Mugatu

hmmm what happened to the rest of the world.

More specifically usually on piston engine choppers

Your right there is not much difference in performance between and AESA and PESA radar, the real benefit is operational availability and the weight savings. I think you gave an example where you could use multiple beams to track tgts at the extremes of the scan zone where and in practice this is done via interleaving the tasks your performing ... and yes just as timeslicing on a single CPU you can consider it working in parallel. Where as in a mechanical array you have to wait for the anntena to move however there is still the same problems that need to be considered dwell time range resouliton etc etc etc Where the Raptor excells, this is done in the main processor not the radar it self, thus you can collect alot more inforamation and try to correlate the data. Not really a benefit of AESA over PESA, more to do with the sensor interface and the avionics architecture. I can't say I've seen the SU-35 avionics architecutre. The poor guy writing the code is looking at what time budget is available for the main array and the current tasks needing to be performed. Anyway enough said, hopefully people don't think that there are 1000 little beams being bumped out by an AESA or PESA as you read in so may forums.

Alright yes maybe for some little sub modes :P but not for searching and tracking as the first comments indicated and I too will not release class information :P. The paper above referenses no use of multiple beams and it's probably has the most unclass info you'll find on the APG-77. I think your all Raptor fan boys haha Just kidding. Again the TASKING of the main beam is used for the fast majority of the modes of an AESA radar, that includes searching and tracking. I'm yet to see any info on the APG-77, MESA or CEAFAR that states anything else ... "Waveform Design: Increased processing resources and active probability of intercept in building these submodes." ... Radar activity is controlled by an avionics level sensor manager which provides commands via a high speed data bus. System parameters such as search waveform selection, scan volume size, desired track accuracy, and timeline prioritization are examples of sensor management commands. ... At the heart of the system is the array subsystem. The array is designed to provide electronically scanned beam coverage within a conical volume normal to the antenna face. The array incorporates 4 forward looking guard antennas with any two connected and in operation at any one time. The basic building block for the antenna is the “subarray”. This is an assembly of mechanical and electrical parts formed in a long slat which extends the total diameter of the antenna. Several subarray lengths will be used to form the circular shape of the antenna. The subarray consists of a single vacuum brazed cold-plate on which RF manifolds, logic/power manifolds, transmit and receive modules, and a radiator strip are mounted. All subarrays contain the same functional components. The only difference is in length, hence they will vary in the number of T/R modules and radiators they accommodate. The subarrays, when assembled with T/R modules, signal manifolds, and radiators, are mounted to an enclosure to form the bulk of the completed antenna. The beam steering controller computes phase and amplitude for the individual active array T/R modules based on beam shape and scan commands from the radar operational flight program (OFP). ... The last quote is what makes multiple beams possible for sub modes, maybe LPI but there is other ways of doing that without sacrificing range and tgt ambiguity and I'll give you multiple beams from the side arrays when/if installed ... array technology have added waveform adaptability design options that are not available to conventional systems. Avionics level control of radar measurement tasking provides a software interface which lends itself to radar “submodes of operation” offering the pilot more flexibility in the cockpit. Trades were conducted in the area of search and track mode design to explore the implications of timeline management, target measurement maintenance, and low

Last link (keyword "interleave") The paper above will give you facts. It's from the F-22 USAF System Project Office. Doesn't matter, sorry I've pulled the thread off topic. http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_018786.pdf

it's ok to be wrong :P

If you've got some spare cash download "F-22 Radar Development" by John A Malas.

Yes if the aperture is designed for it, and what would be the impact of doing it!! poor performance so does NG do it for the APG-77, MESA for tracking and surveillance? ps I don't know why the burden of proof is in our camp you have provided none either, now show one source where the APG-77 is shown to use multiple beams and not interleaving the main beam?

Bingo!

Well the physics are pretty obvious, there's a reason why the more T/R modules there are on an array the better ... I'm not arguing just trying to steer your curiosity in the right direction.

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/ASD/brochures/AESA_DFOISR_Edited_06_May_2003.pdf pg 14 APG-77 has one array - one main beam SPY1-D 3 arrays 3 beams... MESA Wedgetail etc (arguably the most advanced AESA radar out there) 4 arrays.

At different times! The only extra beams are the main lobe and side lobes. The software will task the radar to perform different scans reducing the time spent performing other tasks. The notion of multiple beams is a furfy!!

Makes perfect sense to me, you don't win because your inferior (well not always)! :P mmm has the 787 flown yet :P

You mean time slice, it doesn't divide the beam.

big win for eads & airbus woohoo!!

and ... what's wrong with constructive criticism.

ditto with Kuky, and kill that ant. I had a real one crawling across the screen teh other day and thought you'd managed to branch out of your signature box somehow.

I'd love to go on a straffing run with all those F-16s lined up! How many are there?

Yeah Maverick in top gun :)

no worky on safari or firefox!

Yep it's a great idea, the 3sqn stats were designed to take many inputs from different servers as well but I don't have the time to really maintain it as much as I would like. Would love to see a page where all the stats from different servers contribute to the totals as well as seperate stats for each server. I also plea to ED to enable exporting of world data from the server only in BS and improve the detail of the information, ie parent of a missile, object killed by what object, etc etc, we really are missing PK data... Let me know if you need any help, the TUAF stats are great just a tad slow on loading still.

lol now try it on a server!

No IR jammer on it?

intel processors now, the last used power pc chips many moons ago.

Yep, which mac? I've run it on my Macbook Pro and it was running faster than my shuttle pc. Everything works fine under bootcamp.