Active electronically scanned array: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:23, 28 October 2023

Revision as of 23:41, 30 October 2023

Line 66:

AESAs are also much more reliable than either PESAs or older designs. Since each module operates independently of the others, single failures have little effect on the operation of the system as a whole. Additionally, the modules individually operate at low powers, perhaps 40 to 60 watts, so the need for a large high-voltage power supply is eliminated.

Replacing a mechanically scanned array with a fixed AESA mount (such as on the [[Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet]]) can help reduce an aircraft's overall [[radar cross-section]] (RCS), but some designs (such as the [[Eurofighter Typhoon]]) forgo this advantage in order to combine mechanical scanning with electronic scanning and provide a wider angle of total coverage.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.navair.navy.mil/press_releases/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.view&Press_release_id=1475&site_id=15|title=NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation}}{{dead link|date=October 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> This high off-nose pointing allows the AESA equipped fighter to employ a [[Crossingcrossing the T]] maneuver, often referred to as "beaming" in the context of air-to-air combat, against a mechanically scanned radar that would filter out the low closing speed of the perpendicular flight as ground clutter while the AESA swivels 40 degrees towards the target in order to keep it within the AESA's 60 degree off-angle limit.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/saabs-gripen-ng-fighter-has-an-awesome-way-to-make-its-1743963539 |title=SAAB's Gripen NG Fighter Has An Awesome Way To Make Its Radar More Capable |last1=Rogoway |first1=Tyler |date=21 November 2015 |website=jalopnik.com |publisher=Kinja |access-date=12 April 2016}}</ref>

==Limitations==