I know what the AGM-154A is and what it can do. If American forces are using it to hit inside Pakistan, I agree that standoff is desirable. But if Pakistani forces are using it, why do you need standoff? Does the “freedom fighters” have long range SAMS or other point air defense?

It is not a simple task to vary the frequency emitted by a number of modules while keeping the phase relationships appropriate. It is next to impossible to form a beam out of spread spectrum signals using phased arrays because each component needs a different phase relationship. The only viable method is to dedicate one module for one frequency. It is also possible to use multiple channels in one module, but that is essentially multiple modules in one package.

Also, the signals of all the modules participating in forming a beam MUST be synchronized to each other.

Bottom line, spread spectrum as you know from communication systems doesn’t exist in Radars. The best you can do is a bunch of individual frequencies. Now, those returns can not be combined in time domain. You can only combine them on raster. That will not improve detection, but will only aid in resolution.

User “Vick” posted on BR

From Jane’s

Elta AESA is flying

Bill Sweetman, IDR Technology & Aerospace Editor
Singapore

Israel Aircraft Industries’ Elta subsidiary is testing a prototype of a fighter radar with an active electronically scanned array (AESA). The first flight took place earlier this year in Elta’s Boeing 737 testbed. The company says that it is ready to take orders for the new radar and that it could be delivered within 18 months of an order.

Designated EL/M-2052, the AESA radar is designed either for new-production applications or as a retrofit for the company’s in-service EL/M-2032-series radars, some 400 of which are in service worldwide. As an upgrade, the radar would replace the old antenna and transmitter and use the existing power supply and radar processor.

One unusual feature is that the array comprises ‘bricks’ of 24 transmit-receiver modules, making it easy to assemble the AESA in different configurations to match the size and shape of an existing fighter nose. Smaller, lower-module-count versions can be air-cooled, reducing weight and making integration simpler.

As mentioned elsewhere, there is a class of AESA where the T/R module just contains amplifiers both ways. This architecture would behave exactly like PESA in terms of beam management. This one will offer better S/N ratio (because of the LNA right close to the detector) than PESA, but looses all the cool things like multiple beams, multiple functions etc. I believe many of the current US equipment belong to this class.

It doesn’t offer any remarkable performance superiority over PESA. It simple provides a lighter, lower power, more reliable antenna.

It’s nearly impossible to jam since each T/R module can operate on a different frequency

Plain wrong. Read up earlier post for the clarification.

Althought this is true to some extent, still being able to detect a target from 40km is a way better than being totally jammed.

Noise jammers will jam all frequencies together. DRFM synthesizes its output, so naturally that will play back all frequencies as well. Only simpler doppler cancelling jammers will have a problem

No big difference.

Nice info Stealth.

A couple of points that can be added:

1. For the same net radiated power, PESA would give better detection performance than AESA.

2. But to get the same net radiated power, PESA will spend way more input power. Also the antenna will be way more heavier.

3. The multi function performance of AESA is a bit over rated. It can have split beams at different frequencies, but use as RWR? Nah!

AESA is desirable, but is that indispensable? I don’t think so.

Eliminating/reducing mechanical scanning requirement is definitely a plus.