I have heard that AESA GaN has jamming capability, lower power consumption, the range farther, less heat output than AESA GaAs. Does anyone have any comments?

The one using GaN is expected to have larger output power compared to its GaAs sibling. How much larger. Theoretically 10-50 times AFAIK. if a GaAs module can do 10 watts.. same module of GaN can do 50 watts.

Main benefit of GaN over GaAs is higher breakdown voltage compared to GaAs. Thus it can take more electric power and convert into EM power.

Power consumption is still dependent on module efficiency which, so far never exceed 50%. and No..with GaN you will have heat problem. In fact the GaN introduction practically changed the challenge of AESA, from getting viable output power into how one actually cope with the heat flux from the module.

Ye-8.

Indeed, here is the UAC statement:

And a nice pic of the recently repaired Geophysica:

[

will it serve as reconnaissance like U-2 ? Or just a research plane ?

Sorry if iam too thick, but i really struggle to understand this .So you saying the bandwidth of the reciever must be wide to be able to process a short pulse ?

The receiver bandwidth basically have to match the bandwidth of the transmitter pulse. So yes.

There is an additional factor of polarization which must be addressed which adds to the jamming dilemma. Some antennas work with horizontally polarized signals, some with vertical, some with circular polarization, Etc. Meaning your jammer suite must also account for polarization as well.

Well.. polarization mismatch loss is only about 3Db of power. Most airborne radars are typically horizontal or vertical polarization. You can use Circularly polarized antenna against both types and accept that 3Db loss.

source? (date?)

EW-10X series by David Adamy. It’s from either EW-101 or 102.

So we know that if a jammer doesn’t know exact frequency the radar transmitting ( in case of frequency hoping ) , it will have to spread it power over the whole frequency range that radar may operate , and that will reduce J/S ratio. Which mean the wider the total bandwidth of radar or/and the smaller the bandwidth of its pulse, the harder it would be to jam that radar .We also know that if the jamming signal doesnt contain pulse compression waveform , the J/S ratio will be reduced due to compression factor.However, the more complex the waveform is , the wider the bandwidth of the pulse need to be. Does that mean frequency hoping and pulse compression counter each other somewhat ?

I am not sure what you are trying to convey here.

Complex waveform however may use other modulation technique like pseudorandom or polyphase code which unlike LFM (Chirp) using Phase instead frequency. Thus allow higher compression ratio compared to older LFM.

I still never got the hype around AESA , If a conventional Radar like Zhuk-AE can do a good job what is the extraordinary capability an AESA can offer , Its not like conventional radar would simply get jammed facing aesa and the power output that a conventional antenna can throw would easily out range aesa.

If you have a single fighter with conventional mature radar why just dump it for AESA with a small advantage in bandwidth and T/W capability . Even Eurofighter uses conventional radar.

The most important advantage of Electronic scanning lies within it’s rapid beam steering ability. It allows more precision and more update for multiple target tracking. Plus since the beam is computer controlled, you can precisely control how long the beam should stay in an area, thus you can improve Time on Target for scenario line..detection of small RCS target. This is main reason why everyone wants ESA radar.

For Active Array (AESA) Main advantage over conventional slotted planar array like Zhuk ME or PESA like Bars lies within Reliabilty. AESA modules does not have single point power failure common to PESA or Slotted planar array. The AESA can tolerate up to 10% module failure before things got out of control. Conventional or PESA radar using Travelling Wave Tube or other amplifiers like Klystrons.. will fail if TWT fail. Plus AESA modules have long life. TWT or conventional transmitter got only around 200-500 Hrs of MTBF.

Regarding power budget. AESA’s advantage lies in very short path between radiator and the module. Thus having less loss in receive or transmit path. PESA or conventional may have loss associated with waveguide assemblies and antenna feed network.

In the future.. AESA advantage will outweigh its cost, especially when Photonic true time delay got implemented for beamsteering. Phase shifters which historically limit the operational frequency bandwidth for ESA radar will go away. Thus allow the radar to make maximum use of their frequency.

Armed groups mostly Syrian. Jabha Al Shamiye, Zanki & Nusra dominate. Won’t allow a single civilian anywhere near a checkpoint.
Confirmed – rebels are firing mortars into the checkpoint areas making it extremely dangerous to attempt to leave E Aleppo.

Confirms pretty much everything I have ever thought about the “moderates”..

this is painful to watch.