It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Advantages AND Disadvantages of AESA technology

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Dear All

I have seen many times the idea that AESA is good. I have seen many times that M Scan is bad/old / dated and so on.
I have read in other Forums that AESA radars have reliability and heat disipation issues.
In this forum I have read that as far as M Scan goes, M Scan CAPTOR for the Typhoon is the bees knees.

Can someone who knows this subject tell me and the rest of us some details of the maturity of AESA technology and if as an overall package the currently fielded versions of this technology do in fact "outperform" other traditional radar set ups such as CAPTOR.

The reason I ask is that in current operations the USAF and Navy are sometimes using the older technology by choice which seems to me to be counterintuitive.



posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
First of all, many things about currently-fielded AESA systems are classified, so you shouldn't expect people who know the details to be in a position to share them with you. You are basically asking for someone to leak classified information and that's just not advisable under any circumstances. It might be appropriate to ask what information is already in the public domain about AESA versus other systems, but that's not what you asked.

As for your question about using older technology over newer technology, that is not a simple question to answer at all. Each program needs to consider its requirements, budget, schedule, and risks when deciding whether to use a new whiz-bang system or to go with something that is a more mature. It's not counter-intuitive that an older technology might be better overall when you consider all of the factors that go into the development of a new system.



posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Thanks matmaraca ..

I was not in fact asking anyone to reveal any classified information concerning currently fielded AESA systems. What I was asking was a generic question concerning the accuracy or otherwise of the near hysterical nay sayers concerning CAPTOR and other Mscan systems about how superior this or that is. Is that classified ?? Nope didn't think so...

What I am trying to stimulate debate about is why anyone thinks an AESA system (from wherever) with a shorter range and worse or equal A2A target aquisition etc is "better". Because it's new technology or AESA is not an answer.

If I want to know about RADAR I can go to many websites and get all sorts of data that many on here would consider "classified". It is not classified i.e secret if it is in the public domain. Even though my own government is more paranoid about this than most.

I am not trying to have a go at you I just think you mis-understood my question.



posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
The advantages of AESA are numerous - it scans the area much faster (miliseconds compared to seconds), it's signal is much harder to detect, and it can scan, track and even work asjammer at the same time. Advanced versions can also scan for air and ground targets at the same time. At can also track much more targets than normal radar. It occupies less space because it doesn't need to move whole big antena (very important by aircrafts). It's jamming resistance is also superior.Also because it consists of many modules some of them may fail, but the radar will remain functioning.

Disadvantages are none - except price of course.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by longbow]



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deharg
What I was asking was a generic question concerning the accuracy or otherwise of the near hysterical nay sayers concerning CAPTOR and other Mscan systems about how superior this or that is. Is that classified ?? Nope didn't think so...


You are wrong. If you are asking if there is a fielded AESA radar in existence that is superior to CAPTOR or any other radar, you are basically asking for performance information which is classified. I don't know of any fielded AESA system which has unclassified performance data, but I don't know everything. Maybe I'm wrong.


Originally posted by Deharg
What I am trying to stimulate debate about is why anyone thinks an AESA system (from wherever) with a shorter range and worse or equal A2A target aquisition etc is "better". Because it's new technology or AESA is not an answer.


That would be an interesting hypothetical question. Hypothetical because, since as far as I know the performance of modern AESA systems is classified, we have no way of knowing if its range and acquisition capabilities are worse or better than the CAPTOR or anything else. Also note that this was not the question you asked. You asked a broad question about AESA performance versus CAPTOR.


Originally posted by Deharg
If I want to know about RADAR I can go to many websites and get all sorts of data that many on here would consider "classified". It is not classified i.e secret if it is in the public domain. Even though my own government is more paranoid about this than most.


It doesn't matter what people here would consider classified, and if you can find it on a webpage, it's either unclassified or a guess. Please feel free to present any information you find in the public domain in support of your questions.



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
In addition to all of which the CAPTOR's performance is itself classified, so the question is moot, one of things which the CAESAR (Captor AESA Radar) test programme is out to discover is whether a change to AESA will give a worthwhile performance increase or not.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
From what is avalible in open source literature, whatever flaws are inherent to the system, they are either not as yet discovered, or minor variations of those of existing systems.

No doubt as they develop the radar engineers are hard at work developing countermeasurs et al.

But I doubt we will see anything concrete for some time.



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   


No doubt as they develop the radar engineers are hard at work ..............But I doubt we will see anything concrete for some time.



I laughed when I read this Fred, but only because it reminded me of the concrete ballast carried in place of radars on the RAF 's first few Tornado ADV's



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   
HI all

Not wishing to have a go at anyone here but doesn't the so called advantage of millisecond scanning and target discrimination etc....depend not upon the way in which the beam is sent and or recieved but more upon what is done with that information with the associated computer processing packages ?

From what I read it is possible with 1100-1500 or so TR modules ( sorry yes I do know something (little) about this) to have a very "nice" system. The issue is the associated computing power requirement is enormous, and the heat generated by the system in peak use is gigantic......
This is the kind of thing I was talking about.

Not this can detect a gnats whisker at 2 million miles two feet off the ground whilst simultaneously shooting down everything within 150km.

The ability of AESA to act offensively is also grossly overstated, at current technology and power output levels (see above), an effective break lock capability is very possible, much more than that is way way off.

Anyway thanks for the contributions...



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Mother Rileys Cardboard Aeroplane courtesy of the blue circle company you mean ... I laughed too..

Foxhunter turned out very nicely in the end though Waynos. Link 16 et al in recent red flags have given the boys something to smile about wrt F15s/////

I can't wait for the Indian Sukhois to come here (there..i.e UK) next year to tangle with the Typhoons....

Sorry off my own topic shut up now ...



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deharg
Not wishing to have a go at anyone here but doesn't the so called advantage of millisecond scanning and target discrimination etc....depend not upon the way in which the beam is sent and or recieved but more upon what is done with that information with the associated computer processing packages ?

From what I read it is possible with 1100-1500 or so TR modules ( sorry yes I do know something (little) about this) to have a very "nice" system. The issue is the associated computing power requirement is enormous, and the heat generated by the system in peak use is gigantic......
This is the kind of thing I was talking about.


Computing power is not a problem today, and the heat dissipation is commonly solved by liquid cooling instead of air cooling. The extracted heat is then dumped into the fuel tank, that means just a small amount of energy is lost, most of it is recovered.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join