AESA Radar the pros and cons??

Jezza

Member
An Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA), also known as active phased array radar is a type of radar whose transmitter and receiver functions are composed of numerous small transmit/receive (T/R) modules. AESA radars feature short to instantaneous (millisecond) scanning rates and have a desirable low probability of intercept.
As solid state devices, AESA radars have vastly simpler mechanical designs. They require no complex hydraulics for antenna movement nor hinge appendages that are prone to failure. The AESA radar occupies less space than typical radar, because of its lesser infrastructure requirements and of course its absent range of motion. The distributed transmit function also eliminates the most common single-point failure mode seen in a conventional radar. With these improvements, maintenance crews are far less severely taxed, and the radar is much more reliable.
Main advantages over mechanically scanned arrays are extremely fast scanning rate, much higher range, tremendous number of targets being tracked and engaged (multiple agile beams), low probability of intercept, ability to function as a radio/jammer, simultaneous air and ground modes, Synthetic Aperture Radar.
Mechanical steering may be added to AESA radars for increased radar field of view; The movement performance of the antenna would not need to be nearly as great as that of a traditional radar, as the radar sweep is not integral to the contact update rate.

For all the professionals out there with unique experience?
Whats the pros and cons for AESA?
 

MarcH

Member
Well, I wouldn't consider myself as a professional, but some simpel points from me:
AESA:
+LPI
+multitasking
+better performance in general
+maintenance friendly

-much cooling required with existing modules
-narrow field of view
-$$$
 

nero

New Member
Well, I wouldn't consider myself as a professional, but some simpel points from me:
AESA:
+LPI
+multitasking
+better performance in general
+maintenance friendly

-much cooling required with existing modules
-narrow field of view
-$$$
.


by the way, is the ZHUK-MS radar AESA or PESA ??

also, how different is the n-011m radar among it's peers???


.
 

Jezza

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
sorry i should not of put professionals on the bottom.:unknown

forum (plural forums or fora)
  1. A place for discussion.
  2. A gathering for the purpose of discussion.
  3. A form of discussion involving a panel of presenters and often participation by members of the audience.
  4. An Internet message board where users can post messages regarding one or more topics of discussion.
I guess the biggest gain is no moving parts and better coverage:cool: :cool: :cool:
 

jaffo4011

New Member
in air international this week there is a comparison of the typhoon and rafale.
now as i understand it the rafale has a first gen passive aesa radar and the typhoon has the mechanical captor.(active aesa development captor flight tested recently and in progress)
the article stated that the captor has much better reliability and cooling than the French and American aesa sets at this stage in their development and superior performance to the french system (although it didnt comment on the us aesa performance vs captor)
 

swerve

Super Moderator
in air international this week there is a comparison of the typhoon and rafale.
now as i understand it the rafale has a first gen passive aesa radar and the typhoon has the mechanical captor.(active aesa development captor flight tested recently and in progress)...
Slight misunderstanding of terminology. Can't have a passive AESA - that's a PESA. The first A in AESA is for Active. ;)

Captor was flight tested with an AESA antenna on a Typhoon last month, but the radar & antenna were flight-tested together early last year on a testbed aircraft, & had previously been mounted on a Typhoon, but not flight-tested, & done lots of ground testing. Development is pretty well advanced now.
 
Last edited:

jaffo4011

New Member
Slight misunderstanding of terminology. Can't have a passive AESA - that's a PESA. The first A in AESA is for Active. ;)

Captor was flight tested with an AESA antenna on a Typhoon last month, but the radar & antenna were flight-tested together early last year on a testbed aircraft, & had previously been mounted on a Typhoon, but not flight-tested, & done lots of ground testing. Development is pretty well advanced now.

sorry about that ive obviously misread that then(doh!).what kind of system does the rafale utilise then?...is it an aesa?
 

Ryttare

New Member
AESA technology is by most considered to have a greater potential than traditional MESA. The major drawback is probably that it's still inmature. The present modules are not so efficient and produce much heat. Also the system requires a very capable system for processing the data and there has been reports of problems with bugs in that system in the F-18 AESA radars.

To take it short, AESA technology is probably a big step forward, but it's more difficult to know if todays AESA radars are better than a mature MESA.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
.


by the way, is the ZHUK-MS radar AESA or PESA ??

also, how different is the n-011m radar among it's peers???


.
The BARS (N011M) is a PESA and a pretty good one. Big power output and apature allways help. AFAIK and i'm not an expert, it compares favorably to the APG 63 (v)1 & 2, APG 70, APG 73 and APG 68 in classic radar peramiters such as detection and track range v RCS, number of targets that can be tracked and engaged, performance in clutter rich environments ect, ect. However it cant really compare to the liquid cooled APG 77, APG 79 and APG 81 AESA's in classic radar performance, not to mention all the cool stuff you can do with with an AESA.

The ZHUK AE is the russians AESA and has been fitted to the MiG 35 prototype being offered to india as their new "low" capability fighter to complement their "high" capability SU 30MKI. Not too shure what its capabilities are, because AFAIK its only been put on the one aircraft so far. From the pictures the apature looks to be quite small and there would have to be cooling constraints in the smaller nosecone. Given these limitations and the imaturity of the system you could assume it would still be quite inferior to US AESA's such as the APG 79, APG 77 and APG 81 in all peramiters.

You guys are missing a very important advantage AESA's have over MSA or PESA's. Its not just better performance, LPI or better maintince, the EW capability mature AESA's give a platform are significant. If mature enough this could be a huge advantage. Imagine a squadron or wing of EW assets in theater rather than 4 or 6. Once you have a whole fighter fleet with decent EA/EW capabilities plus dedicated EW assets this gives you a huge advantage, especially in an Information dominated and networked battlespace.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
I presume that EW stands for electronic warfare and not early warning.

The problem is that AESA's EW capabilities have not really been demonstrated. In theory it sounds good but in practice, it could have as much impact as the IRST (which was more hype than effect).
Sorry that could be a bit confusing. EW stands for Electronic Warfare, EA stands for Electronic Attack.

Well the Growler uses the APG 79 as its base platform, the "kit" can be installed or revoved in three days, so it must have a decent EW capability if it only takes that ammount of time to transform a multi role platform to a dedicated EW asset.

But your right we'll just have to weight and see.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
The Growler, like the EA-6B, still uses the ALQ-99 Pod to conduct electronic warfare. AESA capabilities are not factored in at present when considering an EW aircraft.

You can read more as well as its related links from this report...
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06446.pdf
Thanks i didnt know that. I assumed the APG 79 played a part given its stated EW capabilities. There has to be more than the Growler and the Prowler than the jaming pods they carrie though, the basline avionics have to be used. For instance can a normal A6 be converted to an EA-6B with the same ease as the F18E/F to EF18E/F???? If not then most of the avionics needed should be on the SH and therefore any EW capability the APG 79 has should be abel to be effectively utilised.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks i didnt know that. I assumed the APG 79 played a part given its stated EW capabilities. There has to be more than the Growler and the Prowler than the jaming pods they carrie though, the basline avionics have to be used. For instance can a normal A6 be converted to an EA-6B with the same ease as the F18E/F to EF18E/F????
I don't think so, because the EA-6 is a 4 seat aircraft while the normal A-6 is 2 seat.
 

dioditto

New Member
I think one big disadvantage of AESA from what I have read is the enormous power requirement for cooling, and also for scanning. PLAAF was offer AESA for their SU-30 MKK but doesn't have the power output required to operate it. The russian was basically trying to get PLAAF to buy a new platform (Mig-35? Su-37?)
 
Last edited:

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
I don't think so, because the EA-6 is a 4 seat aircraft while the normal A-6 is 2 seat.
So in the growler the RIO will be doing the job of three guys?????? Must be either a big improvement in avionics and automation or a big drop in capabilities. If the former is true then the Block II avionics will be able to fully utilise any EW/EA capabilities of the APG 79.
 
Top