Russian AESAs - what gives?

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 01:48

Here's some more very early US X-band modules. This is from Raytheon's GBR (Ground Based Radar) prototype (which later became TPY-2). This is a hybrid module (pre-MMIC) so it must be a very early design from either late 90s or early 2000s. Power output probably between 6-10W. Dimensions appear to be about 55x15x5mm. That's really small for something that old and not using MMIC.

Image

One can only imagine what they're doing these days.
Offline

wewuzkangz

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 15:57

arian wrote:What a dumb troll. So so dumb. Ultra-wideband antennas have been around for about 15 or so years.

Now, to get back to the original point of this thread. The link describing the latest Russian modules is revealing. First of, it is impressive how fast they have moved from quite antiquated level of technology to more modern level so fast. However, it is still considerably behind the West. They describe their T/R module as 5W, 12x34x10mm and 16g. So that's about 402mm^2 area

Here is a slide from Cobham (British manufacturer of modules) describing the size of their modules up to 2008
Image

So by 2007 Cobham was making modules that were about 4 times smaller (1cm^2) than these Russian modules. Raytheon was also experimenting with X-band modules about 150mm^2 earlier than 2007 in printing them directly into a "PCB style" antenna.

So for a 5W module with those dimensions and weight, the Russians are actually still quite behind (even if they have advanced quite a lot from their earlier designs).

I do love however how they claim to be ahead of every country in manufacturing these things :roll: If I had to guess, I'd guess they are using civilian-level technology for telecom applications from about 10 years ago, since the size and specs of these modules are similar to civilian application stuff from that time-frame. That's how they advanced so fast, as they did purchase technology for such civilian applications. But, it is not comparable to military-related technology even of that time-frame.


Can you do me a solid favor? Keep all of your ideas into one post I dont want you to look like a mad loony or anything with the name calling and more than 1 post. If you cant keep all your ideas into 1 post i will just have to pick favorites

For starters where are you getting 5 watts per module? https://www.strategic-culture.org/pview ... syria.html. OK so do this for me do 20,000 watts divided by 1500 tr modules and tell me the power rating of that just for one example.

For me the 150km range at RCS of 1 is not bad. the fga-35 shown in 2007 has an RCS of 5 at 200km but RCS resolutions become smaller at a closer range. The Fga-35 is only about 500 less T/R modules than the an/apg-81. an/apg-81 in that graph shows the an/apg-81s detection to be at RCS of 5 at 203 km.....I am still waiting for more info on the fga-50.

Well there are way too many examples to give of the US being hardcore russian fans and by that i mean trying to get a hold of every military unit they have even trying to buy an s-300 devoid of electronics from moldova in 1994, etc. Irbis has a better RCS detection than the an/apg-77v1 fga-35 from 2007 is about equal to an/apg-81 from 2016 only thing is less t/r modules for fga-35....But still waiting for actual results fga-50 or N036 and even ROFAR tests breakthroughs in 2018. But 1st we need to beat their 2nd rate equipment at best.
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 16:37

Irbis has better better detection range than APG-77v1 [citation needed]
Russia stronk
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1724
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 16:51

wewuzkangz wrote:For starters where are you getting 5 watts per module? https://www.strategic-culture.org/pview ... syria.html. OK so do this for me do 20,000 watts divided by 1500 tr modules and tell me the power rating of that just for one example.

Irbis-E is a PESA radar, PESA use a single TWT to power all its modules, with a single high power amplifier. Unlike AESA that have seperate HPA for each of its elements. If you don't even know this then you shouldn't be discussing radar
Image
Image
PESA can has higher peak power but its internal noise is about 3 dB higher than AESA, which mean it needs reflection to be 50% more powerful.


wewuzkangz wrote: For me the 150km range at RCS of 1 is not bad. the fga-35 shown in 2007 has an RCS of 5 at 200km but RCS resolutions become smaller at a closer range. The Fga-35 is only about 500 less T/R modules than the an/apg-81. an/apg-81 in that graph shows the an/apg-81s detection to be at RCS of 5 at 203 km.....I am still waiting for more info on the fga-50.

You can repeat the same thing over and over again like a parrot, doesn't make it come true, and you won't fool anyone here.
1) published detection ranhe can not be compared because different manufacturers have different SNR requirements for detection, radar mode used isn't the same, different between look up and look down.

2) 500 T/R different for a radar with merely 1000 T/R modules is a massive different both in term of gain and transmitted power. FGA-35 will not get any where near the range of APG-81.

3)charts made by APA was done by simply taking public values and use radar equation to draw curve, they didn't actually made any estimate with modules power. They even got the modules count of APG-81 wrong by over 500 T/R modules.



wewuzkangz wrote:Well there are way too many examples to give of the US being hardcore russian fans and by that i mean trying to get a hold of every military unit they have even trying to buy an s-300 devoid of electronics from moldova in 1994, etc

Every country want to have a piece of equipment from opposition, US is no different. Btw They have 2 S-300 unit with radar and everything.

wewuzkangz wrote:Irbis has a better RCS detection than the an/apg-77v1 fga-35 from 2007 is about equal to an/apg-81 from 2016 only thing is less t/r modules for fga-35.

You can repeat the same crap as much as you want but it has already been explained, no one gonna fall for that BS, nice try though but not gonna work
Offline

wewuzkangz

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 17:16

eloise wrote:
wewuzkangz wrote:For starters where are you getting 5 watts per module? https://www.strategic-culture.org/pview ... syria.html. OK so do this for me do 20,000 watts divided by 1500 tr modules and tell me the power rating of that just for one example.

Irbis-E is a PESA radar, PESA use a single TWT to power all its modules, with a single high power amplifier. Unlike AESA that have seperate HPA for each of its elements. If you don't even know this then you shouldn't be discussing radar
Image
Image
PESA can has higher peak power but its internal noise is about 3 dB higher than AESA, which mean it needs reflection to be 50% more powerful.


wewuzkangz wrote: For me the 150km range at RCS of 1 is not bad. the fga-35 shown in 2007 has an RCS of 5 at 200km but RCS resolutions become smaller at a closer range. The Fga-35 is only about 500 less T/R modules than the an/apg-81. an/apg-81 in that graph shows the an/apg-81s detection to be at RCS of 5 at 203 km.....I am still waiting for more info on the fga-50.

You can repeat the same thing over and over again like a parrot, doesn't make it come true, and you won't fool anyone here.
1) published detection ranhe can not be compared because different manufacturers have different SNR requirements for detection, radar mode used isn't the same, different between look up and look down.

2) 500 T/R different for a radar with merely 1000 T/R modules is a massive different both in term of gain and transmitted power. FGA-35 will not get any where near the range of APG-81.

3)charts made by APA was done by simply taking public values and use radar equation to draw curve, they didn't actually made any estimate with modules power. They even got the modules count of APG-81 wrong by over 500 T/R modules.



wewuzkangz wrote:Well there are way too many examples to give of the US being hardcore russian fans and by that i mean trying to get a hold of every military unit they have even trying to buy an s-300 devoid of electronics from moldova in 1994, etc

Every country want to have a piece of equipment from opposition, US is no different. Btw They have 2 S-300 unit with radar and everything.

wewuzkangz wrote:Irbis has a better RCS detection than the an/apg-77v1 fga-35 from 2007 is about equal to an/apg-81 from 2016 only thing is less t/r modules for fga-35.

You can repeat the same crap as much as you want but it has already been explained, no one gonna fall for that BS, nice try though but not gonna work


Its a PESA radar with "active components". "PESA can has higher peak power but its internal noise is about 3 dB higher than AESA" sources please on the Irbis for that. According to noise levels its RCS resolution on given range detection wont change. RCS detection ranges are given from noise detection estimates rather if it has a loss or not it has already be stated by its developer that made that radar with their estimations unless i see you willing to dispute with them on where they got that info?

1)different manufacturers have different SNR requirements for detection well give those examples if you have any please?

2? But yet its RCS resolution is about equal if range was to be decreased. Just giving an example of RCS resolution being raised at a farther range than the previous stated RCS at a given range.

3. sources everywhere still state the radars RCS resolution detection ranges that still even add up to their charts as stated previously before.

"Every country want to have a piece of equipment from opposition" well apparently not them,

"You can repeat the same crap as much as you want but it has already been explained, no one gonna fall for that BS, nice try though but not gonna work".......... Instead of wasting my time please state RCS detection levels for those radars please.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3265
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 17:58

It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.
Online
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 18:56

wrightwing wrote:It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.

Talk about smashing in your own windows...

:roll:
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3265
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 19:00

botsing wrote:
wrightwing wrote:It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.

Talk about smashing in your own windows...

:roll:

Care to elaborate? Thrill me, with your acumen.
Online
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 19:25

wrightwing wrote:
botsing wrote:
wrightwing wrote:It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.

Talk about smashing in your own windows...

:roll:

Care to elaborate? Thrill me, with your acumen.

To your own account that is impossible.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 19:30

wewuzkangz wrote:Can you do me a solid favor? Keep all of your ideas into one post I dont want you to look like a mad loony or anything with the name calling and more than 1 post. If you cant keep all your ideas into 1 post i will just have to pick favorites

For starters where are you getting 5 watts per module?


From the actual trade publication you linked to, that you didn't even bother to read or understand.

BTW, have you figured out yet what "3D" is?

And no, I don't do solid favors for dumb trolls like you. Dumb trolls like you need to GTFO back to Indiadefence or Russiadefence forums. Although in your case, your probably crawled out of Quora or Youtube.

I like how you think I'm talking to you in any of those posts. LOL
Offline

wewuzkangz

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post31 Jul 2017, 00:54

Lets start this topic anew for this will be my final post for today more comparisons that will of course piss people off because results are not in their favor. I dont find it fun watching people here bitch trust me.

1. 5th gen engines. http://www.deagel.com/Propulsion-System ... 54001.aspx flies over 3,500km no refuel or external fuel tanks. Than http://www.deagel.com/Propulsion-System ... 05001.aspx flies over 5,000km no refuel or external fuel tanks. http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/F ... 31001.aspx max range 2,963km with 2 external fuel tanks that if you were to remove them they will reduce the range to 2,050 km. http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/F ... 47003.aspx max range 1,667km. mig-35 http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/M ... 57007.aspx 3,100km........If we were to compare combat range the results will be the same. But for me having aircraft fly at far ranges is important what does everyone else think.

2. Air to air missile weapons. http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 64006.aspx, http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 22001.aspx, http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 22001.aspx, http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 45001.aspx, http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 27001.aspx, ....... T-50 supposedly with L-band arrays can passively listen and attack data link comms, GPS can get jammed by krasukha-4s, hit by mig-31 nudol missiles, radar guidance can be jammed, heat seek from a certain range can be misguided by a laser APS before going fire and forget....What is this cell digital processing. It says each cell gets partial signals but once a full summarized image comes up there is no escape for the target?

3. APS http://www.deagel.com/Protection-System ... 36001.aspx, http://www.deagel.com/Protection-System ... 65001.aspx, http://www.deagel.com/Protection-System ... 87001.aspx by using http://www.deagel.com/Protection-System ... ..Everyone what is better in your opinion using what sounds like flare dispensers or a laser APS that uses UV detection?

4. IRST http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/EO ... 41001.aspx, http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/OL ... x.....Only info i know of is the ols-35 with a 90km max range with plus or minus 90 or in other words 180 degree azimuth search and that the EOTS has a 360 degree search......What bothers me is finding the range of OLS-50 or EOTS if anyone has resources to provide please give it to me.

5. Radar http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/AN ... aft_561275, http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/By ... 97001.aspx, http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/AN ... 62001.aspx. may or may not agree with what is presented therefore I want someone to state sources of each of these instead of talking about noise and other sh*t. I want results given that I will give my response back of what I found.

OK this is why I chose this forum. People give me figures of equipment and what makes them great. you can disagree and state your reasons for disagreeing with engineers claims. Such as if you dont like how the Irbis-e has such low RCS at far ranges compared to given radar info please find resources of the engineer being a liar or a delusional fool. You can even bring up the kosovo, persian, kargil, syrian war,etc for all i care to discuss aircraft technology. We can even discuss air defense systems as well tank radars, ground radars and other technological features than can help certain aircraft out.....No throwing tantrums please just state sources on equipment that is what I want even the aircraft equipment that you are in support of. Start with my points I love opposition alot hence why I chose this forum.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1724
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post31 Jul 2017, 01:47

wewuzkangz wrote:Its a PESA radar with "active components".

PESA is short for passive electronic scanned array and all radar have active components

wewuzkangz wrote:"PESA can has higher peak power but its internal noise is about 3 dB higher than AESA" sources please on the Irbis for that

If you don't even understand why PESA has higher internal noise then don't even bother discussing radar, its a waste of time

wewuzkangz wrote: According to noise levels its RCS resolution on given range detection wont change. RCS detection ranges are given from noise detection estimates rather if it has a loss or not it has already be stated by its developer that made that radar with their estimations unless i see you willing to dispute with them on where they got that info?

:doh: wtf, of course detection range will change with noise level, how the f do you think a jammer operate?
Image
The question is what standard of probably of detection they used for their detection range. Higher Pd value would mean radar need to achieve higher SNR
Image

wewuzkangz wrote:1)different manufacturers have different SNR requirements for detection well give those examples if you have any please?

Already did
wewuzkangz wrote:2? But yet its RCS resolution is about equal if range was to be decreased. Just giving an example of RCS resolution being raised at a farther range than the previous stated RCS at a given range.

There is no such thing as RCS resolution, what the heck are you on about?

wewuzkangz wrote:3. sources everywhere still state the radars RCS resolution detection ranges that still even add up to their charts as stated previously before.

Because the so called source every where use the exact same input and same equation, they took a single detection range value and put it in radar equation, even a kid can do that.
It is quite funny that APA actually made an estimation for detection range of AESA with 1600 T/R modules, which coincidencely similar amount that APG-81 has.They concluded that AESA with 1600 modules will out range Irbis-E in most case. I bet you didn't see that comming
Image

wewuzkangz wrote: well apparently not them

You really believe that Russia never tried to obtain US equipment for testing?
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post31 Jul 2017, 05:11

eloise wrote:
wewuzkangz wrote:Its a PESA radar with "active components".

PESA is short for passive electronic scanned array and all radar have active components


So you're saying the Russians have made an Active-Passive Electronically Scanned Array with components? Wow! So advanced!

Is it 3D though?
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1724
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post31 Jul 2017, 06:41

arian wrote:
So you're saying the Russians have made an Active-Passive Electronically Scanned Array with components? Wow! So advanced!

Is it 3D though?

It is actually 10D ROFAR with GaN technology :wink:
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2811
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post31 Jul 2017, 11:15

eloise wrote:
wewuzkangz wrote:For starters where are you getting 5 watts per module? https://www.strategic-culture.org/pview ... syria.html. OK so do this for me do 20,000 watts divided by 1500 tr modules and tell me the power rating of that just for one example.

Irbis-E is a PESA radar, PESA use a single TWT to power all its modules, with a single high power amplifier. Unlike AESA that have seperate HPA for each of its elements. If you don't even know this then you shouldn't be discussing radar
Image
PESA can has higher peak power but its internal noise is about 3 dB higher than AESA, which mean it needs reflection to be 50% more powerful.


Just to make it clear, this was just the receive path, which means reflected radar signal coming from target has to be that much (about 3 dBm) stronger in PESA (vs. AESA) to be detected. Similar loss in signal strength happens in transmit path (from transmitter to antenna element). Transmit path is basically just inverse of receive path (but instead of LNA/receiver is HPA/transmitter) and in PESA the signal has far longer and complex route to antenna elements and that is impossible to change. So overall PESA has about 6-7 dB higher loss when both transmit and receive paths are considered and technological level is equal. That equals about 40 percent less range for PESA if both systems have equal transmitter average (not peak) power and have similar antenna area.

Another problem for PESA is that their average transmitted power is significantly lower than in AESA radars of comparable peak power. Average power is the power that really matters for radars, not so much the peak power. So PESA radar has to have a lot higher peak power than AESA to overcome the lower duty cycle and especially the higher losses in both transmitting and receiving. That's why fighter pilots state that AESA gives them 2-3 times the effective ranges compared to MSA or PESA radars they previously had.

I love the notion that Irbis-E is somehow so great radar set. Sure, it is very big fighter radad and has high peak power from its 20 kW TWT transmitter, but otherwise it's nothing special. The often quoted 400 km detection range is in very narrow search volume and even then the very upper limit that it can detect anything. Basically that mode might be useful if the target is already tracked by something else and Su-35 can devote all the radar power on that single target with precisely known position.

From official UAC website: http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lin ... -features/

The most important difference between the Su-35 and ”4+” generation fighters is its fifth-generation avionics. The Irbis-E radar station with rotating phased antenna array designed by the V. Tikhomirov Research Institute of Instrumentation provides for the assured detection and acquisition of typical aerial targets at a range of up to 200 km (up to 170 km against ground background), and in a narrower field of view¬ – up to 350-400 km. The Irbis-E is able to track up to 30 targets at a time and guide missiles at 8 of them, without an interruption in airspace surveillance. The radar control system also provides for the selective acquisition of moving ground targets and cueing for low-level missions.


So in actual normal search modes it has detection range of 200 km at best against typical aerial target. That'd mean about 120-160 km tracking range, depending on what detection criteria was used to get that detection range. That's roughly similar performance to what mechanically scanned AN/APG-63 and -70 in F-15C/E are said to able to do. AWG-9 in F-14 could do the same 45 years ago, there are many sources for that. I'm not deriding that as it's still impressive range, but I'm sure AN/APG-77 and -81 can very easily surpass that range. Russians are claiming that even Zhuk-AE (FGA35) AESA has very similar or better performance even though it's much smaller radar than Irbis-E.

Then we can start the talk about clutter performance and EW resistance etc.... 8)
PreviousNext

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests