Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 50

Thread: Radar AESA GaN vs. Radar AESA GaAs !

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    215

    Radar AESA GaN vs. Radar AESA GaAs !

    Radar AESA GaN Tech vs. Radar AESA GaAs Tech !

    what the difference between both of type radar AESA ?

    AN/APG-63(V)2 is a AESA GaAs
    APG-63(V)3 is a AESA GaN

    I have heard that AESA GaN has jamming capability, lower power consumption, the range farther, less heat output than AESA GaAs. Does anyone have any comments?
    Last edited by blackadam; 16th March 2017 at 13:02.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,029
    Since when APG 81 is GaN based???
    GaN has a roughly 4 to 7 higher efficiency.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,313
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Since when APG 81 is GaN based???
    GaN has a roughly 4 to 7 higher efficiency.
    It isn't. There isn't an GaN based AESA fighter radar currently flying.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by blackadam View Post

    I have heard that AESA GaN has jamming capability, lower power consumption, the range farther, less heat output than AESA GaAs. Does anyone have any comments?
    The one using GaN is expected to have larger output power compared to its GaAs sibling. How much larger. Theoretically 10-50 times AFAIK. if a GaAs module can do 10 watts.. same module of GaN can do 50 watts.

    Main benefit of GaN over GaAs is higher breakdown voltage compared to GaAs. Thus it can take more electric power and convert into EM power.

    Power consumption is still dependent on module efficiency which, so far never exceed 50%. and No..with GaN you will have heat problem. In fact the GaN introduction practically changed the challenge of AESA, from getting viable output power into how one actually cope with the heat flux from the module.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    158
    The first phased array radars didn't really offer much over the latest and greatest mechanical sets so can we expect the same of the first GaN radars compared to current CaA designs?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    114
    There is a size difference as well.
    The GaN power amplifier is 1/3 the size if the GaAs power amplifier,
    and you need a lot of them.

    SAAB has offered Gripen with GaN radar to India.
    SAAB GlobalEye is GaN based, and will have 70% more range than the previous GaAs version.
    It is also able to detect stealth aircrafts at much larger distances
    They claim they are the world leader for GaN based radar and got an award
    from Aviation Week in 2015 for this.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by APRichelieu; 15th March 2017 at 17:04.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    158
    Other than more raw power (which admittedly does matter) I don't see why it would be any different at detecting stealth aircraft.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,268
    Quote Originally Posted by APRichelieu View Post
    There is a size difference as well.
    The GaN power amplifier is 1/3 the size if the GaAs power amplifier,
    and you need a lot of them.

    SAAB has offered Gripen with GaN radar to India.
    SAAB GlobalEye is GaN b byased, and will have 70% more range than the previous GaAs version.
    It is also able to detect stealth aircrafts at much larger distances
    They claim they are the world leader for GaN based radar and got an award
    from Aviation Week in 2015 for this.
    Why will any one buy stealth aircraft after GaN radar. SAAB has the weakest powersupply of AWACS.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    178
    GaN's higher efficiency and heat dissapation gives manufacturers the ability to increase input and output power, decrease size (higher power density) or increase bandwidth of the output of the high power amplifiers used within the transmitter part of AESA TRMs.

    Cree is the undisputed king of HPA technology and now have Lband HPAs just 2x1cm in size that run at a whopping 900w output. They are only available for purchase by US Lband radar manufacturers. US is also continuing their stealth fighter program even though they are years ahead in Lband component manufacture.

    Current Russian equivalents are still prototypes, run at 40W are far less efficient, lower bandwidth, and are multiple times the physical size of the Cree 900w.

    European, Korean and Japanese manufacturers trail behind Cree an Triquint.
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 16th March 2017 at 00:28.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    Why will any one buy stealth aircraft after GaN radar. .
    GaN is not some magical material that makes physics irrelevant

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,268
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    GaN's higher efficiency and heat dissapation gives manufacturers the ability to increase input and output power, decrease size (higher power density) or increase bandwidth of the output of the high power amplifiers used within the transmitter part of AESA TRMs.

    Cree is the undisputed king of HPA technology and now have Lband HPAs just 2x1cm in size that run at a whopping 900w output. They are only available for purchase by US Lband radar manufacturers. US is also continuing their stealth fighter program even though they are years ahead in Lband component manufacture.

    Current Russian equivalents are still prototypes, run at 40W are far less efficient, lower bandwidth, and are multiple times the physical size of the Cree 900w.

    European, Korean and Japanese manufacturers trail behind Cree an Triquint.
    Russia has microwave gun so why will the modules have less power.

    https://sputniknews.com/russia/201506151023369522

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    178
    Because that's all their manfacturers can produce with incredibly obsolete foundry equipment purchased from European countries 10-15 years ago (Russia doesn't produce its own mmic production equipment).

    Jo has already shown us proof with the photos of the equipment from inside the foundries.

    Cute, that "gun" is a truck sized, poor man's laser. 6km range... impressive... back in the 80s.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    204
    The main difference between the two types is cost. Currently you have to add at least a zero to costs of GaN radars. Moving forward they hope to reduce the cost disparity between the two types. That being the case GaN will eventually replace GaA radars.

    Until then GaA is natural choice on systems for mass deployment for the next decade. GaN is the long term choice but is cost prohibitive at the current time. GaN is being used in limited numbers at this time.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Siddar View Post

    Until then GaA is natural choice on systems for mass deployment for the next decade. GaN is the long term choice but is cost prohibitive at the current time. GaN is being used in limited numbers at this time.
    Really depends upon the application. On the ground radar side GaN has pretty much already replaced GaAs when it comes to the material of choice for new radar applications if one looks at some of the new systems in development in the west. Practically all of the USAF's, USN's, and USMC's new AESA systems that are in development or being solicited have switched over. Whether that is the very large AN/SPY-6 or AN/TPY-2, or the antenna upgrade for the much smaller AN/MPQ-64. In fact, some of the newer solicitations even demand GaN be explored the solution of choice.

    On the airborne side this appears to be the case when it comes to Electronic Warfare solutions ( Next Generation Jammer for the US Navy, and the EPAWSS for the USAFs F-15s, Gripen-NG EW Suite and future Rafale upgrades) and is highly likely for larger sensor applications as well (Aviation Week predicts GaN radars on both JSTARS competing sensor choices). I think on the fighter radars the transition will happen over the next decade as affordability comes in with scale and as power, and thermal requirements become clearer for follow on versions and upgrades. It is also a requirements thing as in the operator is unlikely to pay for system performance enhancements unless they are required given that they have to juggle priorities all the time when it comes to funding.

    In the US large radars and programs for X band GaN components should help bring costs down in the short term. The programs that will contribute here are the AN/TPY-2 which may move to 2 radars a year if certain export discussions materialize (thats 50,000+ T/R modules a year), JSTARS sensor, and Navy's AMDR-X which would be a substantial US Navy acquisition program. Even the AN/MPQ-64 upgrade program will be substantial given both existing base and potential new applications with the IFPC and other SHORAAD uses in mind. Across the sensor portfolio it seems that Raytheon is putting some distance between it and its US and international competitors when it comes to volume production and deliveries going forward.so it may be able to leverage its investment and capacity to get ahead of the game by offering a more affordable path airborne GaN antenna upgrades..say for example on the Super Hornet upgrade program. SAAB has a radar prototype but so far neither a taker nor a path for Gripen integration.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 16th March 2017 at 11:31.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Siddar View Post
    The main difference between the two types is cost. Currently you have to add at least a zero to costs of GaN radars. Moving forward they hope to reduce the cost disparity between the two types. That being the case GaN will eventually replace GaA radars.

    Until then GaA is natural choice on systems for mass deployment for the next decade. GaN is the long term choice but is cost prohibitive at the current time. GaN is being used in limited numbers at this time.
    Recent talk with AESA RBE2 head of program : GaN was considered for next upgrade, but too costly atm.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    Because that's all their manfacturers can produce with incredibly obsolete foundry equipment purchased from European countries 10-15 years ago (Russia doesn't produce its own mmic production equipment).

    Jo has already shown us proof with the photos of the equipment from inside the foundries.

    Cute, that "gun" is a truck sized, poor man's laser. 6km range... impressive... back in the 80s.
    Russia has two type of Zhuk-A radar

    Zhuk-A (FGA-35) = AESA GaAs
    Zhuk-A (FGA-35 3D) = AESA GaN

    Japan similar

    J/APG-1 = AESA GaAs
    J/APG-2 = AESA GaN

    And China

    KLJ-10 = AESA GaAs
    KLJ-7A = AESA GaN

    APG-80 vs APG-83




    APG-63V2 vs APG-63V3




    Distinctively through its appearance, AESA GaAs has a number of striking microchips on its surface, while AESA GaN is a flat surface.

    both of APG-77/81 are GaAs tech ?


    Last edited by blackadam; 16th March 2017 at 13:02.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Siddar View Post
    The main difference between the two types is cost. Currently you have to add at least a zero to costs of GaN radars. Moving forward they hope to reduce the cost disparity between the two types. That being the case GaN will eventually replace GaA radars.

    Until then GaA is natural choice on systems for mass deployment for the next decade. GaN is the long term choice but is cost prohibitive at the current time. GaN is being used in limited numbers at this time.

    Even replacing the GaA TRM's of an array run about 2 million USD (2008- I recently was looking up NG costs associated with replacing the TRM of the APG-77), the costs might have come down since then due to volume. GaN isn't there yet and replacing the modules of an existing fighter fleet's radar, like the AN/APG-79 of the Super Hornet fleet, would run into the billions.

    Like you said, I could see new AESA sets developed/manufactured in the early 2020's using GaN, but retrofits are unlikely in the near future as most of these GaA sets are new and still relatively scarce outside of the US.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Siddar View Post
    The main difference between the two types is cost. Currently you have to add at least a zero to costs of GaN radars. Moving forward they hope to reduce the cost disparity between the two types. That being the case GaN will eventually replace GaA radars.

    Until then GaA is natural choice on systems for mass deployment for the next decade. GaN is the long term choice but is cost prohibitive at the current time. GaN is being used in limited numbers at this time.
    SAAB has customers for its GaN ground-based radars. It's hard to believe that buyers would pay ten times as much. It's also sold Erieye-ER GaN AEW systems & upgrades of older Erieyes to GaN Erieye-ER, for which contract prices have been published. While the radar is only part of the cost, the prices don't look as if the radars cost ten times as much as the GaAs original Erieye.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,268
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    Because that's all their manfacturers can produce with incredibly obsolete foundry equipment purchased from European countries 10-15 years ago (Russia doesn't produce its own mmic production equipment).

    Jo has already shown us proof with the photos of the equipment from inside the foundries.

    Cute, that "gun" is a truck sized, poor man's laser. 6km range... impressive... back in the 80s.
    No can't show any proof as he no nothing. That Obsolete European foundry are past tense .
    Russia built 300M foundry at Mikron for chips and 200mm at Angstrem for communication equipment. Micran and Istok are the MMIC manufacturer. Your confusing mmic foundry with chip foundry. The mmic foundry does not cost more than $100mm. The chip foundry upgrade cost about $1b cost and new one about $5b. so spare your bs to some one else Just to give you costs clue Russia 3.5 generation nuclear reactor cost $3b and Russia built 4 for China and building 10 for itself.. One French or Westinghouse reactor cost $15b and is years delayed. You can't compete with Russia on construction new foundries or factories

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    the main difference is performance, GaN is the only logical option if given a choice

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,268
    these are in microwavejournal. i dont see that much independent swedish stufff now. they are part of EU and once it go to EU it does not move forward.

    http://www.microwavejournal.com/ext/...S-LABS-DEC.pdf

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,287
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    GaN is the only logical option if given a choice
    From recent memory, one customer (South Korea) was given a choice but chose a GaAs path. Performance alone is not always the determining factor..cost and risk also play a role. There is only one current fighter-radar supplier going around pushing for a GaN fighter AESA radar but has yet to fly it, and has yet to have its primary customer or its under-development product accept it. Once volume drives cost and risk out, you'll see more acceptance just like GaAs AESA radars. In the mean time most looking at this through the industrial capability pov will let the larger radar programs create the economies of scale that the smaller fighter applications can then piggy back on.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 16th March 2017 at 14:45.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by blackadam View Post
    Russia has two type of Zhuk-A radar

    Zhuk-A (FGA-35) = AESA GaAs
    Zhuk-A (FGA-35 3D) = AESA GaN

    Japan similar

    J/APG-1 = AESA GaAs
    J/APG-2 = AESA GaN

    And China

    KLJ-10 = AESA GaAs
    KLJ-7A = AESA GaN
    AFAIK, all those are GaAs radar except J/APG-2

    Quote Originally Posted by blackadam View Post

    Distinctively through its appearance, AESA GaAs has a number of striking microchips on its surface, while AESA GaN is a flat surface.

    both of APG-77/81 are GaAs tech ?
    the spike you saw on radar aperture are T/R modules, which is a requirement for any AESA or PESA regardless whether it is GaAs or GaN. The flat cover on top of some AESA is just a cover to prevent modules counts and has nothing to do with the T/R modules themselves.
    Last edited by garryA; 17th March 2017 at 00:08.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,381
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    There is only one current fighter-radar supplier going around pushing for a GaN fighter AESA radar but has yet to fly it, and has yet to have its primary customer or its under-development product accept it.
    Are you referring to SAAB & its GaN array with a modified back end from the latest iteration of PS-05/A?
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,287
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    Are you referring to SAAB & its GaN array with a modified back end from the latest iteration of PS-05/A?
    Yes..so far there is no commitment from either of the two Gripen-NG customers to completely swap out the Selex's radar for SAAB's current set (SAAB categorically denied that this would be the case) and there is no program of record to do anything with the current Gripen-C installed base. As of yet it remains a test article that to my best knowledge has not been flight tested. When I first heard of it, during SAAB's PR efforts in South Korea it did appear that they were coming out as a fast mover and were looking to upgrade the current Gripen installed base while at the same time also seek new programs to integrate the sensor on. It now appears that they would require customer funding before they move ahead with serious development, testing and integration.

    Volume has a great way of bringing cost down so short of a very large order, folks looking to upgrade fighters will be very picky in terms of what industrial efforts they decide to fund. Once you have other programs also leveraging the same industrial base for similar components you can then drive cost and risk out. This is the approach I see fighter AESA upgrades take once ground based sensors have created the infrastructure and reduced cost.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 16th March 2017 at 23:52.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by APRichelieu View Post
    SAAB GlobalEye is GaN based, and will have 70% more range than the previous GaAs version.
    It is also able to detect stealth aircrafts at much larger distances
    70% increase in detection range is quite decent, but i dont see it really change the situation much versus stealth, say for example if before you detect stealth platform from 25 km then now with GaN that number gone up to 42 km, still much shorter than the distance that a stealth platform can detect conventional assets.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    70% increase in detection range is quite decent, but i dont see it really change the situation much versus stealth, say for example if before you detect stealth platform from 25 km then now with GaN that number gone up to 42 km, still much shorter than the distance that a stealth platform can detect conventional assets.
    If I understand things correctly, current radar filters out small echos early in the process.
    This reduces the number of echos that needs to be tracked.
    By removing this filter, you get orders of magnitude more echoes to process,
    but with enough processing power you can throw away uninteresting echoes like birds,
    and detect the small echoes that are stealth aircraft.
    This can of course be done with GaAs based Radars as well.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    70% increase in detection range is quite decent,
    70% increase is decent you say ?
    what would it take for you to say its a quantum leap then ?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    Yes..so far there is no commitment from either of the two Gripen-NG customers to completely swap out the Selex's radar for SAAB's current set
    yes, those are two unlucky customers that ordered the day before GaAs became obsolete,
    same story as with F-35.
    PAK-FA otoh got the timing right

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,287
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    yes, those are two unlucky customers that ordered the day before GaAs became obsolete,
    same story as with F-35.
    Don't forget the Rafale, Typhoon, Super Hornet and Strike Eagle/Eagle upgrades either. And also the Su-35, J-10, and J-20. Lots and lots of 'unlucky' customers out there of PESA or AESA radars apparently.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 17th March 2017 at 09:05.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES