SU57 sideways launch

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7689
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Jul 2018, 06:10

The side array will need the power to detect & track the target, on its own, for side arrays to work.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 781
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post14 Jul 2018, 20:15

aaam wrote:Well, there's one other not-so-fancy, non-VLO related reason for side facing antennas: AESAs have a narrower field of view than mechanically scanned antennas. Side facing antennas, even if less capable, help to compensate of this, and also can allow the launching aircraft to turn further away from the target aircraft awaiting their missile's own seeker to lock on. F-22 was going to do the same thing until they were dropped (along with IRST) to reduce development costs.

Of course the following story, IF true, makes the whole thing academic (I'm going to post this elsewhere as well):

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-a ... ?r=UK&IR=T


I feel it would be cheaper to go the typhoons route with the moving single AESA array, you get one powerful array that can cover a very wide area. Versus one good array and two crap arrays that will need more power and cooling, I would venture a guess the typhoons's system is lighter with better performance.
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post16 Jul 2018, 09:33

geforcerfx wrote:
aaam wrote:Well, there's one other not-so-fancy, non-VLO related reason for side facing antennas: AESAs have a narrower field of view than mechanically scanned antennas. Side facing antennas, even if less capable, help to compensate of this, and also can allow the launching aircraft to turn further away from the target aircraft awaiting their missile's own seeker to lock on. F-22 was going to do the same thing until they were dropped (along with IRST) to reduce development costs.

Of course the following story, IF true, makes the whole thing academic (I'm going to post this elsewhere as well):

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-a ... ?r=UK&IR=T


I feel it would be cheaper to go the typhoons route with the moving single AESA array, you get one powerful array that can cover a very wide area. Versus one good array and two crap arrays that will need more power and cooling, I would venture a guess the typhoons's system is lighter with better performance.


Gripen E does it by mounting the AESA at an angle and the rotating it around the longitudinal axis. This also gets around the AESA FoV limitation and is even simpler and lighter than Tyuphoon's However, the penalty you pay is that while you are gaining look on one side, you're losing it on the other. IN other words, if your AESA can see 60º to either side, if you repoint so you can see 90º to starboard, while you're doing that you can only see 30º to port.

The advantages to the side mounted areas, which are in addition to the main array, are that you don't give up anything on either side as you look farther to either side, you can actually see farther off boresight with them than a repositioner, you see the whole arc simultaneously all the time, it's less complex and you can have a bigger main array since you don't need to allow any space for repositioning. The side arrays aren't crap just because they aren't as big and powerful as the main array; they don't have to be, because you'll likely point the main array at something of interest that's detected, or they are sufficient to provide inertial guidance to a target under track, even if you turn away. You will also have a greater total FoV than you'll gt with any positioner.

The big disadvantage is that they probably have to be designed in from the start, because you need to allow space and weight (which affects design of the aircraft itself ) as well as power for them. Retrofitting would be tricky and expensive, which is why repostioners are being used for Gripen E and Typhoon.

As I said, this was the original plan for F-22 and its design incorporated the necessary space and weight allowances along with the necessary flat surface to mount them.
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests