Radar thread - specs & discussions

Posts: 1524
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 24 Apr 2005 05:16

siva wrote:What is mean by MTBF of 150 hrs. What kind of failure is that. Does it "fail" for every 150 hours.


here is an interesting link on MTBF, please follow it for further info and you will find your answer there.


Posts: 168
Joined: 28 Mar 2005 09:17
Location: India

Postby marimuthu » 24 Apr 2005 05:22

Thanks yar.Good link

Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 24 Apr 2005 07:35


The AMSAR was intended for Mirage upgrades as well, perhaps thats whats being talked about..

Please cover all APG series radars as well, the 63, 70,(F-15) 66, 68 (F16). The 68 has a variety of designations, V(1) to V(9).
The APG 80, 63 V(2), APG 77 and APG 79 AESA's are interesting as well.

Data on the RDY2 would be great as well.

In short post anything and everything. ;)

BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby rajivg » 24 Apr 2005 10:16

MTBF for military and aerospace systems is slightly different than the conventional technical sense. It refers to: While in operational status, if the weapon system becomes unexpectedly unavailable for any significant duration for any reason, this would be considered as a system failure. If there is a loss of a redundant component, this would be calculated differently and not really a part of MTBF. In practice no commander likes the loss of redundancy during operational status and will complain to his superiors about the weapon system if it occurs on a regular basis.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan

Postby JaiS » 24 Apr 2005 13:54


Sumeet wrote:
Our BARS will track 15 or 20 and engage 8 simultaneously in the 3rd model which has Indian radar DSPs ?

According to the following Irkut statement, the number of targets simultaneously engaged is four. As far as the number of targets tracked is concerned, I have seen a figure of 15.


The third phase Su-30MKI fully implements all navigation and combat modes according to contract commitments. The fighter is capable of employment of the whole nomenclature of aerial weapons, including simultaneous attack of up to 4 targets by guided missiles into front and rear hemispheres, corrected aerial bombs 500 and 1500 kg with designation from laser designation pos. all aerial weapons can be applied with designation from the radar.

P.S. : Welcome back.

Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 24 Apr 2005 22:40

Re: no of targets tracked and engaged, guess what! NIIP is back to saying 20/8...that says something. ;)

BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 03 Jun 2003 11:31
Location: USA

Postby karan » 24 Apr 2005 22:44

Has Anyone heard of anything regarding MMR being further developed to incorporate ESA technology. That will make it MESA radar just like the one developed by Northrop Grumman.

Posts: 1524
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 25 Apr 2005 03:46

hey guys,

Nitin since i am approaching the end of semester i will be slow with the updates on radar however I will for sure cover them in course of time.

Unfortunately janes doesn't have much info on RDY-2. The best source for RDY-2 is the thales link provided by himanshu.

Coming to AMSAR, yeah i just checked janes for it and it says there that this radar is scheduled for upgrading all Mirages 2005/9, tornado, rafale etc....

Jai S,

I am so surprised that you remember me. Thanks yaar. and yeah about BARS this is the update


The Batch 3 standard will not quite be the "ultimate," since a future modernization is planned. The N011M Bars radars are to receive new transmitter components that will increase their range to 180 km, and new gimbals for the antenna mount to increase the field of view to about 90-100 degrees to both sides. New software will enable a Doppler-sharpening mode and the capability to engage up to eight air targets simultaneously. The aircraft are also to carry the heavy PJ-10 Brahmos-A anti-ship missiles, developed by NPO Mashinostroyenya (Reutovo, Russia) and DRDO (Delhi, India). This missile has a range of up to 300 km, but because it weighs 2,250 kg, the aircraft will be able to carry only one.

Here is the question -- what does the author means when he says that range will be increased to 180 kms ? What kind of target RCS he has in his mind ?

The Bars radar has a highly reliable phase-array antenna. It guarantees the detection of an incoming fighter at a distance no less than 130km (60km form the rear hemisphere) and the detection angle of +/-45deg. vertically and +/-70deg. horizontally. Such wide angle was achieved as the antenna could rotate in this plane. The radar could simultaneously track both air and ground targets and engage 4 to 8 targets. In the near future the observation angle would be increased to +/-100deg in both planes, and the accuracy would also rise to 5m (before 10m). Another function of the radar is automatic target transmission to 4 other planes functioning in passive mode.

Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Harry » 25 Apr 2005 04:23


MTBF for Zhuk MF is said to be greater than 150 hrs according to Janes, any idea about MTBF of BARS.

Phazotron's phased array series (Kopyo-F etc) have an MTBF of 250 hrs, due to the elimination of moving parts. However, the Bars does employ limited mechanical slewing for it's phased array and there should be associated complications.

George J

Postby George J » 25 Apr 2005 05:13

Sumeet wrote:.........Here is the question -- what does the author means when he says that range will be increased to 180 kms ? What kind of target RCS he has in his mind ? ........

I thought it was a min. of 120kms against a 3m^2 target with the existing box so the upgraded box should do a min. of 180kms against a similar 3m^2 target.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan

Postby JaiS » 25 Apr 2005 15:12

JCage wrote:Re: no of targets tracked and engaged, guess what! NIIP is back to saying 20/8...that says something. ;)

Nitin, does NIIP speak of 20/8 for the current Bars ( Mk.3 ), or for a MLU'd Bars ( Mk.3+ ), do you have an online source for this ?

Raj Malhotra
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 26 Apr 2005 22:35


wrong thread
Last edited by Raj Malhotra on 01 May 2005 12:57, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 26 Apr 2005 22:36

JaiS wrote:
JCage wrote:Re: no of targets tracked and engaged, guess what! NIIP is back to saying 20/8...that says something. ;)

Nitin, does NIIP speak of 20/8 for the current Bars ( Mk.3 ), or for a MLU'd Bars ( Mk.3+ ), do you have an online source for this ?

Theres the catch as they are quite coy. .;)
The report was from 2005 .

BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 26 Apr 2005 23:54


Is the Kopoyo-F ready, if yes, y did not we pick it over the mechanical one , cost is an issue, but h much more wud it have cost ....

also, can the current Kopoyo-M be changed over to the F??......by rrplacing the antenna and its mechanical stuffs?

Is it true that an additional 125 MiG-21 bis is gonna get upgraded??

One more additional question is ....... was it at all POSSIBLE to have or install the MiG-21bis with a single piece glass canopy like that of F-16 during the upgrade the lines look ok (to me) , was/is it not possible ??

Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Harry » 27 Apr 2005 01:49

The Kopyo-F is'nt ready and an upgrade to the same would be quite expensive. The antenna array on that set is pretty huge and it does have major scan zone and range limitations. It also projected to cost 50% more.

I don't know if the IAF is going in for 125 extra Bison or not.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 27 Apr 2005 02:28

AWST reporting thatIAF will go for extra 125 Bisons. (april 25, 2005 issue)

BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 27 Apr 2005 02:52

Marcos, the Bison is a stopgap measure, the last IAF Mig-21 (to be replaced with LCA) so spending the extra money for a phased array is probably not worth it for the IAF. The main issue with the Kopyo is its range, which I think will be improved in the future through the use of faster processors.

Posts: 1524
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 27 Apr 2005 03:12

Instead of posting about F-16C/Ds radar as promised earlier i begin with F-15s radar and will follow the order as given in Janes Radar and EW 04-05 edition.

First i will cover american airborne fire control radar and then will move to russian followed by Italy, Israel, UK and Captor radar equipping EF typhoon. Being a student it will take me time to cover all of them so kindly bear with me.

Thales web link posted by himanshu is a much much better source of info for french radars than janes. I have compared the two together.

AN/APG-63(V) MMR ------------------ USA

1) PD system operating in I/J band

2) Gridded Travelling wave tube transmiteer w/ digital doppler signal processing and digital mode/data management.

3) Operates over wide range of pulse repetition freq., pulse widths and processing modes.

4) Planar array type I-band antenna carried on 3 axis gimbal system.

5) Radar info. digitally processed. 2 types of display.
---> One CRT display at upper left hand corner of instrument panel called Vertical Situation Display(VSD). VSD presents a cleaned synthetic display of computer processed radar video data with alphanumerics and symbols. VSD employed for long range, initial stages of interception.
---> Second is Head Up Display (HUD). HUD employed during actual engagements or close in encounters.

6) Main Control panel on Console of left side of pilot. Console carries 2 throttles & key radar operating modes located on them. 3rd location for radar control is aircraft control stick.

7) VSD shows target altitude, groundspeed, heading, range, aspect angle, closure rate and g-force. A satisfactory response to an IFF interrogation is also shown in form of a symbol.

8 ) Automatic acquisition switch on aircraft control stick enables pilot to lock radar on to targets within close in ranges. 3 modes used:
---> Boresight mode --- radar locks on to first target entering aircraft boresight as designated by the gun reticule on HUD.
---> Supersearch --- locks radar on to the first target that comes within the HUD field of view.
----> Vertical Scan --- locks radar on to the first target that enters elevation scan pattern normal to the aircrafts lateral axis.

9) Two variants
---> APG63(V)1 --- Designed for field retrofit to the F-15. Focuses on enhancing system performance, reliability (120 hrs MTBF), maintainability and supportability. Features
i) built in test[frequently to modular level]
ii) compatibility with both mechanically and ES antennas
iii) increased reciever/exciter signal to noise ratio,
iv)increased transmitter bandiwdth
v) increased processing throughput and increase processor memory.

System's operating modes -
i) boresight
ii) supersearch
iii) vertical scan
iv) auto gun
v) track while scan
vi) range while scan
vii) precision velocity update
viii) ground moving target detection
ix) high resolution ground mapping.

----> APG63(V)2 features
i) An AESA antenna.
ii) Improved Honeywell Env.CS.
iii) Integration w/ advanced BAE systems IFF.
iv) It is noted of taking full advantage of AIM 120 capabilities.

On a side note: Accoding to Janes sources APG63(V)2 has been fitted to 18 F-15C interceptors based at Elmendorf Air Base, Alaska with installation being originally scheduled to be completed by 2000.


Freq: 8-20 GHz selectable in I/J band.
Range: 161 km
Antenna: 3 gimbal axes, mechanical scan.
No. of LRUs: 9
Weight: 221 kg
Volume: 0.25 cubic m
MTBF: 60 hrs.

From an online article

There seems to be another variant APG63(V)3 which is also an AESA.

http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/a ... arp20.html

Raytheon makes nearly identical claims about the AN/APG-63(V)3 stating that is mostly an antenna replacement and that the back end of the radar set remains much the same. “What has made the difference in the design of the (V)3 variant versus the previous (V)2 model has been the use of next-generation tiles in the T/R modules, a benefit that we enjoyed from the crossover of the technology we developed on the AN/APG-79 for the F/A-18E/F. This makes the (V)3 about 240 pounds lighter than the previous generation model,” stated one designer.

BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 02:18
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Daniel » 28 Apr 2005 07:11

Some numbers of frontal RCS of different planes:

B-52 100m2
F-4: 25m2
F-15E, B1B: 10m2
Nonstealth Fighters (MiG-21,23,29, F-16A, Mirage 2000) : 3-5m2
F-16C 1.2m2
Gripen: 1m2?
Typhoon: 0.1m2
Rafale: 0.05m2
F-35: 0.005 and 0.01 m2 (US/UK and export variants, respectively)
F-22, F-117, B-2: 0.001-0.005 m2

- The RCS reduction for F-16 is achieved by measures that can be applied to other aircrafts, like plating the compressor blades with RAM, etc.
-I could not find any numerical value for the Gripen, I simply assume it is around the same as the F-16C, slightly smaller as the plane is newer design with more composites;
- The Typhoon and Rafale has roughly the same RCS, that of the latter is a bit smaller. I could find larger values like 0.75 m2 for these planes, but I'd assumed the smaller ones correct (being an EU citizen myself :wink: ), the 0.75 m2 correspondin to planes equipped with different missiles;
- This also means that Typhoon and Rafale with roughly equal radars can see an F-16 and fire at it first;
- The big deal with the F-35, IMHO is the internal weapons bay. The despising reports on the EU planes by the US and international press as lacking "stealth" (and so not much better than the F-16 Block 50/60+) are far from the truth.

Now where the LCA could be? It is better than the F-16C. The extensive use of composites helps a lot, besides that you cannot see the compressor from the front. Assuming stealth technology & design around the level of the Eurocanards, and a plane half the size, you would get a nice value. Reducing RCS even more won't be too effective because of the external weapons load (RCS for missiles in the range of 0.001-0.1m2).

BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 28 Apr 2005 07:22

http://www.aeronautics.ru/plasmamain.htm Keldysh Research Center claims to have developed, built and tested a plasma shield generator that weighs only 100 kg. reducing the aircraft RCS by up to 100 times

Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan

Bars and Bars-29 - General Information

Postby JaiS » 28 Apr 2005 15:53

Bars RLSU Is Next Step on Way to Creation of Fifth Generation Fighter

The “Bars” ((“Panther”)) radar control system (RLSU), developed by the V.V. Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Building on order of the Aerospace Equipment Corporation is the next stage of work on the creation of an integrated radiotechnical complex for the fifth generation multirole combat airplane. In 2003, the corporation won a Russian defense ministry tender for participation in this largest of the Russian defense industrial complex’s projects and it plans to invest more than 160 million dollars of its own funds in experimental design work on it.

It should be noted that a decrease of potential performance is observed in aircraft radars (BRLS) with fixed phased antenna arrays at large angles (more than 40 degrees) of beam pattern deflection from the axis of the antenna. Further work on the improvement of the antenna technology led to the creation of moving phased antenna array for the “Bars” radar control system which not only has been freed from the deficiencies of the fixed phased antenna array, but also has assumed a series of new capabilities.

The “Bars” radar control system has become a new development stage in domestic and worldwide radar and pertains to the so-called generation 4++. It has tangible advantages in comparison with the preceding generation, to which in particular the “Zhuk-MEh” radar control system and others pertain.

The new aircraft radar station has a moving phased antenna array (FAR) with electronic scanning that allows practically instantly shifting the antenna beam pattern to any point in space and depending on the target situation flexibly vary the speed of the beam’s shift and its time at each angular position during a scan of the air space and the surface below, and also to form an antenna pattern of the required configuration depending on the tasks being resolved. Thus, the phased antenna array possesses irrefutable advantages to reflector antennas and slotted antenna arrays.

An airplane equipped with the “Bars” radar control system gains the capability to examine the air space at high speed while simultaneously tracking up to 15 objects and attacking up to 4 targets located at any point of the scanning zone (at a spatial angle of 800) and at the same time to search for new targets. This mode allows in case it is necessary (upon the appearance of a more dangerous target) changing the target being attacked. For an example, in an aircraft radar with a slotted antenna array, once can realize such a regime only in a simplified variant – without maintaining a scan of the ((air)) space and under conditions of the positioning of the targets in a narrow zone of 200 square degrees (for example, in a zone 400 in azimuth and 50 in elevation.)

The “Bars” aircraft radar allows the use of a combined mode, that is, to operate simultaneously both against aerial and against ground targets (whereas this was practically impossible in the aircraft radars of the previous generation.) In which connection, this mode is realized in two variants: the ground target tracking mode with maintenance of spatial scan of aerial targets and the single ground target tracking mode with simultaneous firing at an aerial target in long-range combat.

Beside the modes listed above, the “Bars” radar control system provides:

In the operational mode against aerial targets:
search of targets by speed;
search of targets by measuring and changing range;
scan of the air space in a zone of +70 degrees in azimuth and +40 degrees in elevation;
illumination of targets and transfer of update commands ((KOMANDA RADIOKORREKTSII)) for control of missile armament;
tracking of a jamming platform;
determination of type of airborne targets. On switching on of this mode, the “Bars” radar control system determines the type of aerial target detected through the parameters of the signal reflected from the target: “large target,” “medium-sized target,” “small target,” “group target,” transport airplane, helicopter, and jet airplane. Upon introduction into the data base of the spectral characteristics of specific airplane this mode will allow determining the type of airplane, for example, F-14, F-18 and so on;
determination of the characteristics of a group target in the tracking mode while maintaining scan. This mode allow more effectively using guided missile armament upon attacking a group target;
search, lock-on and tracking of a visually spotted aerial target in close-in maneuvering combat.
In the operational mode against ground targets:
ground ((POVERKHNOST')) mapping in real beam mode;
ground mapping in narrow-beam Doppler mode ((REZHIM DOPLEROVSKOGO OBUZHENIYA LUCHA));
ground mapping in synthetic aperture mode;
selection of moving ground targets;
coordinate measuring and tracking of up to two ground targets;
resolution of tasks of group actions upon attacking ground targets.
In the operational mode against naval targets:
further detection of huge sized naval targets;
scan of the sea surface and detection of naval targets;
selection of moving naval targets;
coordinate measuring and tracking of up to two naval targets, moving or stationary.

The elemental base, the operating system and the applied ”Bars” radar control system software support ((PO)) fully are compatible with Western standards, which allows their upgrade while not changing the logic of the radar control system’s operation. The computer technology of the aircraft computer and “Bars” radar control system search and targeting system has been executed in the form factor of Western military standards (Compact-Pci.) All this gives the "Bars” radar control system considerable advantages over the developments of the Aerospace Equipment Corporation’s competitors, and also increases the competitiveness of Russian aviation equipment on the whole.


The technologies in the “Bars” radar control system make possible the creation of its modifications for various types of airplanes. Thus, the “Bars-29” radar control system for the MiG-29 airplane is 80 – 90 percent apparatus standardized with the “Bars” radar control system of the Su-30MKI, in which connection three non-standardized blocs (the antenna bloc, SHF receiver, and the master generator) are being manufactured on a common technology with analogous “Bars” radar control system blocs. Standardization of the “Bars-29” radar control system and the "Bars" radar control system in the area of software is greater than 90 percent. The small software difference is governed by the difference in the aircraft equipment interface of the airplanes. Such standardization allows essentially standardizing the training of flight crews, radar control system servicing and composition of ground training facilities.

Source: 24.03.04, VPK

Posts: 1524
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 29 Apr 2005 02:28


I just read your coverage of Israel's El/M 2052 AESA radar. Its a damn powerful gadget that will make everyone is CCS sargodha wet in their pants if IAF gets them.

For those who wonder what i am talking about see here:


Elta revealed their latest debutant, the EL/M-2052 AESA radar at Aero India. Despite the high profile, the rather inadequate exhibit of the model in a mere corridor facing wall space left the radar, shockingly, mostly unnoticed. A prototype set has been fabricated and is being installed on a fighter for testing. If successful, this radar could kill just about every other set in the world, in terms of exportability and capability. As expected, a ridiculously high tracking capability of 64 targets, is given. In the air-to-sea mode, the radar is supposed to acquire and track surface targets up to 160 nm away. There are over 1500 T/R modules in this antenna aperture - I know because I counted!

But will russians let us install this radar on MKI. Are we developing our own AESA for LCA or we will go for this one under ToT. I don't think if we choose M2K-5/9 for our MRCA [which are slated to get AMSAR in form of a future upgrade] the french will allow us to put this beast into our 126 Mirages. Like we are doing for El-op systems of LCA EW suite and UAVs should india go for joint venture with Israel in producing and further developing this AESA rather than being a simple end user ? Israeli may be more graceful in sharing the tech involved if we share the development cost with them.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 29 Apr 2005 02:37


it says the EL/M-2052 is designed for MKI and M2Ks. anyone has read this article and post the highlights here.


Off the shelf
Israel’s Elta Systems Ltd. is planning a maiden flight test of its new EL/M 2052 active phased-array fire control radar, which is aimed at the international fighter aircraft upgrade market.
The multimode radar, unveiled publicly at the Aero India exhibition in Bangalore earlier this year, synthesizes synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and phased-array radar capabilities developed for larger reconnaissance platforms or pods into a single system small enough to be packed in the nose of fighter jets.
Based on solid-state active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar technology, the EL/M 2052 is designed to operate in air-to-air, precision ground strike and air-to-sea modes at the same time, with each mode optimized to find and track multiple targets with exceedingly high resolution. According to specifications released by the company, the radar will weigh 130 to 180 kilograms (286 to 396 pounds) and operate on four to 10 kilovolt amperes of power, depending on antenna size.
In the air-to-air role, the radar is designed to detect, track and target multiple aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles or low-flying targets such as helicopters. At sea, the radar is designed to search, classify and track targets, while also performing maritime patrol and surveillance functions. And, in the air-to-ground role, the radar exploits SAR technology to sort through clutter and other terrain-obscuring elements to identify and track ground objects on the move, according to company marketing data.


needs english conversion:
http://www.aviaport.ru/news/2005/03/16/89081.html [mrca is linked with EL/M-2052]
Last edited by SaiK on 29 Apr 2005 02:53, edited 4 times in total.

Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 29 Apr 2005 02:39

I second that. Can someone with access to FI please post the article here?

Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 29 Apr 2005 14:57

I am hoping that the IAF would incorporate the EL/M-2052 into the Mig-29 upgrade. That would turn that middle-aged fighter into a beast...

BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 29 Apr 2005 18:08

how much effort is required to replace the phased array antenna with the AESA antenna for tejasMMR? can somebody highlight about the hardware and software components that might be needed to do this. is it worth it and how much would it be, and feasability,etc.

the question is important, because going by the history on the development of LCA, IAF always wanted it have the latest and greatest available.. the first 40 lcas [block a] need not be aesa versions, but subsequents can be be along kaveri engines [block b]. :-?

Posts: 166
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: Blighty

Postby Aditya_M » 30 Apr 2005 12:17

To paraphrase the old elephant-and-giraffe joke:

Q: How do you put a radar into the LCA?

A: Open the nose and put it in

Q: How do you put an AESA in the LCA?

A: Open the nose, take out the old radar and put the AESA in.


Seriously, an AESA requires far more processing capability than a conventional radar (which the MMR will be, as opposed to a passive phased array). May be converting a passive array to an active one using the existing computing set will not be a monumental effort, but this means you will not be able to take the advantage of all the features the AESA antenna will offer - real frequency agility being the biggest one I guess. Then there is the utility of using one section of the modules for scanning in one region, while using another set to track an object - ral time multitasking which a specialized set can perform that makes the AESA invaluable. As JCage pointed somewhere - "Track Here while Scanning There" as opposed to "Track here and then scan there"

So unless there is a certain amount of flexibility (and room) in the existing architecture (both physical build and electronic / computer connectivity) it will be tougher to "upgrade" from MMR to AESA. Fortunately, one of the objectives of the LCA programme was to make the architecture un-rigid so that we could put the best of many worlds into one plane.....

Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 01 May 2005 12:09

They US is so ahead of the rest of the world, that it aint even funny..

Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company
The Boston Globe

April 25, 2005


By Robert Weisman, Globe Staff

ANDOVER In the race to develop the military radar of the future, engineers at Raytheon Co. are betting that their pursuit of new technologies will give them an advantage over radar-making rivals.

And the hottest technology in the radar field today may be the gallium nitride semiconductors now being tested in clean rooms at a Raytheon foundry here, under a research project underwritten by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The agency, known as Darpa, is the research arm of the Pentagon, and it's been working since 2002 to bring gallium nitride research out of universities and into the laboratories of its military contractors. Last month, Darpa awarded Raytheon a three-year, $26.9 million gallium nitride contract with a potential value of $59.4 million if follow-on options are exercised.

"This is the leap ahead in technology, the building blocks for the next generation of radar," said Mark E. Russell, vice president of engineering for Raytheon's Integrated Defense Systems division.

Raytheon researchers think they can get 10 times as much power out of semiconductors designed with gallium nitride, or GaN, as they do from their current semiconductors based on gallium arsenide materials. The semiconductors powering radar, also known as RF transistors, operate on much higher microwave frequencies than the silicon-based semiconductors used in personal computers.

The advances anticipated from gallium nitride properties could enable the military operators of future Raytheon radar systems to track a target 78 percent farther in range with the same accuracy or, for a different mission, reduce the radar antennae size by half while more than doubling the area radar operators can search.

If all goes according to schedule, the first radar prototypes using gallium nitride semiconductors could be deployed by the end of the decade.

Gallium nitride, which is used in the light-emitting diodes in cellphones and other hand-held devices, is also likely to have significant commercial applications in the field of wireless communications.

Working with Raytheon on the Darpa project is Cree Inc., a Durham, N.C., company that grows the wafer substrates used for the gallium nitride semiconductors Raytheon is testing. Raytheon and Cree engineers are shuttling back and forth between their research sites in Andover and Durham in an effort to meet Darpa deadlines and outstrip Darpa-funded gallium nitride research efforts by two other teams that include a pair of Raytheon radar competitors, Northrop Grumman Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp. While those efforts have different focuses, and are on different tracks, there is still a sense of competition.

"We certainly feel we're in the lead," said John W. Palmour, cofounder and executive vice president of the advanced devices division at Cree. "We're going to be able to move very fast. Raytheon wants to get gallium nitride inserted in radar very quickly and we want to get it inserted in the base stations of cell towers very quickly."

But the partners still have to overcome a number of technical challenges to improve the reliability of the materials and guarantee the availability of high-quality substrates for gallium nitride semiconductors.

Darpa's research chiefs have identified gallium nitride as a critical material for future military applications not only in radar, but also in air-to-ground, air-to-satellite, and ground-to-ground communications systems, said Mark J. Rosker, program manager in Darpa's microsystems technology office in Arlington, Va. The technology is also useful in electronic warfare that involves protecting signals and jamming enemy signals, Rosker added.

"It's an extremely important technology, and Darpa has recognized that," Rosker said. "It's not every day that you develop a new semiconductor material with this kind of capability. The implications of increasing power by this order of magnitude would be very dramatic."

While academic research in the field has been underway for more than a decade, the ability to add nitrogen to gallium and get a robust material for semiconductors has emerged only in the past five years, Rosker said. Phase one of the Darpa program began in 2002 with a series of grants to research materials. That was followed this spring by a round of phase two and phase three grants to Raytheon and Cree, and the other teams. The new research focuses more heavily on gallium nitride applications, such as devices and integrated circuits.

Researchers working on the Raytheon program, called Wide Bandgap Semiconductors for Radio Frequency, are cutting up wafers and putting the pieces into thousands of modules assembled in large phased arrays in the most high-tech radar systems. In addition to its investment in the Andover foundry, which now produces gallium arsenide semiconductors, Raytheon has spent tens of millions of dollars to match its Darpa funding in a bid to build more powerful radar systems at lower costs. If Raytheon can capitalize on the technology before its rivals do, it can use it as a "discriminator" in Pentagon competitions, Russell said.

Among defense contractors, Raytheon has sought to be a leader in research and development, said Paul Nisbet, aerospace analyst for JSA Research Inc. in Newport, R.I. "I think they've put more into it and gotten more out of it than other companies," Nisbet said. But he said Raytheon has been less successful in exploiting the commercial applications of its military-related research and development projects.

At the Lockheed Martin Radar Systems division in Syracuse, N.Y., researchers are teamed with TriQuint Semiconductor Inc. of Hillsboro, Ore., and BAE Systems of Nashua, N.H., to research gallium nitride semiconductor power amplifiers in radar as well as missile seeker electronics packages. "It's a discriminator for Raytheon if they can get there first, but that's why we're working hard on it," said Doug Reep, vice president for technical operations at the Lockheed Martin radar unit.

Northrop Grumman engineers, meanwhile, are researching higher frequencies for gallium nitride semiconductors at a fabrication plant in Manhattan Beach, Calif., and an electronics site in Baltimore.

"The aim of Darpa is to see how quickly we can make this technology reliable and high-performing," said Rosker.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 02 May 2005 00:55

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... 3/ABSTRACT
DRDO sponsored

if my understanding is correct, they could change the radar TWTs with GaN ones!.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan

RDM4 vs. RDM7 For archival purpose

Postby JaiS » 08 May 2005 19:52

Courtsey of Nitin, the following answers a long standing question regarding the primary difference between RDM4 and RDM7 radar.

Copyright 2000 Asia Pulse Pte Limited

July 7, 2000



India and France are in talks on defence procurements, including 10 Mirage 2000 jets for the Indian Air Force, and identified areas to enhance service-to-service level co-operation.

The Indo-French high committee on defence co-operation opened its three-day meeting on Wednesday at the Ecole Militaire in the heart of Paris, official sources said.

While officials were reluctant to divulge the content of the talks, it is understood that India is negotiating to acquire 10 upgraded Mirage-2000H fighter jets.

The upgraded version of the Mirage-2000H jet has a more powerful radar and the capability to track eight hostile planes and engage four of them simultaneously. The existing radar on the Mirage-2000 can track only four and engage two targets at a time.


Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan

Postby JaiS » 08 May 2005 20:17

Rising Electronics Demand

Technological advancements in radar are moving from development to production. Improvements in electronically scanned antennas and phased arrays make them the equipment of choice for next-generation aircraft. A fourth-generation active array is being developed for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and work on a fifth-generation model is underway. The USAF F/A-22 also employs active array technology.

Existing radar systems also are being upgraded to incorporate electronically scanned antennas and phased arrays. U.S. contracts have been awarded to retrofit the Raytheon APG-73 with an active array, converting it to the APG-79. Selected APG-63 radars have been upgraded with active arrays. The United Arab Emirates F-16 Block 60 will feature an advanced active aperture system, the Northrop Grumman APG-80. An AESA (active electronically scanned array) add-on to the Northrop Grumman APG-68 offers a lower cost active-array alternative to users who can't afford the APG-80(V). Under a project called NORA ( Not Only A Radar), Raytheon and Ericsson are developing AESA capabilities for the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen fighter, and the Amsar program is producing an AESA radar system for Tranche 3 of the Eurofighter Typhoon. The system also may be used on midlife upgrades of the Tornado GR4, Dassault Rafale and earlier Eurofighter production models.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan

Re: Info on B-2's radar's T/R modules

Postby JaiS » 08 May 2005 20:27

Raytheon's B-2 AESA Radar Successfully Completes Major T/R Module Milestone

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Oct. 19, 2004

Raytheon Company's AN/APQ-181 radar for the B-2 "Spirit" stealth bomber, now being upgraded to include a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) antenna, has successfully completed a production readiness review (PRR) for the transmit/receive (T/R) module at the heart of the array.

Each antenna requires more than 2,000 of the two-channel modules, making them the single largest investment for the system. The modules are now fully qualified with zero failures in the qualification test program, and Raytheon has demonstrated its ability to mass produce them at an affordable cost.

To achieve PRR, Raytheon's T/R module design for the B-2 AESA completed qualification testing on schedule. The testing proved the modules could perform in extreme temperatures, vibration and shock. Throughout the testing, critical functions of the T/R modules evaluated were successful with no need for rework or retest.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 09 May 2005 10:59

is there any details on the B2's existing raytheon radar ? should be the platinum bullet among todays A2G radar modes...note no radar dish but conformal arrays on the wing. point to way forward ?

The B-2 carries an AN/APQ-181 radar, with some similarities to the AN/APG-70 used on the F-15E Strike Eagle fighter. The AN/APQ-181 is a Ku band (high microwave, from 12 GHz / 3 centimeters to 18 GHz / 2 centimeters) radar, with an electronically steered antenna in the lower leading edge of each wing. The Ku band suffers from greater atmospheric attenuation than lower frequency bands, but it also provides very high resolution for navigation and targeting.

The AN/APQ-181 provides ""low probability of intercept (LPI)"" operation, with the radar dancing over frequencies and changing pulse patterns so that its signals can't be picked out of background noise until it's too late. Apparently the Tacit Blue program did much to advance LPI radar technology, since it would have made absolutely no sense to design a stealthy battlefield surveillance aircraft and then have it announce its presence by blasting out strong and easily detected radar signals. The AN/APQ-181 provides 20 operational modes, including a ""Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)"" mode for ground mapping, with a ""Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI)"" capability; a ""Terrain Following / Terrain Avoidance (TF/TA)"" mode for low-level flight; a mode for spotting and linking up with a tanker; and weather mapping and navigation modes.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan

Postby JaiS » 10 May 2005 20:00

A comparison b/w the older and upg. radar for B-2

USAF Boosting Its Spirits

by Brendan P. Rivers
Sep. 20, 2004

The B-2's AN/APG-181 Ku-band radar will also be upgraded by replacing the legacy antenna with a new solid-state, active electronically scanned array (AESA), which will be provided by Raytheon (El Segundo, CA) under a deal announced on Sept. 9 that could be worth as much as $600 million. This represents the fourth phase of the B-2 Radar Modernization Program (RMP). Under the RMP, each B-2 will receive two new AESA antennas, one each on either side of the nose on the underside of the aircraft.

Of course, putting a high-power antenna on a stealth aircraft seems like it would be counter-productive: how can the aircraft be stealthy when its active, high-power radar is practically screaming out its location? The answer, according to Rob Dorr, Northrop Grumman's B-2 RMP program manager, is that the antenna will incorporate some LO design features, but perhaps more important, the radar will employ low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) waveforms and power-management techniques (the latter presumably meaning that the B-2 would employ the radar very conservatively).

Interestingly, the radar's performance, according to Dorr, will not be enhanced under this program – by Air Force requirements. The program, as currently structured, requires no enhancement of capability, but for the radar to operate in another location in the electromagnetic spectrum, although the potential for future capability upgrades remains. The real driver for the upgrade, the need to operate in another portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, was necessitated by a move made late in US President Bill Clinton's administration. The legacy system operates in a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum where Department of Defense (DoD) systems are secondary users, with commercial applications as primary users. As a secondary user, the B-2 radar could continue operations only if the system did not interfere with primary users, as interference could lead to the radar unintentionally "frying satellites," according to one industry source.

In 2000 a US Department of Commerce letter to the director of spectrum management for the DoD stated that secondary users in the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum where the B-2 radar operates would no longer be able to operate on a non-interference basis with primary users in the near future. This correspondence drove the USAF to migrate the B-2 radar system to another portion of the electromagnetic spectrum in which DoD systems are guaranteed primary-user status.

But while the radar upgrade may not yet be providing the B-2 with a boost in capabilities, the same cannot be said about enhancements being made to the bomber's ability to deliver ordnance. Currently, the B-2 is able to deliver a total of 16 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), but Northrop Grumman is about to deliver a new bomb rack to the Air Force that would enable the stealth bomber to deliver 80 JDAMs – meaning that a single B-2 could strike as many targets as five could using the legacy bomb rack (or one B-2 conducting five separate sorties).

Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan

Postby JaiS » 12 May 2005 18:15

Russian Airborne Computers

Avionics Technology has progressed in the former Soviet Unio and now Russia, but at a slower pace than in the West. And today that progress faces economic roadblocks.

Today, the prime Russian center for avionics computer design and integration is the Ramenskoye Instrument Design Bureau in Moscow. Most avionics computers are produced by the Scientific Research Institute (Russian acronym, NII) and are called the "Argon" family of processors.

The first generation of the analog navigation computers was installed in long-range Soviet air defense interceptors in 1957. Designated the NI-50PM, it interfaced with a large Doppler radar sensor.

In 1970, with computer size and weight becoming more practical, the MiG-23B Flogger jet fighter was fitted with a KN-23 navigation system. It included an analog computer that programmed three route turn points (legs on a route) and four home airfield coordinates. Four years later the MiG-23BM PrNK-23 avionics package was upgraded, with a digital KN-23 computer, providing two more route turn points.

Long-range bombers like the Tupolev Tu-20 and commercial transports like the Ilyushin Il-76 were able to hold the large central TsNV navigation computer complex (multiple boxes with different sub-functions), although the TsNV was too large for smaller aircraft. The complex’s main unit was the BTs-63A astro-orienter, which included an auto sextant, course indicator and computer. Inputs by the navigator to the digital navigation computer (TsNV) were through a PUSH keyboard, part of the control-indicator unit.

Flight and Weapons Control

The first Soviet warplane with computer flight control was the two-crew Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer in 1971. This aircraft, described as "the first modern Soviet fighter to be developed specifically as a fighter-bomber for the ground attack mission," tried to match the F-111 all-weather attack role. The pivoting wing Su-24 had a digital TsVU 10-058 computer, which utilized the Orbita-10 computer module. The enhanced Su-24M (modified) introduced in 1978 had an improved 10-058K TsVM for flight control and a newer MVK computer unit.

Processing power required numerous units in the ‘70s. Also introduced in 1971 was the Tu-22M1 Backfire bomber (redesigned Tu-26 Blinder) with an integrated navigation/weapon control computer complex reportedly totaling as many as 80 line replaceable units (LRUs). On another part of the airplane, the electronic warfare (EW) energy management system used a C-VU-10 complex consisting of an additional 22 computers.

Soviet computer design gradually evolved to the digital world. The MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor aircraft, with its heavy vacuum tube SAU-155 (SAU, for system of automatic control) flight control computer, was redesigned as the MiG-25RB reconnaissance bomber in 1970.

The MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker, third-generation fighters, were fitted with the more advanced Argon Ts-101 family of computers. The Su-27’s TsVM-80 main fire-control computer was the first system in a Russian aircraft to combine infrared sight, laser, optical and multimode radar inputs to feed a head-up display (HUD). The Su-27 also includes Russia’s first operational helmet-mounted target designator, called the NSTs-27. It feeds the 36SH optical radar, which is produced by Geofizika NPO and incorporates one Ts-101 computer.

Both the Su-27 and MiG-29 were benchmark aircraft in terms of computer power. The two fighters also were initial platforms for the "Tester" on-board flight recorder, which records 256 parameters. Post flight analysis of Tester cassettes are conducted using the base Luch-74 laboratory monitoring system, built around the ES-1841 computer, an IBM PC copy that has been produced by Miniradioprom since 1987. A recent 1998 prototype of an upgraded MiG-29 SMT incorporates a more powerful MVK computer .

BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 15 Mar 2005 04:29

Postby AjayB » 12 May 2005 23:58

Aditya_M wrote:Seriously, an AESA requires far more processing capability than a conventional radar (which the MMR will be, as opposed to a passive phased array). May be converting a passive array to an active one using the existing computing set will not be a monumental effort, but this means you will not be able to take the advantage of all the features the AESA antenna will offer - real frequency agility being the biggest one I guess. Then there is the utility of using one section of the modules for scanning in one region, while using another set to track an object - ral time multitasking which a specialized set can perform that makes the AESA invaluable. As JCage pointed somewhere - "Track Here while Scanning There" as opposed to "Track here and then scan there"

So unless there is a certain amount of flexibility (and room) in the existing architecture (both physical build and electronic / computer connectivity) it will be tougher to "upgrade" from MMR to AESA. Fortunately, one of the objectives of the LCA programme was to make the architecture un-rigid so that we could put the best of many worlds into one plane.....

Dsnt the radar also include the radar processor. Or did u mean just the antenna by AESA. ?Of course we will need much more processing power. But will that be a big issue. At least not as much as the AESA entenna itself. And it wont even cost us too much extra space/power consumed to add a multiprocessor platform or a better processor.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan

Re: Japanese developed AESA radar

Postby JaiS » 14 May 2005 19:28

Progress on FS-X Program Enhances Japanese Aerospace Capabilities

MELCO - Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

Following two DOD technology visits to Japan, Commerce and DOD
sponsored a symposium on the FS-X active phased array fire control
radar in June 1992. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (MELCO), which
is developing the radar, provided a technical overview to over 150
U.S. industry and government attendees in Washington, D.C. Reviews
of the symposium varied.

There has been little follow-up to the symposium by either Commerce
or MELCO, although some U.S. firms have been expecting such efforts.
MELCO officials told us they had contacted several U.S. companies
about commercial applications for FS-X radar technology. Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry has told MELCO it must demonstrate a commercial application of the modules before receiving approval to export them.

Interest in the FS-X radar among the U.S. radar companies we
contacted is mixed. Some U.S. radar industry officials told us they
would like to visit MELCO's FS-X facilities in Japan to learn more
about their radar modules.\3 U.S. companies produce similar modules
and believe they could benefit from knowledge of Japanese production
methods. However, some of these companies believe U.S. radar
technology itself is more advanced and therefore they cannot learn
much from Japan. In the spring of 1994, DOD completed testing of five radar modules the United States purchased from Japan.


The United States has obtained more information on the Japanese
active phased array fire control radar than any other non-derived
FS-X technology. In August 1992, DOD purchased five Japanese FS-X
radar transmit/receive modules, supporting connectors, and technical
data for testing purposes. DOD paid the then current Japan Defense
Agency/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation prototype module contract
price of $4,800 per unit
and about $70,000 for technical data and
additional items required to test the modules.

Mitsubishi Electric officials reported in November 1993 that they had
reduced module unit costs to about $3,300.
Mitsubishi Electric
officials would like to reduce module costs even further by
increasing the module production run to at least 20,000 units
annually. Mitsubishi Electric's cost goal is about $1,400 per unit
for the FS-X program, assuming production of 120,000 units (or enough
for about 130 aircraft).
Mitsubishi Electric officials noted that
they do not expect to reach the $1,400 per module goal until 2 years
into full-rate FS-X production.

By February 1994, the United States had
finished a complete set of verification tests for module performance.
The tests indicated that the modules perform according to
specifications and will meet Japanese FS-X radar requirements. A
U.S. engineer involved in the testing said that the performance of
Japanese modules was very good and in one area are on a par with the
best U.S. modules.

In May 1994, a U.S. radar module testing team visited Japan to
compare and verify U.S. and Japanese test results.

BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 06 May 2003 11:31
Location: los angeles

Postby sudipn » 20 May 2005 04:15

Some good stuff for people who wanted to know more about phased array radars both active and passive...
http://www.astron.nl/documents/conf/tec ... ech03w.pdf

Posts: 1524
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 22 May 2005 01:38

AN/APG-65 MMR ------------------ USA

1) Multimode, All digital system operating in I/low J-band(8-12.5 Ghz Sub band)

2) Provides radar info for control of F/A-18 20 mm gun, all air to air and air to gorund missiles.

3) Air to Air role it features,
--> Clean Scope, synthetic scan converted display against airborne targets in all aspects, all altitudes and through all target manoeuvres.
--> Incoroporates search, track and air combat mode variations.

4) Other features,
--> Velocity Search mode to provide max detection range capability against nose aspect targets.
--> Range while search mode to detect all aspect targets.
--> Track while scan mode which, combined with an autonomous missile like AIM-120, gives aircraft launch and leave capability.
--> A single track mode, Gun director mode
--> Rapid assessment mode which enables the operator to expand the region centred on a single tracked target, permitting radar seperation of closely spaced targets.
--> 3 air combat manouevering modes provide automatic target acquisition in various search volumes:
a) Gun acquisition mode to scan entire head up display volume and to lock onto first target located within specified range.
b) Vertical Acquisition mode in which radar scans vertically in a narrow width volume and automatically acquires the first target found withing a specific range.
c) Boresight acquisition mode to allow the pilot to point the aircraft at the desired target and acquire it automatically. The pilot can step through successive targets until he acquires the one he wants.
--> Surface attack modes are:
a) Long range, high resolution surface mapping which, combined with other modes gives the pilot the ability to detect and track fixed or moving targets on land or sea.
b) Radar includes precision velocity update feature to improve navigational accuracy, terrain avoidance mode for low level penetrations mission in limited visibility conditions.
c) Ground moving target indication/track or fixed target modes which the pilot may select depending on target tactical situation.
d) Air to surface ranging and sea surface mode which enables the radar to detect ship targets regardless of sea condition.

Freq: I/low J band (8-12.5 Ghz)
PSP: 7.2 million complex operations/sec.
Numb of LRUs: 5
Weight: 154 kgs.
Volume: 0.126 cubic mtrs. [excl antenna]
Transmitter: liquid-cooled, Software controlled TWT
Antenna type/size: Planar-array/71 cm [approx]
Processor: 250 K memory (radar) 7.2 Mops speed (signal)
MTBF: 120hrs

Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests