Radar Transmitter Power Calculator

[Alfa]

not really Alfa :D

 

But maybe a peak output of 5 MW is possible, it didnt said for how long ^^

 

Hehe....well I think they mistook a "K" for an "M" ;) .

 

Anyway, there is really no need to fumble around in the dark in regards to fighter radar outputs - there is plenty of documentation out there to give us an idea about it :) .

[Groove]

I know that OTH Radars like the russians use have an output in the MW area. But do you know the Aegis peak output Alfa ?

[Alfa]

I know that OTH Radars like the russians use have an output in the MW area. But do you know the Aegis peak output Alfa ?

 

No :) . I misread your "aegis" for "aesa"(thought your were suggesting that AESA equipped fighters would have that kind of output).

 

Anyway, shipborne radars are entirely different "beasts" compared to small airborne ones, but even so 5 Mw sounds way over the top.

[GGTharos]

A lot of 'sources' indeed list Peak Power at 4MW, but I don't think you can reasonably 'buy' that figure. First off, each AEGIS cruiser has 4 of these darned things. I'm not sure the power generator can handle 4MW for all of them to begin with, or just a single one.

 

Second, if we were to say that these things are 10 times as powerful as the Raptor's T/R modules, we're still sitting at some 400kW power, and that is 'conservatively high' ie. the peak power would rather likely be lower.

 

BTW, 1.23MW for the S-300 ... yeah ... generated by what? They can only deploy them at the nuclear power plant then huh? :D

[Pilotasso]

and no strategy on part of SAM operators

 

Not quite, its rather the limitation that are inherent of the concept of SAM's.

They cant see too low on the horizon, specialy if the terrain isnt flat. No rockets or bombs because these weapons require higher altitude and clear sight to target (and vice versa!), thus the gun was easier to use and the weapon of choice to jump on the bateries by surprise. The operators have no reaction time because they are blind untill its too late, not because they are incompetent.

[GGTharos]

I don't think a well set up air defense would have allowed for such a sneak attack.

 

It would seem that they were lacking in forward observers and MANPAD positions, communications, and so on and so forth.

[Pilotasso]

What sort of manpads there were in 1973-4?

[nscode]

A lot of 'sources' indeed list Peak Power at 4MW, but I don't think you can reasonably 'buy' that figure. First off, each AEGIS cruiser has 4 of these darned things. I'm not sure the power generator can handle 4MW for all of them to begin with, or just a single one.

 

Second, if we were to say that these things are 10 times as powerful as the Raptor's T/R modules, we're still sitting at some 400kW power, and that is 'conservatively high' ie. the peak power would rather likely be lower.

 

BTW, 1.23MW for the S-300 ... yeah ... generated by what? They can only deploy them at the nuclear power plant then huh? :D

 

I think this is again a matter of output power vs. radiated power (that includes antenna "gain")

[TucksonSonny]

 

BTW, 1.23MW for the S-300 ... yeah ... generated by what? They can only deploy them at the nuclear power plant then huh? :D

 

 

On the ground 5MW is really no problem at all! ;)

Here you have a 5MW wind turbine:

 

 

BTW, The US has 100 GW in nuclear power plants, which provide 1/5 of their electricity! (100,000 MW :D)

Other examples:

3 MW - Tech: Mechanical power output of a diesel locomotive

190 MW - Tech: peak power output of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier

900 MW - Tech: electric power output of a CANDU nuclear reactor

[nscode]

If you want it portable.. it really is :)

[GGTharos]

Yep ... the S300 uses what, a jet-engine generator or diesel generator to power everything no?

[Frostie]

 

 

 

What im not understanding with this Radar Tramsmitter Power Calculator Gizmo is how is it using 'RCS means AccusitionRange'?

With the Bumble Bees travelling at mach1 or Raptors hovering???:D

Surely the Doppler shift is doing something?

[Anytime]

Good pick up, it looks like it's a simple equation for monopulse radars and doesn't take into account S/N ratio or frequency shift.

 

It's really just giving you the theoretical detection range for perfect conditions.

 

What im not understanding with this Radar Tramsmitter Power Calculator Gizmo is how is it using 'RCS means AccusitionRange'?

With the Bumble Bees travelling at mach1 or Raptors hovering???:D

Surely the Doppler shift is doing something?

[GGTharos]

I suppose that isn't surprising - the time you take to emit this power ends up being factored into how much power you've put into a time unit, if I understand things correctly - not to mention amplifiers and other nifty things.

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

Yep, what IguanaKing said. To follow up on his (secondary radar) transponder example, in the 1980's I worked on a long range military search radar, it had peak power in excess of 1MW. It was powered by a diesel generator housed in a standard 20 foot container which easily kept it turnin' and burnin'......

 

To put it in its simplest terms, a modern pulse radar will send out a (high power) pulse which takes a fraction of a second, then listen for a comparatively long time for a reflected echo from a target. The longer the range of the radar, the longer you have to listen. Whilst the radar is listening, the transmitter can "charge up" ready to send the next pulse.

 

Yes the power of the pulse is high, but the radar is spending most of its time listening. It isn't transmittng (eg) 1MW continuously, so does not need a 1MW power supply.