Whilst looking for some SPECTRA images for Tay I stumbled upon this, it may be of interest to some of you.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__A2VG2LiIPk/TGaVCwZIKvI/AAAAAAAAAII/MpYwUEKm9po/s1600/demonstrator_rbe2radar_2.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__A2VG2LiIPk/TGc9UwpKp_I/AAAAAAAAAIg/u1cb0SrhQcI/s1600/AESA_rafale.jpg
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html
May be of interest to some…
NOW! For what counts, PPP, mate, I won’t dispute that :
but could we find more about it? I’ll look if you look, LOL.
As far as the cheek arrays thing, of course not a radar by themselves,
however do remember that not including the small DDM window,
there are yet four Spectra inclusions on the front of the Rafale.
So that if the GaN delivers, it would still be useful!
Here is a snippet from Thales where they say that the arrays can
do long-range detection:
From : http://www.thalesgroup.com/Pages/NewsArticle.aspx?id=11665
Admittedly though, this long-range may be relative, ya know, Ads!
Read you later, Tay.
I think they probably mean its got a long range relative to most similar systems, which given it will use active modules is a reasonable claim. The arrays are just so small that they’d not be putting out enough power for really long range against distant air targets. They could probably put some additional arrays in conformal fairings, but I doubt they’d find it worth the expense. The AESA is much about reliability and cost as it is about performance, hence the consideration of AESA for Tornado GR4 which doesn’t even have a fighter role beyond self defence.
And has been sold to the USA, to replace the APG-66 in border patrol aircraft.
Of course, Selex also has non-fighter airborne AESA radars, e.g. the Seaspray family of AESA radars for maritime patrol aircraft & helicopters (in service, & in production for at least four customers), the PicoSAR lightweight surface surveillance radar for UAVs & light helicopters (in production, sold, integrated in at least two UAVs). But of course, the implementation of SAR, ISAR, GMTI etc modes on those radars, & the Vixen 500E, tells us nothing about the ability of Selex to implement any mode at all on any other AESA radar such as the Vixen 1000E, or any related radar. Not being French, Selex engineers are too stupid to carry over what they’ve achieved on one radar to any other model, & always start from scratch each time.
The Gripen radar will use the Vixen 1000E front end. Those features you describe are back end (they are processing tasks) and not part of Selex role with regard to Gripen (RF front end), though they are with regard to the CAPTOR obviously (Selex does front and back end).
– actually , the RBE2 (Pesa OR Aesa) is not capable to provide “velocity vectors” on moving ground targets (or fast moving boats) to the fire control system (to be able to put a weapon on it) because the logiciel (software code) hasn ‘t been written yet . So , GMTT/GMTI is only a matter of time and not a hardware bottleneck .
Interesting, I would have thought it could.
When I asked him about the “look” of the RBE2-AA and when he saw the pictures posted on the Net , he told me that he didn ‘t have a clue but he wouldn ‘t be surprised if that was the real end product .
So , I bothered him a bit more by saying that the amount of T/R modules was only 838 and he responded with a smile , saying that this is not the way to rate a radar effectiveness and power because the modules used in the Aesa RBE2 have a more efficient power/ratio than the ones used by other foreign Aesa radars . He added that the maximum range and output power of a radar is not that important when one can count on third party “global eyes” , what is important is what your radar can do to put a weapon on a target without being noticed .
Thats BS, there’s no reason to believe French AESA modules will be better, let alone being huge leaps ahead of those on Typhoon/F35/F22.
Then , the discussion went on and on , until I asked if the new radar could be used as a jammer and help (or replace) Spectra . He told me that using the best Aesa radar on Earth as a jammer would be counter productive because its is NOT its primary purpose and a dedicated jammer does not use the same hardware and “ideas” .
It is ~for now~ better to have a dedicated system than to use a radar .
Regarding the capability for an Aesa radar to transmit data to other aircraft through high bandwidth, it is bound to distance and angular reception . He told me that the max range for a 5KW radar was about 15 nm and the receiver had to be (obviously) within the emitting radar cone , which is not possible when you fly a CAP or SEAD mission because your mates or wingmen are rarely that much in front of you .
He’s right about radar not being that good for communications since you want to be able to transmit all around, not just the frontal arc, especially since the frontal arc is where the enemy is likely to be (or facing the exhausts on French planes? Haw Haw 😉 ). But seriously, the range depends on the data rate, you can send the data a lot further than 15nm with a 5kW transmitter at 10k feet and the gain on the antennas at each end, but the further you send it the lower your data rate is going to have to be.
Then , the discussion went on and on again and he did burst some of my bubbles regarding the radars in general . He told me that without an AWAC or ground radars to help , a fighter is basically blind and relies mostly on its electronic “ears” rather than on its own radar to know what is going on around . A radar is only good when you know where to search .
Since everybody , from the AWACs to the ground radars , is scanning on every frequency they can think of to detect hostiles from far away , it is better to listen than to emit . You learn far more and much quicker about the adversary when you want to penetrate , then it is stealthier .
This is blatantly obvious really.
So , what ‘ s the fuzz about Aesa radars so , I asked ?
Because there are extremely good at multitasking and rather discrete , he said .
And high availability rates so fewer aborted sorties, graceful degradation so there is less likely to be sudden less of all radar, perhaps also a lower through life cost due to fewer big expensive things to break.
Sign In
