Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
what is the way they work, and which sort of radar offers the "better" battlefield-performance?
they were not tested against each other in a real action. everything else are just speculations.
Also, both PESA and AESA are only the names of technologies used, not the real devices. That means, that a good'ol doppler-radar can be better, than a "hand-made" P/A-ESA gadget :)
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008
As far as I know(???) the PESA radar was just an idea during the early 90ies, the EF2000 for example should have been eqipped with one(was to expensive at this time). The 'P' stands for passiv. That means that the radar should also receive radio/radar waves emitted by another radar. As we all know stealth aircrafts reflect radar waves in every other direction but nearly not back back to the emitting radar. So the idea was to use a 2nd fighters radar to receive the reflected radar waves of the 1st fighters radar. So you can make stealth aircraft visible. The Gripen's PS-05A for example should also be a passiv radar, and also the Captor and the RBE I think, although they have mechanical steered antannas. So if you have at least 3 fighters equipped with these radars you are able to locate the enemie's exact position even if he's 'stealth'.
Here some more information what AESA radars work like on the example of the EF2000's and Rafale's future radar. http://www.iee.org/oncomms/pn/radar/Roulston.pdf
...As far as I know(???) the PESA radar was just an idea during the early 90ies, the EF2000 for example should have been eqipped with one(was to expensive at this time). The 'P' stands for passiv. That means that the radar should also receive radio/radar waves emitted by another radar. As we all know stealth aircrafts reflect radar waves in every other direction but nearly not back back to the emitting radar. So the idea was to use a 2nd fighters radar to receive the reflected radar waves of the 1st fighters radar. So you can make stealth aircraft visible. The Gripen's PS-05A for example should also be a passiv radar, and also the Captor and the RBE I think, although they have mechanical steered antannas. So if you have at least 3 fighters equipped with these radars you are able to locate the enemie's exact position even if he's 'stealth'.
Sorry JG, but you're way off base here. The passive only refers to the way the beam is steered, e.g. ferrite phase shifters vs. MMIC's. Your theory on detection doesn't fly, you are describing a multistatic system, but there is no way to synchronize the signal in your example. Radars will always receive the signal from any other set on the same frequency, but there is no way to process that signal, since the receiver does not know what the timing is. Milliseconds count. (RWR's will do the same thing, of course, which every modern AC is equipped with.)
You should have read the link you referenced...
As the antenna contained only what engineers term passive components, these antennas are also known as passive phased arrays or passive electronically steered arrays.
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008
phased array radars consist of many small emitters/receivers. if different transmitters work, it comes to interference, an this interference focus the beam. so phased arrays can detect and engage more targets more accurate than mechanically steered radars.
a AESA consists of more than 1000 small modules, which are both transmitter and receiver.
so far so good, but then it gets tricky. as i understood every module of an AESA is like a single radar (which can even emitt different frequencies), while in a PESA the energy is produced at an cetral source and then spread to the emitters.
leolover:
>small emitters/receivers
they are just small antennas (di-poles) which are used for receiving/transmitting.
>if different transmitters work, it comes to interference, an this interference focus the beam.
no. not the interference shapes the beam, but the phase shifts between the elements.
>so phased arrays can detect and engage more targets more accurate than mechanically steered radars.
not necessarily. the main advantage of PAGs is the ability to electronically (w/o moving parts) re-shape and redirect the beam and do it damn FAST :)
>every module of an AESA is like a single radar (which can even emitt different frequencies)
LOL! can u imagine the size of an on-board computer, which would be able to analyze all the reflections? the Deep Blue would suck in this task :)
>while in a PESA the energy is produced at an cetral source and then spread to the emitters.
no, both are centrally powered and controlled.
the main diffs (as highsea thinks) are that AESA consumes less power and can be swithced a bit faster, and of course costs A LOT MORE. :)
I think also, it brings more headache to the service guys, than a PESA gadget does :)
Comment