Are we back?
2 Likes
Despite both Airbus and Indra saying 200deg FoR, I’d be surprised if gaijin goes and finally gives the german EFT its proper radar gimbal limits.
They’ll just say “something something, Hensoldt trumps the rest, kick rocks and cry german mains”. That or they’ll just completely ignore the report once its made/accepted by a tech mod.
3 Likes
This is the same info graphic from before the ECRS Mk1 existed? Thought we’d been over the slide.
Looking for more than the words ESM. I’ve got that in spades. I need demonstrated or described targeting features.
How is a 180 degree field of view possible?
It isn’t, they’re conflating FoR with FoV.
1 Like
Maybe not, there is primary and secondary sources stating that while the Rafale’s RBE2-AESA is ±70 (without GaN), GaN is set to “considerably” increase the field of view of the fixed RBE2 radar for the F5 variant.
Yeah but 90º field of view is simply physically impossible. It would necessitate the flat AESA plate to look perpendicularly. Even if you could emit radar waves in that direction through some funky modulation, there’s just no way to receive/capt the incoming radar waves
1 Like
Unless they’re planning something more than a flat array or a slewing array then they’re going to run into the issue of physics… each TRM at a certain point will block the transmission of the other.
and if the angle is too harsh you end up hitting the other TRM’s and blocking your signal.
2 Likes
Is it not possible to have TRMs on the side or slightly angled?
Then we’re talking about a new different radar design rather than GaN’s providing more than 70° of beam steering.
1 Like
TRMs on the side would be additional radar antenna surfaces. Angling the TRMs would do exactly nothing as a TRM itself has no “direction” so to speak of (as they’re a single antenna where the antenna pattern dictates the radiation and you would only shift the antenna diagram), the other elements on the even surface, where the elements are installed, would still block the line-of-sight and the antenna beam direction of the whole radar is determined by the control of all TRMs together (different timing for transmission to create beam forming).
There’s currently research (and AFAIK also applications) to install patch antennas (I don’t think they’re AESA) on uneven or even freely formed surfaces to integrate them into the planes skin without hindering aerodynamics and use as much of the surface as possible.
Didnt saw it before :(
The bending is achieved through calculated interference and modulation.
Some papers from pre 2019 even suggested that 90 degree steering is quite possible.
And it’s pre GaN era as well.
It kinda boils down to what kind of array it is. Is it planar or faceted? Do they use some other forming technique for TRM arrangement? Power, element count etc.
I’m not that type of engineer though and quite franqly I was kinda reading the paper diagonaly…
Maybe If I would have time I’d research it more thoroughly, but not now, lol.
The paper talks about it as well, you might want to take a look.
Feel free to take a look for yourself though.
(Chapter II)
What I’m trying to point out is that the diagram you presented is kinda incorrect I think, because they do not emit beams, but rather waves and it’s the properties of aforementioned waves of every individual emitter that form a beam.
90º steering is possible through some funky modulation as I said above. However to have a working radar you also need receptors. This is where it gets problematic, as you’d need side facing sensors to actually pick up the waves coming back to the radar at these angles.
AFAIK, the ECRS mk1 doesn’t feature such systems so the field of view claim is probably wrong and refers to field of regards as everyone understood it.
I don’t think a receptor would be an issue here in particular.
It’s a speculation but I think you can utilize RWR as an auxiliary system for that due to SensorFusion etc.
The issue we’re talking about goes far beyond “Hey you, one dude, explain it” and even if we got someone from Hensoldt for an interview - he probably wouldn’t be able to lay all the cards on the table even if he was allowed to.
1 Like
It probably is possible, but I honestly doubt it is used this way, especially since even with sensor fusion, the calibration of the radar and RWR would need to be spot on. At this point, you would rather use your radar based MAW or even the jammers as makeshift side seeing radars, since those are usually more integrated solutions in the sensor fusion of the defensive system with the RWR
And even with a full 90º steered beam, one of the issue you’d face is that the emitted power drops sharply at above 60-70º. That’s partly why range diagram of ESA radars show that the range decreases a lot at high angle.
At 90º, you’d have to detect receiving waves within background noise at any decent range.
1 Like
Couldn’t planar array feature a set of 90° bent reciever modules on the rim?
I just wonder, but it’s like guessing at the wellbeing of a cat, while the box is made of lead and is 1000 miles away from you.
It’s definitely not impossible, but we would probably be able to see them on the infographics of the radars, and it’s we don’t on current radars, I guess
1 Like
Is that a toothbrush
1 Like
Optimal brushing angle
2 Likes