AESA

johngage

Originally posted by windof at 3-7-2007 07:43 PM
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 coun ...

Isunya tiga: 1. Politik

                   2. Ekonomi

                   3. Planning


1) Politik- Dari segi politik, Orang politik mereka sedar kepentingan pertahanan. Jadi mereka sedia memberi peruntukan cukup untuk membeli senjata. Bukan macam orang politik kita, kalau ATM kata nak peruntukan beli senjata, start selalu complain dan menangis "Malaysia nak perang dengan siapa?"

Lepas itu senjata yang dibeli bukan yang ATM hendak kerana peruntukan tidak cukup. Tengok saja isu friget Lekiu II. TLDM nak Aster-15. Tetapi sebab peruntukan tak cukup, kena beli ESSM. Banding dgn mereka, semasa airforce mereka hendak AWACS, peruntukan itu dicarikan walaupun luar dari peruntukan pertahanan mereka. Orang politik mereka tahu benda ini penting untuk pertahanan mereka.

2) Ekonomi- Mereka ada ekonomi 5-6x lebih besar drp kita. Jadi kalau Malaysia ada peruntukan $5 billion untuk pertahanan, mereka akan belanja $30 billion. Tetapi bukan itu yang menyedihkan. Yang menyedihkan ialah kerana banyak duit kita pergi kpd senjata yang debeli bukan kerana benda itu perlu. Tetapi sebab kroni ini nak commission, menteri ini nak duit...etc

Jadi kita tidak dapat full value for money atas apa yang kita beli.

3) Planning- Planning mereka bagus. Mereka beli atas apa jiran beli. Mereka tengok apa senjata paling behaya yang jiran ada, dan mereka akan beli senjata yang boleh membinasakan asset itu. Mereka pun lebih cekap segi logistik dan selalu fikir masa panjang, Kenapa beli F-15 dan bukan Rafale? Kerana kapalterbang lain F-16 dan F-5S buatan Amerika, latihan segi Amerika, senjata Amerika. Kalau beli Peranchis, nak guna senjata apa? latihan dimana? AWACS nak communicate macam mana dgn kapalterbang Peranchis? Mereka nak beli JSF. Tetapi kalau JSF lewat nak buat macam mana? Mereka akan beli F-15 lagi ! Jadi mereka fikir 10-15 tahun kedepan. Kita nak beli SU-30MKM dan FA-18F. Tetapi selepas itu apa kita nak beli untuk kapalterbang generasi lima? PAK-FA tak terbang lagi. Pilihan yang ada hanya JSF atau F-22. Saya sendiri tak tahu kapalterbang generasi 5 mana yang akan dipilih.

kalau kita sedar dan kaji..kesemua senjata yg kita beli tu semuanya jenis terpakai.adakah hanya itu yg mampu kita perolehi?...atau sememangnya suatu perancanagan yg kita tidak ketahui.pihak ATM hanya tau angguk jer..kesemua panglima-panglima ATM sekarang ni aku lihat terlalu lemah dan takut dengan kerajaan memerintah..sepatutnya.panglima ATM seharusnya bangga dengan kedudukan ketua angkatan bersenjata sebagai kepala negara.

mmc

itulah bezanya 'poison shrimp' strategi banding dengan kita..kita punya defensive strategy berdasarkan apa, itu yang kena ditanya...dan kalau dah faham dasarnya, kena tanya jugak mampukah kita mengikut rentak "poison shrimp' jugak...bloody nose tak bloody nose pun...

Aiyah... you still dont get my point... I said earlier that I do not believe the multiple T/R modules of the AESA works independently for reasons that it is weak on its own... what I believe is actually happening on the AESA is that the tens of thousands of T/R modules work together as a system and flash a single beam... not multiple beams... the reason why it appears to send out and receive multiple signals is because it does it so bloody fast that it appears to looks like it has many radars all at once... which is no different from the PESA... As for jamming I also said earlier that jamming frequencies are sent out in a broad spectrum of frequencies and amplitudes... you can hop frequencies as much as you want but if you hop into a frequency within the jamming spectrum it dont mean nothing...

I do agree that the AESA has higher reliability because it can still operate with several failed elements (T/R module) but with less performance... i.e. a few failed T/R modules but it still has twenty thousand or so working... thats the only advantage it has over the PESA as far as I can see... though I have no idea the MTBF of the PESA and the AESA... maybe you do?? And since it sends and receives a single beam as I said earlier it really is no more capable than the PESA in terms of the number of targets in can track... what is important in tracking the target is the processor as I said earlier too...

The stealth radar claim??... since it works in the exact same way as the PESA what makes it any better in that aspect to the PESA??

Look... I'm not saying the AESA aint good... I just aint convinced its all that the OEM claims it to be...

[ Last edited by  mat_toro at 4-7-2007 09:47 AM ]

mentosonline

It's not 20000 T/R modules, but around 900-3000 T/R modules.

I agree with you though, neither of us are experts with the system and we have our own views.
But the stealth radar claim is real. For example, the F-22 radar is virtually undetectable even by the latest US RWRs.

Really?? I read somewhere it was in the tens of thousands... just goes to show how reliable internet data is...

mentosonline

The average is 1500. F-22 has about 2500.

Really?? I would've thought since they could make it so small they'd put more to get a clearer image...

mentosonline

I think they can. The only problem is that with tens of thousands of T/R modules in a compact fighter radar, you're bound to cook all your silicon components with 10 mins of operation...

But the upcoming E-10 AEW&C will have about 10 thousand (i guess) T/R, but then again, the radar unit is much bigger than a fighter's.

Cooling is a simple problem to solve lah... Size is immaterial... its phased array... you dont need the space for the motor, actuator/gears etc of a mechanically arrayed radar so there is space available in the radome if they wanna use it... I think maybe the processor cant take it... maybe its too expensive to fit on a fighter... maybe its overkill to fit on a fighter... better suited for dedicated AWACS/ISR platform... larger space for extra or more powerful (also bigger) processor...

mentosonline

Originally posted by mat_toro at 6-7-2007 10:00 AM
Cooling is a simple problem to solve lah... Size is immaterial... its phased array... you dont need the space for the motor, actuator/gears etc of a mechanically arrayed radar so there is space a ...

That's right. Just add a lot of heat sinks (maybe even liquid nitro cooling), and you could have tens of thousands of T/R modules. Except that your radar is supposed to be compact, so there are limitations to the number of cooling systems. I suppose with current technology 1000- 3000 is what the industry can manage for a fighter class radar.

johngage

Originally posted by mentosonline at 6-7-2007 03:26 PM


That's right. Just add a lot of heat sinks (maybe even liquid nitro cooling), and you could have tens of thousands of T/R modules. Except that your radar is supposed to be compact, so there a ...

Read somewhere that the real problem is the cost of the facilites needed to manufacture AESA in large quantities. Apparently, that is the main reason why it is very difficult to develop AESA radar. You can make one or two individual AESA radars but to manufacture on an industrial scale, that's the difficulty.

windof

with mesia venture into nanotechnology, do u guys think we might able to come up with a smaller scale aesa radar any soon?:re:

mentosonline

You want one for your watch?

windof

nop, just a size that fit all rmaf and mas a/crafts radome.

mentosonline

Those already exist.
The question is that they cost so much, there will be no new a/c for RMAF for the next 5 years.

windof

those existing in the rmaf and mas inventories now are normal radar, i'm talking bout aesa, and those existing aesa as u said cost too much, i'm talking bout nano aesa that are cheap for everyone. of course it does not exist now, my question was, with malaysia venture into nanotech, will it be possible for us to produce a nano aesa radar? i didn't say bout fitting my watch with it, of course it's for the aviation usage, be it military or commercial, if it really help to increase the safety and situational awareness standard of our fly boys.

mentosonline

It would be possible, yes.
At present, AESA has not much of an advantage to commercial aircraft to justify the price increase, apart from improved reliability and resolution. Most of the advantages are strictly military.

Actually nanotech by itself is already expensive... the costs comes from production and materials and/or equipment and machineries used to manufacture the damn things... So its a matter of economics rather than technical... most of the dream machines we drool over already exists in laboratory conditions... but to mass produce and make it work in operational conditions needs more study and of course more money... mass production is different from laboratory production... in a lab you just have to make it work regardless of complexity and costs... for mass production you need to keep the manufacturing process simple, cost efficient and it must have a market (people can afford to buy it)...

on a another note most aircraft radars dont need cooling so I dont see why the AESA needs such a complex cooling system... in higher altitudes your problem is actually how to keep warm your equipments... usually solved by using bleed air tapped from the engine... the only cooling I can think of needed by the AESA would be the processors... but then again as I said before we dont have the AESA... so I might be talking crap...

mmc

well windof afer some reading i am not too impressed with nanotech despite its hype..it seems people need to look beyond the size, ie how can you control the application itself as the million dollar question...