The fact of the matter is that a technical deficiency was raised, based on fundamental physics, and no counter of the same level was yet made. It can’t be helped that those who tried to defend ERIEYE have inadequate scientific background, so had to provide media reports as their basis.

And did anyone raise a claim in the lines of “my dad’s cousin…”? I don’t think so. No one is interested in that. The physics of antenna theory is clear enough, if you can understand it.

The Wedgetail MESA has 3 separate arrays: two mounted back-to-back that scan laterally (that’s the vertical part of the “hat”), and one that scans in frontal and rear quartes (the horizontal part of the “hat”). Maybe the Eyerye has the same arrangement.

Look at the photos. There is no space!

the indians are right and everyone else is wrong. they have “secret evidence” that no one else has including the maker of erieye that it does not have 360 detection . the evidence so sensitive they can’t provide it because it will compromise their national security. the only evidence they can put forward is 16 years old, which came out before the erieye was operational.

The evidence for something that is NOT POSSIBLE will always be circumstantial. In the present case, the argument, based on established technical information, is that a planar phased array antenna can not have a beam deflection close to 90 degrees.

You can very easily disprove it by providing a scientific source (not a media report or brochure) that says how that is achieved. I have done a lot of research on this, and did not find ANY scientific information at all.

If you have any research/technical paper, lecture, patent, or any similar document that shows HOW, I would be glad to withdraw my assertion.

It is not a phased array problem per se. It is the characteristics of the individual transmitting element. If you have an array of omnidirectional emitters, it is possible to create a beam in ANY angle by phasing. But the problem is, there are NO OMNIDIRECTIONAL emitters in real life. It is as real as the single pole magnet. (The so called omni antennas are omni in ONE AXIS only.

Obviously, you CAN NOT have an omnidirectional emitter from a slot antenna. The emission in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the slot is always zero. Look up the radiation patterns for slot antennas. The beam formation (phased addition/subtraction of energy) happen on top of the radiation pattern of the individual elements.

Ericsson is careful NOT to claim any angle in their documents. The ER article mentions 360 at one place and then shows a diagram that is clearly not. I was expecting someone to come up with additional technical info, rather than accusations. I would be very eager to know HOW they did it IF they did it.

But all indications till now is that it is just a claim. Probably they thought no one will question.

Look, Bravo, electromagnetic waves do not distinguish between nations or ethnicities. So why do you want to bring that to this? This is about technology, pure and simple.

If Ericsson has achieved the impossible, ie getting 180 degree coverage from a planar array, I wonder why NO PAPER or PATENT is available on the technology. Nothing in Ericsson review, nothing in IEEE and nothing patented. And nothing in THEIR brochure!

And to think that even trivial things related to Erieye appear in all the above.

Strange isn’t it? :rolleyes:

Let me repeat. It is a physical impossibility to radiate at 0/180 angle from the shown antenna array. Claims otherwise will be just that, claims.

The plane normally flies in a racecource path, and there lies the significance of the 180 degree turn capability.