Indian EMB-145 AEW&C

[p2prada]

A very noob question...

Could a few of the DRDO AEW&C be slaved to a Phalcon to cover a massive area? This way the Phalcon could process the DRDO AEW&C input in real time...

(Similar to how Wi-Fi repeaters are used to extend the range of Wi-Fi routers)

Wish it can. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer to that.

 

[Iceman2012]

The DRDO radar has the 240 degree coverage and I know that flight patterns can be made to eliminate the blind spots but is it not possible to adapt the radar dome to have a lengthly oval shape to get better coverage i.e 300 degrees ?

 

[Twinblade]

A very noob question...

Could a few of the DRDO AEW&C be slaved to a Phalcon to cover a massive area? This way the Phalcon could process the DRDO AEW&C input in real time...

(Similar to how Wi-Fi repeaters are used to extend the range of Wi-Fi routers)

The bandwidth required to pump 'raw' data is exceptionally high and the satcom bandwidth costs even higher. It can be done via line of sight links, but why would the airforce want to operate two aew&cs in the same sector ? Only processed data is transferred over satcoms, where it will be fused with sensor data from other radars to form a complete picture.

 

[p2prada]

The DRDO radar has the 240 degree coverage and I know that flight patterns can be made to eliminate the blind spots but is it not possible to adapt the radar dome to have a lengthly oval shape to get better coverage i.e 300 degrees ?

We can't shape a radar like that.

 

[he-man]

To improve coverage... Make it 300° or more...

Might be a good fit...

is that mig 31 radar??

zalson??

 

[arnabmit]

That's the PESA of Su-34

is that mig 31 radar??

zalson??

 

[he-man]

That's the PESA of Su-34

had that doubt too,thanks for clarification

but if its su-34 radar it can't be really used for emb since this radar is only optimized for ground attack(well mainly)

 

[arnabmit]

I was talking about AESA version of the same, if AESA is ever developed for Su-34.

had that doubt too,thanks for clarification

but if its su-34 radar it can't be really used for emb since this radar is only optimized for ground attack(well mainly)

 

[DivineHeretic]

We can't shape a radar like that.

An oval, or more precisely an elliptical shape is feasible from the aerodynamic perspective. If anything, it will have improve the aerodynamics of the host aircraft. So, that cant be a reason for rejecting such a design.

But having said that, there might be problems with the TR modules and their associated subsystems at the sharper edges. Plus I'm not entirely sure we could get enough TR modules near the tips.

But all in all, its worth a study, even if it turns into an academic discussion.

 

[he-man]

I was talking about AESA version of the same, if AESA is ever developed for Su-34.

i don't think that time will ever come,no

but hey,i may be wrong

 

[Twinblade]

An oval, or more precisely an elliptical shape is feasible from the aerodynamic perspective. If anything, it will have improve the aerodynamics of the host aircraft. So, that cant be a reason for rejecting such a design.

But having said that, there might be problems with the TR modules and their associated subsystems at the sharper edges. Plus I'm not entirely sure we could get enough TR modules near the tips.

But all in all, its worth a study, even if it turns into an academic discussion.

No one has fit AESA arrays over a curved surface yet. The complexities of returning signals and assimilating data from them would be a very complex task, hence aesa arrays are flat, even though curved arrays would solve a lot of problems.

 

[p2prada]

An oval, or more precisely an elliptical shape is feasible from the aerodynamic perspective. If anything, it will have improve the aerodynamics of the host aircraft. So, that cant be a reason for rejecting such a design.

But having said that, there might be problems with the TR modules and their associated subsystems at the sharper edges. Plus I'm not entirely sure we could get enough TR modules near the tips.

But all in all, its worth a study, even if it turns into an academic discussion.

You can make the outer covering aerodynamic with any shape you desire, that's the purpose of the cover, but the radar inside will remain the same.

Like this.

The triangles are the radar faces, the covering is the circle.

If you want an elliptical cover, the radar will still remain the same shape and with the same coverage. All the cover will do is increase costs without any major aerodynamic benefits for the aircraft with a balance beam or top hat configuration.

 

[Defcon 1]

You can make the outer covering aerodynamic with any shape you desire, that's the purpose of the cover, but the radar inside will remain the same.

Like this.

The triangles are the radar faces, the covering is the circle.

If you want an elliptical cover, the radar will still remain the same shape and with the same coverage. All the cover will do is increase costs without any major aerodynamic benefits for the aircraft with a balance beam or top hat configuration.

He was talking about curving the radar itself. I think he wants to get 360 degree coverage using two curved antennas instead of using 3 straight ones.

 

[DivineHeretic]

@p2prada, I apologize for not clarifying my thought. @Defcon 1 has done that for me.
@Twinblade, I understand that as of now, curved surface AESAs do not exist. But then, twenty years back, neither did AESAs. As such, this might be worth a research. For far too long we have been trailing the technological curve and not been at the tip of it.

With electronics and software, we have reached the knowledge foundation from where industry leading research can be carried out. But that will only happen if someone decides to push the limits.

 

[Twinblade]

But then, twenty years back, neither did AESAs. As such, this might be worth a research. For far too long we have been trailing the technological curve and not been at the tip of it.

With electronics and software, we have reached the knowledge foundation from where industry leading research can be carried out. But that will only happen if someone decides to push the limits.

Everybody is researching conformal arrays. Everybody. Raytheon claims it can deliver conformal arrays one inch thick to be mounted on the underside of UAVs once the technology is sorted out. Boeing was proposing aesa modules as a part of skin and structure for futuristic super hornet. Probably in 10 years or so we might see prototypes too.

 

[p2prada]

He was talking about curving the radar itself. I think he wants to get 360 degree coverage using two curved antennas instead of using 3 straight ones.

I know what he was talking about. I was pointing out that it is impossible.

By curving the radar the beam shape will get messed up. Beam shape is very very important.

So, the radar will remain flat and straight for years to come.

 

[SATISH]

You can make the outer covering aerodynamic with any shape you desire, that's the purpose of the cover, but the radar inside will remain the same.

Like this.

The triangles are the radar faces, the covering is the circle.

If you want an elliptical cover, the radar will still remain the same shape and with the same coverage. All the cover will do is increase costs without any major aerodynamic benefits for the aircraft with a balance beam or top hat configuration.

If that were possible all aircrafts will have a skin of radar giving them 360 degree coverage always. THe beam shape distorts if u try to curve the antenna.

 

[cloud]

I know what he was talking about. I was pointing out that it is impossible.

By curving the radar the beam shape will get messed up. Beam shape is very very important.

So, the radar will remain flat and straight for years to come.

How about if the TR modules are placed on the curvy surface(lets assume in a circle), but 1/3rd of them are pointing at the single direction, rest one 1/3rd on the circle itself, but at 120 degree angle to previous ones and same for other 1/3rd part. I'm guessing that delay issue will be there as straight line distance for each TR module will vary for 1/3rd of the modules which are pointing at one direction(but should be negligible), another issue cloud be when receiving the reflected beam, it might not fall on the whole 1/3rd part of circle due to curvy nature.

 

[p2prada]

How about if the TR modules are placed on the curvy surface(lets assume in a circle), but 1/3rd of them are pointing at the single direction, rest one 1/3rd on the circle itself, but at 120 degree angle to previous ones and same for other 1/3rd part. I'm guessing that delay issue will be there as straight line distance for each TR module will vary for 1/3rd of the modules which are pointing at one direction(but should be negligible), another issue cloud be when receiving the reflected beam, it might not fall on the whole 1/3rd part of circle due to curvy nature.

Then that's a very badly designed radar and will not function as you want it to.

These are the beam shapes desirable for radars.

For AWACS, the cheese beam shape is desirable, because we need accurate azimuth data and range.

From what I understand, the polarization of the radar will be affected if we design a radar as you mentioned above. If the polarization is not adequate, then the radar will not be effective.

If that were possible all aircrafts will have a skin of radar giving them 360 degree coverage always. THe beam shape distorts if u try to curve the antenna.

Were you referring to me, since that was the point I made too?

 

[SATISH]

Then that's a very badly designed radar and will not function as you want it to.

These are the beam shapes desirable for radars.

For AWACS, the cheese beam shape is desirable, because we need accurate azimuth data and range.

From what I understand, the polarization of the radar will be affected if we design a radar as you mentioned above. If the polarization is not adequate, then the radar will not be effective.



Were you referring to me, since that was the point I made too?

Sorry did not see your post.