AESA

johngage

Originally posted by mat_toro at 28-6-2007 03:09 PM
I guess everyone already managed to find the secret of manufacturing AESA...

Mat Toro, The SU-30MKM already uses some of the Thales avionics of the Rafale, such as the Thales HUD, the Damocles pod, and there is talk that the RMAF is going to itergrate the Rafale Top-sight helmet as well. Would it be possible for them to also fit the SU-30MKM with the RBE2 AESA as well? Its exciting to me to think that the SU-30MKM equipped with Rafale avionics could be more sophisticated than the SU-30MKI...

http://www.dassault-aviation.com ... afale/RBE2_AESA.pdf

razhar

harga beb...harga....

johngage

Originally posted by razhar at 29-6-2007 01:47 AM
harga beb...harga....

Harga boleh jadi mahal. Tetapi kita tidak perlu buat semua sekaligus. Kita upgrade SU-30MKM mengikut peruntukan yang ada. Kalau tak cukup duit untuk AESA radar, upgrade helmet Russia kpd Rafale Top-sight dulu. Lepas itu bila ada peruntukan lagi kita upgrade sistem ECM Russia kpd standard Rafale Spectra. Kalau masih tak cukup peruntukan, kita tunggu untuk mid-life upgrade sebelum memasukan radar RBE2 AESA itu. Kalau benar benar tak mampu radar RBE2 AESA, kita cuba tengok boleh ke masukkan radar Phazotron Zhuk-AESA. Yang penting planning ada untuk upgrade SU-30MKM ini kerana potensi dia memang banyak.

[ Last edited by  johngage at 29-6-2007 03:25 AM ]

Nick_Perelman

RBE2 is not ready yet. Tests will start only in 2007 and production is planned in 2010.

johngage

Originally posted by Nick_Perelman at 29-6-2007 05:59 AM
RBE2 is not ready yet. Tests will start only in 2007 and production is planned in 2010.

I am aware of this but I was hoping it would feature as part of a future upgrade for the SU-30MKM. As far as I know the only AESA radar in SE Asia will come with the F-15SG.

jofizo

apa bezanya radar AESA ngan PESA nih......?

mcm mana kedua2 nya beroperasi........?

apa kelebihan dan kekurangan kedua2 jenis radar nih...........?


* bagi penerangan yg simple2 leh paham dah ler, yg teknikal2 tuh kang poning kepala den lak........

Whats so great about AESA?? Well, basically nothing. But it can do everything simultaneously... has longer range.. it can slew the beam faster than a mechanically scanned radar (but so can PESA radars), & because it has multiple transmit/receive modules, it can keep working with quite a lot of failed elements, though with reduced performance Why I say that?? Becoz being able to scan faster is nothing because you need the timed intervals between scans to be able to determine the speed and heading of the target.

Nak jawapan teknikal??

PESA guna emitter dgn seketul high power transmitter atau phase shifter (impuls dari setiap elemen berpindah fasa @phase shifted dari fasa sebelumnya dengan perubahan frekuensi yg tertentu) dan beberapa modul antenna receiver... bila lu kira balik secara matematik semua impuls tadi kita akan dapati radar PESA nih bukan sahaja memancar ke hadapan tetapi juga ke sisi... so nampak luas pemandangan kita beb... tapi sidelobe luas... senang sikit nak jam...

AESA guna bersepah punya banyak (puluhan ribu beb) modul T/R yg independen untuk berpindah fasa... emitter, receiver dalam satu set so dia kecik laa... lagi jarak pergerakan signal pendek... so lagi banyak power untuk pancaran sebab takyah kasi amplify signal sangat... lagi satu kalau lu tukar emitter yang tadi bebanyak kat PESA tuh dengan T/R modul seketul tuh... takyah bagi banyak power... so ikut kebiasaan seorang pomen murahan cam aku nih kurang power maknanya kurang haba terbuang... so kurang la kerosakan... kalau satu dua emitter nih rosak pun tak kacau signal & phase shifting beb... Lagi satu sebab dia independen punya transceiver dia buleh pancar ikut suka ati bapak dia... kiranya tak ikut turutan laa macam PESA... so susah nak baca dia punya pancaran... bila kecik lagi dia punya sidelobe pun kecik... susah sikit nak jam (tapi tak mustahil la)...

Tapi lain dari tuh takde la banyak sangat kelebihan AESA nih... Saper la yg track target sampai 64 bijik tuh?? Tak lojiknyer??

Sori... edit sikit... gua sendiri baca pun konfius...hehehehehe...

[ Last edited by  mat_toro at 29-6-2007 10:52 AM ]

Aiseh... sori... T/R=Transmit/Receive=Transceiver...

If got money & support from the civvies who control our money can lah... if they too busy collecting ufti from ehem, ehem then sad lah...

johngage

Originally posted by mat_toro at 29-6-2007 10:26 AM
If got money & support from the civvies who control our money can lah... if they too busy collecting ufti from ehem, ehem then sad lah...

Memanglah, apa nak buat...  

Cuma nak tau saja, dari segi teknikal adakah AESA ini boleh dipasang je SU-30MKM kita.

Link ini memang interesting pasal tentang AESA: http://kuku.sawf.org/Emerging+Technologies/2667.aspx

Buleh... sapa kata tak buleh... dari segi teknikal laa... dari sudut politik lain cerita...

Actually when you read about it therese nothing special about the AESA in comparison to the PESA... other than the fact that it has higher reliability (multiple T/R modules) theres pretty much nothing about the AESA thats better than the PESA... even talking about jamming we see not much (if any) kelebihan on the AESA... it may have smaller side lobes but so what?? Jamming frequencies are transmitted in a wide spectrum of frequencies and amplitudes... it is indiscriminate when destroying radar waves... so i dont think the AESA is immune to jamming at all... but I'm just an engineer... what do I know...

johngage

Mat Toro, since you are an engineer, can you tell me whether this is true, I read that one of the advantages of AESA is also that the quality of return is so good that you can actually tell what aircraft you have detected from the radar return. This is due to the signal hitting the compressor blades of the enemy aircraft (front or back). Apparently this is a great help in IFF. Check out this quote:

Out of the mid-1970s 慚usketeer

Well... first of all engine fan blades rotate and variations of speed... secondly its not uncommon for engine compressor blades to crack and break off due to fatigue... it also deteriorates over time... the size of the blades itself expands and contracts (not much though but at high RPM the RCS will have significant changes) from the heat and pressure and centrifugal force... thats not taking into account cases of external/internal FOD or birdstrike...

Your remark on the AESA having better quality of return which I assume means range resolution quality I have to say is non-applicable when comparing to PESA... as the main difference between the two are the T/R modules (antenna)... and range resolution is not a feature of an antena, but it's a complex system, where the major role players are the signal processing unit(s) and the patterns it's using... an antenna on it's own can't do a lot...

The last link to military aerospace & electronics I have to say though interesting it is not applicable when comparing to PESA because it is stating the AESA's advantages over a mechanically scanned radar... the PESA is not a mechanically scanned radar... it is a phased array radar... like the AESA itself...

Also the capability to track multiple targets it is an inherent ablity of all phased array radars (like the PESA)... this is because it can shift phase so quickly it kinda gives you the feeling like you have a lotta radars on board... a mechanically scanned radar cant do this as it sweeps... it doesn't shift...

But we dont have AESA... so I might be talking absolute nonsense... what do I know...??  

Good links though... but the first some pieces are more media oriented than scientific... but its the internet... everyone has their own piece to say for whatever reasons they may have... and we dont have the AESA... so I cant say for sure...

mentosonline

Originally posted by mat_toro at 29-6-2007 10:22 AM
  Becoz being able to scan faster is nothing because you need the timed intervals between scans to be able to determine the speed and heading of the target.

That's not true. With the AESA you the timed intervals are reduced to virtually instantaneous becouse of the multiple T/R modules painting the target. Not to mention, AESA is virtually immune to jamming because of the multiple T/R modules which can individually frequency hop. You'd have to jam every possible frequency to jam an AESA.

mentosonline

In a book I read, I saw pictures taken by an F-15E radar (non AESA nor PESA) of an airfield, with quite detailed resolution.
It basically made a picture of an airfield from a distance that looked almost the same (after modding the colours) as a normal camera.
If the technology has accelerated as much as the scientists are claiming, the counting fan blades are nothing.

johngage

Originally posted by mentosonline at 2-7-2007 06:16 PM
In a book I read, I saw pictures taken by an F-15E radar (non AESA nor PESA) of an airfield, with quite detailed resolution.
It basically made a picture of an airfield from a distance that looke ...

I completely agree and I suspect that what is reported in open sources (newspapers, internet, magazines...etc) is not an accurate reflection of the tech which is available to the military. I just thought that AESA's ability to help in NCTR was an added bonus but presumably as Mat Toro has pointed out, to assist not completely replace IFF transponders. Very interesting posts by everyone.

Originally posted by mentosonline at 2-7-2007 06:13 PM


That's not true. With the AESA you the timed intervals are reduced to virtually instantaneous becouse of the multiple T/R modules painting the target. Not to mention, AESA is virtually immune ...

What difference is that to the PESA??  The "instantaneous" part occurs because of phase shifting... as compared to a mechanically scanned radar... The T/R modules only transmit and receives signals... they dont process the signals... And I am not convinced that the T/R modules actually work independently. Why?? Individually the T/R module is weak, which is why its arranged together by the tens of thousands to form a system in which turn the resulting image generated is the collective signals of the T/R modules... its just that they do it so bloody pronto (mili or micro seconds) that it gives the impression that you have multiple beams...

On the "virtually immune to jamming" point I have to again argue on that one... we all agree that the difference between the AESA & PESA are the T/R modules (antenna) design... the ability to counter jamming has more to do with the receiver and not the antenna.... The only thing anyone can do to the design of an antenna is to reduce the sidelobes and narrow the main leaf... It is up to the signal transmitter/receiver to select the signal pattern and select the proper ECM... And since both PESA and AESA are phase shifted there really isn't much difference is there??  Also as I have stated above since jamming signals are transmitted over a broad spectrum of frequencies and amplitudes it is indiscriminate and will jam anything within its destructive frequency range... I dunno if the AESA uses a frequency beyond that of any jamming signal though...

And again as I said earlier... we dont have the AESA... I've never worked on an AESA... so I dont know for sure and I might be talking complete bollocks here... but its just my view that the AESA is just an over-glorified phased array radar... maybe for marketing & psychological purposes or something... dont take my word for it though... what do I know anyway...

mentosonline

Originally posted by mat_toro at 3-7-2007 02:04 PM


I dunno if the AESA uses a frequency beyond that of any jamming signal though...

As said you earlier, AESA is not much different from PESA except the multiple T/R modules.
Exactly so. Both use frequencies that are susceptible to jamming, but the catch with the multiple T/R modules in AESA means that each T/R module can independently transmit in different frequencies and frequency hop at the same time. It is true that theoretically you could jam an AESA, but you'd have to jam over 1000 different frequencies at the same time to have an effect.

Let's put it this way. The difference between AESA and PESA is that AESA is literally thousands of mini-PESAs. Because of that, the overall capability is much better and efficient over a PESA. Like the PESA, you can track and engage multiple targets, except even more, so you could technically use fighter jet AESAs as AEW aircraft.

Another advantage is that AESAs are LPI (low probability of intercept). In essence, that is a 'stealth radar'. You can't jam a radar you can't detect can you, unless it goes into fire control mode.

Of course, to some here is may not be much of a difference. However, if governments are willing in invests billions in AESA, than we can be sure that it is much better.

windof

kalah lagi nampaknya equipment kita compared to depa nih...ishk...ishk...ishk... memang tak boleh menang la nampak gayanya kita, apa yg kita beli, secanggih mana pun, semuanya seem to be ada counternya oleh perolehan2 baru depa nih, baru jer kita kata sue tu boleh jadi mini aew a/c, dengan aesa f15 depa tuh, nampaknya depa pun ader jugak mini aew nih...  dah ler scorpene yg sepatutnya hunter killer termoden tu pun dah dicounter ngan sub baru depa yg US pun sanggup sewa utk kaji doktrinnya, ishk..ishk..ishk.. kalu macam nih, tak payah la kita beli apa2, harap2 depa pn tak ler beli apa2 jugak...