L-Band AESA on the

[haavarla]

The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA has considerable growth potential by virtue of the large size of the Flanker airframe, permitting additional antenna elements, cooling and power.

Growth options include:

Increasing the power rating of the existing TR modules, retaining conduction cooling.
Further increasing the power rating of the TR modules and introducing liquid cooling.
Improvements to antenna element design to increase element gain.
Extending the arrays further along the wings, to add an additional one or two subarrays.
Addition of receiver arrays in the leading edge of the vertical tails to provide dual plane monopulse precision angle tracking capability for fire control purposes.
For instance, increasing the array size to 16 elements improves power-aperture product for the existing design by almost 80%, by virtue of additional gain and transmit power. The use of more powerful TR modules provides for further improvements. The practical limit will be the available leading edge flap volume as the design progressively tapers toward the wingtips, and system constrains on liquid cooling capacity.


Ok, lets hear any toughts about this systems. Its growt potencial, etc etc?
Good or bad doesn't matter, and try to engage in a civil tone everybody

Thanks

[over G]

I'm really curious over this Lband AESA...thing, what is it power? i think is just a new IFF system , most of them have a power peak of less 1Kw, so any further data would be interesting, until now i have not read any reference of this lband thing as IFF, but i still have my doubts that is not other thing than a new IFF system.

What is the power of the Bars IFF, btw?

[haavarla]

I'm really curious over this Lband AESA...thing, what is it power? i think is just a new IFF system , most of them have a power peak of less 1Kw, so any further data would be interesting, until now i have not read any reference of this lband thing as IFF, but i still have my doubts that is not other thing than a new IFF system.

The company already manufactures 1.5 kiloWatt rated liquid cooled TR modules for surface based radar applications, and solid state IFF/SSR transmitters rated at 3 kiloWatts. A number of these designs employed ganged transmitter stages, some with up to 64 solid state modules.

The current Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA design does not appear to use a liquid cooling loop, given the absence of plumbing, and appears to employ conduction cooling to the airframe metal structure instead. This will inevitably limit the average power rating of the equipment, in comparison with a liquid cooled design. The exposed TR module image released by NPP Pulsar in late 2008 shows eight RF power transistors driving four antenna elements, which is consistent with a pair of transistors each driving 100 Watts into one element, with a maximum sustained duty cycle of ~18% for the stated transistor performance.


NPP Pulsar, the manufacturer of the TR modules and transistors employed in the modules, have made some most interesting disclosures which are very helpful in assessing performance:

1. TR module frequency band coverage between 1.0 and 1.5 GHz.
2. TR module volumetric power density of 2 kiloWatts/litre.
3. TR module nominal power rating of 200 Watts per TR channel, for a total of 2.4 kiloWatts per array, and 4.8 kiloWatts for a two array installation.

I find it very interesting, surly this is a prototype Radar.
But I do think this has great potencial, at least on Flankers anyway(size matters).

There are some limited power stuff on this L-Band Aesa, but so far the best Coverage is this:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html

Dr. Kopp.. i know
But, don't let that ruin your day

Thanks

[Cola1973]

I find it very interesting, surly this is a prototype Radar. But I do think this has great potencial, at least on Flankers anyway(size matters).

It certainly is.
It's a first step in fighting stealth (in radio band).
However, I don't think that Flanker's size have anything to do with it. Smaller planes can accept antennas for even larger wavelengths, at least theoretically.
It will be very interesting to monitor how this plays out, because if Russians pull it off in the next 3 years, LM will have very hard time selling their F35s.

[Wilde]

The ability to detect and track VLO objects is just one side of the coin. The ability to effectively jam all those kinds of datalinks is of much greater impact I think. This could render a lot of equipment completely useless. Imagine a BVR missile or a GPM-guided cruise missile losing it's guidance. If the Russians pull this off they'll have one mighty e-war tool there.

[haavarla]

It certainly is.
It's a first step in fighting stealth (in radio band).
However, I don't think that Flanker's size have anything to do with it. Smaller planes can accept antennas for even larger wavelengths, at least theoretically.
It will be very interesting to monitor how this plays out, because if Russians pull it off in the next 3 years, LM will have very hard time selling their F35s.

I was refering to the Cooling capasity on the Flankers.
For this prototype, no luiquid coolant for now..

What happens when they manage to cream more power into those L-Band Radars?
The Flanker should be able to out power/coolant other fighter due to its size.

Anyway, i wonder if it set of any Ir-heat increase on those leading flaps, meaning that others adversary could pick off any heat radiating from it?


Thanks

[Cola1973]

I was refering to the Cooling capasity on the Flankers.
For this prototype, no luiquid coolant for now..
What happens when they manage to cream more power into thise L-Band Radars?
The Flanker should be able to out power other fighter due to its size.
Anyway, i wonder if it set of any Ir-heat increase on those leading flaps?
Thanks

IIRC, for the same range in X-band, you can have lower powered L-band emitter.
I don't think there's a particular need in power increase over X-band radars, which have all those issues solved.

[haavarla]

IIRC, for the same range in X-band, you can have lower powered L-band emitter.
I don't think there's a particular need in power increase over X-band radars, which have all those issues solved.

Are you saying that lower powered L-Band emitters would help you increase the search range?

If you install the L-Band radar in the nose section maybe, but developed for embedding in the inboard leading edge flaps its another story.

Smaller fighter might have to use luiquid coolant because of smaller wing volum= more power= more heat= better coolant, witch in the end will bring up the weight as well the maintanace %.
This will include the Flanker too, but at an later timeline due to the wing size.


Thanks

[Wilde]

Another interesting part about it is, that Kopp predicts refit packages at $ 1-2mln per plane. For the potential of the system that's ridiculously cheap.

[Cola1973]

Are you saying that lower powered L-Band emitters would help you increase the search range?

Signal's amplitude decay is proportional to the frequency, providing the output power is equal, IIRC. That's why SAMs have lowFreq search and highFreq tracking radars.

If you install the L-Band radar in the nose section maybe, but developed for embedding in the inboard leading edge flaps its another story.

Yes, a single antenna system is feasible, but AESA is something else.
You can't have 1cm TR modules, but at least ~5cm, or so. That's about 5 times larger module and you need some minimal number of those to ensure beam steering works properly....Saw a layout from the link and I must say it's very ambitious, because it features 2 AESA radars with a single central processor...However, every project begins that way. We'll see...

Smaller fighter might have to use luiquid coolant because of smaller wing volum= more power= more heat= better coolant, witch in the end will bring up the weight as well the maintanace %.
This will include the Flanker too, but at an later timeline due to the wing size.
Thanks

Possibly. But I don't think AESA is necessary in that band at all. I mean it's nice to have, but I think the weight penalty, power and cooling issues are too pronounced for a high performance interceptor...AWACS, ok.
Anyway, it looks a bit rough now, especially since the pilot sits in the primary emission lattice (and that's deadly in such power output ranges), but we'll see...It's important the wheels are spinning and someone will eventually come up with the solutions.

[over G]

Are you saying that lower powered L-Band emitters would help you increase the search range?

If you install the L-Band radar in the nose section maybe, but developed for embedding in the inboard leading edge flaps its another story.

Smaller fighter might have to use luiquid coolant because of smaller wing volum= more power= more heat= better coolant, witch in the end will bring up the weight as well the maintanace %.
This will include the Flanker too, but at an later timeline due to the wing size.


Thanks

He is comparing both.

High frequency EM waves are absorbed more easy in the medium (air), lower frequency EM waves reach longer distance with the same wave energy, the problem is the intensity, lower bands need more intensity to carry the same energy

I think we must be clear, the system is composed by 2 arrays of 2.4 Kw, an is not a unit of 4.8 kw, and is most likely that such value is just the peak

[haavarla]

He is comparing both.

High frequency EM waves are absorbed more easy in the medium (air), lower frequency EM waves reach longer distance with the same wave energy, the problem is the intensity, lower bands need more intensity to carry the same energy

I think we must be clear, the system is composed by 2 arrays of 2.4 Kw, an is not a unit of 4.8 kw, and is most likely that such value is just the peak

Yes i agree, 2 arrays of 2.4kw peak.

Wilde:
Another interesting part about it is, that Kopp predicts refit packages at $ 1-2mln per plane. For the potential of the system that's ridiculously cheap.

Yes, even if it cost 3-5 mil $ per plane i would say its worth it.
In the long term anyway.

Thanks

[SS-26]

The company already manufactures 1.5 kiloWatt rated liquid cooled TR modules for surface based radar applications, and solid state IFF/SSR transmitters rated at 3 kiloWatts. A number of these designs employed ganged transmitter stages, some with up to 64 solid state modules.

The current Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA design does not appear to use a liquid cooling loop, given the absence of plumbing, and appears to employ conduction cooling to the airframe metal structure instead. This will inevitably limit the average power rating of the equipment, in comparison with a liquid cooled design. The exposed TR module image released by NPP Pulsar in late 2008 shows eight RF power transistors driving four antenna elements, which is consistent with a pair of transistors each driving 100 Watts into one element, with a maximum sustained duty cycle of ~18% for the stated transistor performance.


NPP Pulsar, the manufacturer of the TR modules and transistors employed in the modules, have made some most interesting disclosures which are very helpful in assessing performance:

1. TR module frequency band coverage between 1.0 and 1.5 GHz.
2. TR module volumetric power density of 2 kiloWatts/litre.
3. TR module nominal power rating of 200 Watts per TR channel, for a total of 2.4 kiloWatts per array, and 4.8 kiloWatts for a two array installation.

I find it very interesting, surly this is a prototype Radar.
But I do think this has great potencial, at least on Flankers anyway(size matters).

There are some limited power stuff on this L-Band Aesa, but so far the best Coverage is this:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html

Dr. Kopp.. i know
But, don't let that ruin your day

Thanks

A lot of people claim Dr. Kopp doesn't know what he's talking about, but these people them selves are the ones that are wrong, he is usually 100% on point.

[flex297]

Dr.Kopp is biased. Informed and knowledgeable, but very biased.
Fanboys on this forum who like to despise him so much are biased. Very biased. Plus they usually know sh!t.

It's simple, really.

[djcross]

Dr.Kopp is biased. Informed and knowledgeable, but very biased.
Fanboys on this forum who like to despise him so much are biased. Very biased. Plus they usually know sh!t.

It's simple, really.

Most of Dr. Kopp's stuff is well researched. Though, I do find his unrelenting advocacy of re-engined F-111s and F-22s for the RAAF and hatred of F-35 (for the wrong reasons) to be a bit much.

[flex297]

I haven't read much stuff from him but I do get a feeling that his main objection against the F-35 is that he ain't persuaded about this aircraft being a good fighter. Neither am I, for instance so I can pretty much understand him in this case. But since he cannot really know for sure, I call that bias.

[obligatory]

I think Dr Kopp is looking at the defense of Australia, and here interceptors and long range attack a/c is the top priority, while the pro F-35 school is primarily interested in a battlefield interdiction a/c to work together with coalition forces in a place like Iraq.
F-35 is the top dog in such scenario.

[haavarla]

Dr.Kopp is biased. Informed and knowledgeable, but very biased.
Fanboys on this forum who like to despise him so much are biased. Very biased. Plus they usually know sh!t.

It's simple, really.

On the tecnical level i think he has some good stuff.

But when it comes to compairing aircraft, tactics and strategy i'm not so entusiastic..

Flankers vs F-35 etc etc, he has his own agenda and is biased.


Thanks

[talltower]

L-band frequency

[Trident]

Most of Dr. Kopp's stuff is well researched. Though, I do find his unrelenting advocacy of re-engined F-111s and F-22s for the RAAF and hatred of F-35 (for the wrong reasons) to be a bit much.

I'd go along with your and flex' assessment, adding that while he may not be an expert on other aspects of aircombat, he almost certainly knows more about radars and electronic warfare than most who so like to criticise him. I think his educational background is RF engineering, IIRC.

[Wilde]

On the tecnical level i think he has some good stuff.

But when it comes to compairing those tactics and strategy, i'm not so entusiastic.

The radar-stuff he's talking about is very interesting usually. That's obviously the topic he knows best about.

Tactics wise he keeps it rather simple. But he's mostly correct with his scenarios too. Unlike many Western defense lobbyists he tries to keep it realistic. While some people just copy and paste Lockheed Martin marketing bull Kopp at least considers Russian missile deployment procedures and other tactics.

Usually the F-35 and F-18 are looking very bad in his assessments. That's the purpose of his project there after all. But he isn't the only one who is rather skeptical. Even Rand corporation published a study about a year ago, that effectively told the same story.

[aurcov]

Yeah, Kopp...

It's strange that this "anti-stealth" feature is a threat only to the F 35 (see the link Haavarla posted it), but no for his beloved F 22 (would someone do him a service and tell him that the F 22 program will stop?!?).

According to its graph, those L-band mini-AESAs will detect 0.001 sq.m at 10-12 Nmiles. I think an F 35 is still safe.

P.S. For those who regard Kopp as a reliable source: one of his "major" criticism towards the F 35 is the 'shorther" combad radius compared to the F 22.

Maybe one can infom him that the F 22 can do 400 Nmiles (with only 100 Nmiles in SC), while the F 35, with a combat radius of 720-750 Nmiles, is the only Western fighter that can best a Flanker without EFTs...

[flex297]

According to its graph, those L-band mini-AESAs will detect 0.001 sq.m at 10-12 Nmiles. I think an F 35 is still safe.

Yeah, aurcov...

F-35 won't do 0.001 sqm even fresh from the hangar, let alone in combat conditions.

[Wilde]

And the F-35 does not have a 0.001 m^2 RCS in L-band. It's more like 3 m^2, i.e. not LO at all.

[aurcov]

Yeah, sure, more like 30 sq.m...

[Otaku]

Yeah, sure, more like 30 sq.m...

Nevertheless, affordable retrofit for Su-30/35 renders F-35:

a) Useless or
b) Next to useless?

[flex297]

Nevertheless, affordable retrofit for Su-30/35 renders F-35:

a) Useless or
b) Next to useless?

Neither.. Less effective..
While I am not a fan of overhyping stealth, downplaying every advantage of it at all cost does not seem very useful to me, as well.

[Rodolfo]

May be Mr. Kopp is biased and quite hysterical. But his articles are always very interesting as this one on prospective Mini L-band AESA.

[Cola1973]

The radar-stuff he's talking about is very interesting usually. That's obviously the topic he knows best about.

He has one or two degrees in physics and electronics. I think his credentials have been posted in all his article's titles.
There's no point in arguing if his factual expertize is real, because if it isn't it would be already dismissed by other experts.
As for his tactical assessments, well he isn't a soldier...However, I never saw anyone here, quoting him on the tactical grounds.
Ignorants OTOH, use his occasional tactical "bravado"s, for a cheap shots in the attempt to discredit him as a reliable source, whatsoever.

Usually the F-35 and F-18 are looking very bad in his assessments. That's the purpose of his project there after all. But he isn't the only one who is rather skeptical. Even Rand corporation published a study about a year ago, that effectively told the same story.

Unfortunately, most of the stuff he wrote on F-35, in a professional sense, holds the water. Not tactical assessments, but stealth, aerodynamics, etc...

The trouble is there's too much children here.
The thing with children is, they don't read the article until the end and then assess for themselves, but what they see are words like "NO", "UNSATISFACTORY" and "BELOW EXPECTATIONS" and go berserk, in defending their "puppy".
Hence, pointless arguments...

Nevertheless, affordable retrofit for Su-30/35 renders F-35:
a) Useless or
b) Next to useless?

Well, we'll see, but few things are for sure.
While F22 can pull itself out of the trouble with sheer power, once its stealth has been compromised, F-35 can't, at least not against today's projected counterparts.
So, that leaves a pilot in an aircraft that is similar to F-16 (or worse) in terms of performance...
I wouldn't say useless, but certainly not what has been advertised in the first place.

[flex297]

May be Mr. Kopp is biased and quite hysterical. But his articles are always very interesting as this one on prospective Mini L-band AESA.

I rather read LM marketing leaflets.. Much more fun, if you ask me..