I suspect the figures on the APG-77 are on the conservative side, but….another thing to consider is that there are intentional limitations on the F-22’s radar, to improve the LPI functionality. In otherwords, rather than broadcasting to the theoretical limits of the array, it imposes soft limits to make it harder to detect.

There is zero public information on SPECTRA sensitivity/range.

The public information(though no mention of the specifics of what emission, or strength were given), that I’ve seen credit Spectra with a 200km radius of coverage.

The APG-77 does not have any jamming capability at the moment. Stop making stuff up.

If you’d pay attention to the context of what I was speaking about, you’d see that I was referring to how the EA capability would function, not that it was functional.

BS. Tube-based radar have been using spectrum spreading for decades.

And I wonder if you’d share the rate that a single TWT can hop frequencies and waveforms in a single scan.

And each time they break into sub-array, the range is reduced exponentially (i.e. breaking into 2 group results in two beams with one quarter of the range more or less).

How do you figure? If your subarray is using 750-1000 T/R, its range shouldn’t be reduced by 75%. Additionally due to the time sharing going on between sub arrays, you’re still using the entire antenna for receiving, even if smaller beams are being emitted in differing directions.

By whom? That figures would imply that the AESA achieve a 80x increase in power budget, either through extra power, antenna gain or better sensitivity.

This is totally unrealistic, try 1.5x to 2x at best and that’s for a recent system.

At F-22 release, a MSA with the same power/size enveloppe would likely have had between two and four times the range.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2010/08/16/AW_08_16_2010_p23-247194.xml&channel=awst
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,218946,00.html

New digital radars with active, electronically scanned array (AESA) antennas can increase surveillance and targeting ranges by three times

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/aesaradar/assets/review_aesa.pdf

The modules may work together on a single task, or work in
groups to do multiple tasks in parallel.

ESA radars, like MSAs, use a central transmitter and receiver to feed
their radiating elements, but steer the beam using an electronically controlled
phase shifter placed immediately behind each radiating element. While
these systems reap the benefits of electronic steering, the phase shifting
and line losses lead to some reduction in radar performance. But the AESA
radar, with its power distributed among modules rather than emanating
from a single high power transmitter, is not subject to this shortcoming.

AESA radars will also provide fighter pilots with much greater
detection range than predecessor radarscould offer. Because the power of
transmission is now in the antenna, AESAs have three to four times the
output energy of traditional mechanically scanned radars.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/military-technology/25952-aesa-technology-next-generation-radar.html

Passive ESA radars, such as the U.S. Army’s Patriot and U.S. Navy’s Aegis, use a central transmitter and receiver like MSAs to feed their radiating elements, but steer the beam using an electronically controlled phase shifter placed immediately behind each radiating element. In the AESA radar, a small, low-power T/R module is placed immediately behind each radiating element, eliminating the central transmitter and receiver and the signal power losses that occur in the passive ESAs when the central transmitter distributes signals to the radiating elements and return signals are combined in analog form and sent to the central receiver.

Both passive and active ESAs also offer more agile beam steering. For example, to jump the antenna beam from one target to another separated by 100 degrees, an MSA takes roughly a second. An ESA can do it in less than a millisecond. An AESA can even simultaneously radiate multiple, independently steered beams on different frequencies.

AESA radars also offer better air-to-ground resolution than MSA systems, particularly using their synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode. As a March 2004 Government Accountability Office report stated, “The first F/A-18F with the AESA radar installed recently demonstrated high-resolution SAR modes at three times the resolution and 2½ times the range of the currently operationally deployed F/A-18 radar. This capability represents the first step in multiple areas that the AESA radar will greatly improve the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet’s air-to-air and air-to-ground radar capabilities in addition to adding modes not currently available to the fleet.”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-apg-79.htm

With more power than the APG-73, the APG-79 will have two or three times the air-toair detection range and will allow tracking of significantly more targets. It will also have a much better ability to identify targets and break out those that are closely spaced.

http://kuku.sawf.org/Emerging+Technologies/2667.aspx

Each TR module has its own transmitter, receiver, processing power, and a small spikelike radiator antenna on top. The TR module can be programmed to act as a transmitter, receiver, or radar. The TR modules in the AESA system can all work together to create a powerful radar, but they can do different tasks in parallel, with some operating together as a radar warning receiver, others operating together as a jammer, and the rest operating as a radar. TR modules can be reassigned to any role, with output power or receiver sensitivity of any one of the “subsystems” defined by such temporary associations proportional to the number of modules.

AESA provides 10-30 times more net radar capability plus significant advantages in the areas of range resolution, countermeasure resistance and flexibility.

The takeaway that I got from that article, was that in the event of a rightward shift in the IOC, there were workarounds, not that there were new issues increasing the likelihood of more delays.

Exactly what has been covered on the previous page. 3 times the detection range is against much older radars, not contemporary designs! It’s a misconception that AESA radars offer a 3 times longer detection range in comparison to late generation MSA radars.

What year did the Captor become operational vs the APG-73, because the APG-79 is credited with a 300% improvement in range over that(the- 73), and that’s a pretty contemporary design so to speak.

The USA is not in the control of the Middle East oil to stay polite.

Presumably the tankers bringing the oil to China would have to get around the USN right?

Totally wrong. The various MMICs of an AESA radar all emit the same signal (with a different phase shift to steer the beam), that’s how the high antenna gain is achieved.

If they all emitted a different signal, the radar range would be measured in inches.

That’s the kind of answer that make me realize you don’t have the beginning of a clue as to how radars work.

The T/R don’t all emit on different freqs simultaneously, BUT the AESA array can break down into sub-arrays which are using different freqs from the other arrays.

Spudman :

Firing LOAL during dogfight is outrageously counter productive ! 😮
If the target is turning hard (dogfight) , your 9X will go straight with nothing to lock on anymore .

Quite the contrary. If at the merge, the fighter whose missile takes the least amount of time to get into operation, will have significant advantages. With LOAL, you can engage HOBS targets much more easily, than a LOBL missile.

What is useful is LOBL . When you press the trigger , the missile is already locked onto the target .
This is barely possible with the F-22 .

It doesn’t seem to have been a problem in simulations. Unless you have wingtip mounted IR missiles, there will be some obscuration for the seeker, whether mounted under the wings or in bays.