitter for all phase module, but each module has its own phase shifter instead of using one common phase shifter for all the modules. Some people call them PESA because of the one common transmitter, but some others call them AESA since each module has its own phase shifter and the phase shift can be controlled individually.![]()
![]()
![]()
Stealthflanker wrote:
Furthermore..if it can be realized the AESA is the only way to "true time delay" Photonic beamsteering control, where phase shifter is replaced with other means like optic fibre.
|
|