Talk:Active electronically scanned array: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:11, 7 June 2013

i know i did not write this page in the simplest terms; soon i'll try to revise it to make it clearer for the layperson. i think it is reasonable to assume or require that the viewer has a basic understanding of radar technology (by reading of the radar page or otherwise). ✈ James C. 19:23, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

Chinese AESA?

There is a report in Strategy Pages defence news about the airborne AESA for the F16 class J10A indigenous fighter.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20070817.aspx

" Chinese Deploy Superior Avionics August 17, 2007: China is touting the advanced electronics in their new J10A fighter. The J10A is using an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. AESA systems consist of thousands of tiny radars that make it possible to track many different targets simultaneously. China claims the J10A radar can track ten targets at once, and attack four of them simultaneously (with long range missiles). China has revealed other military AESA radars recently, indicating years of intense research and development in this area.

"The J10 is also Chinese made. It looks something like the American F-16, and weighs about the same (19 tons). Like the F-16, and unlike the Su-27, the J10 has only one engine. Originally, the J10 used a Russian AL-31FN engine, but China has been working for a decade to manufacture their own version of this, the WS10A.

"It's no accident that the J10 resembles the F-16, because Israel apparently sold them technology for the Israeli Lavi jet fighter. Israel abandoned the Lavi project, because of the high cost and availability of cheaper alternatives (buying F-16s and F-15s from the United States.) But the Lavi was meant to be a super F-16, and incorporated a lot of design ideas from the F-16 (which the Israelis were very familiar with, as they used them, and had developed new components for them.) China has about a dozen J10As in service, and will probably increase production once their WS10A engine is operational (which may be in a year or two.) China's extensive espionage efforts in the U.S. has long sought jet engine and AESA technology.

81.86.144.210 11:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.....

Does the system *really* only activate 1 antenna at a time? Or is this really a Phased array radar? (I ask because "activate 1 antenna at a time" seems to be a popular oversimplification of how phased array radars work.) --DavidCary 23:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your question; the quoted phrase "activate 1 antenna at a time" doesn't appear in this article or in the Phased array article. Engineer Bob 00:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Active scanning with holes

Should the article not cover that this kind of radar is capable of being active even though ground based radar detectors is nearby. This can be done if the location of ground stations is known, and when turning active radar on, no radar ray will be sent in the direction of the known positions of those radar detection stations, in effect leaving holes of no rays. Sorry for explaining this so cumbersome, hope you get the point. -- A human 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you mean the feature to not scan each area with the same amount of energy (or some not at all), right? This is not restricted to AESAs, not even electronically scanned arrays. Mechanically scaning radars can also do this. 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the clearification. -- A human 00:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Active Phased Array Radar

Probably needs to be merged in here. Any objections? CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the photos are the same, I think the referenced APAR article refers to a specific AESA system. Engineer Bob 23:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineer Bob is correct, basically. While the term "active phased array radar" can be considered a generic term, AESA is an equivalent generic term whose usage has been in the ascendancy. The term "Active Phased Array Radar (APAR)" is the actual name of a specific active phased array radar (or AESA, if you prefer). Therefore, I think the page referring to APAR should remain as a reference to the APAR product, and should simply link to the generic page on AESAs. TheOriginalMagicMonkey 21:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits to the APAR page in order to add information but also to make it clear that it is a specific instance of an AESA. I feel strongly that the two pages should not be merged. TheOriginalMagicMonkey 22:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(was edit conflict) While I for multiple times heard of APAR as a generic term, let it be this way, as it's better than redirect and dab title. Removed tags. I'll add dab into the (other) article. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Increased gain

how is the gain higher for an aesa compared to a phased array? 59.92.156.36 13:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)a pilot[reply]

Sorting links to radars

If i where to sort the varius radars, should I sort by designation or, as seems more logical, by manufacturer. Johan G (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi resolution image?

I suggest a higher resolution image. The link below contain pictures of an AESA radar on an Australian ship and are of a superior resolution.

http://images.navy.gov.au/fotoweb/Grid.fwx?archiveid=5000&columns=4&position=1&rows=2&search=HMAS%20Perth%20and%20Phased%20Array%20and%20%28FQYFD%20contains%2820101018~~20101122%29%29&sorting=ModifiedTimeAsc

Also noting that APAR actually stands for Active Electronically Scanned Array, this might remove some confusion from this article.

Cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streddy (talk • contribs) 06:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Code injection

I call bullshit on the 'code injection' limitations of AESA radars. The article was clearly written by someone with little understanding of such techniques. Even if a buffer overflow vulnerability would exist (extremely unlikely), it would be a simple firmware fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.9.105 (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue and 'code injection' does not always mean 'buffer overflow', code injection can be done in many ways, 'signature forging' ('packet forging' in computer networking) and exploitation of signature parsers is surely an option though in real time this is highly unlikely under combat conditions. 'firmware fix', lol'd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.108.225 (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is clearly bullshit by someone who has no knowledge of computer security. Packet forging is also bullshit - because there's nowhere to inject a package. Even if you'd have separate AESA radars communicating over an encrypted radio link you could not inject a packet, because it would have expired and you do not have the encryption keys to 'forge' a new packet. It is a myth, probably from the weakness of the old wireless encryption standard (WEP). The mention of this should be removed because it carries no relevance to the article. 212.16.163.66 (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to object so I'm removing that from the article now. 213.112.224.31 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Receiver size?

"Receiver electronics were also large due to the high frequencies that they worked with."

There's nothing about high frequencies that requires large electronics. Clarification definitely needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.146.86 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Active Electronically Scanned Array → Active electronically scanned array –

The article says it's a type of equipment, which strongly suggests that this is a generic term. Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A quick perusal of Google Books shows that it's often found in lowercase. Dohn joe (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear cut. Non-controversial. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same reasons as the others. We need an admin here to properly move the article. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Poor understanding of basic math.

In the section under 'Advantages' titled 'Low Probability of Intercept', the claim is made that the return signal follows the inverse square law, after which the author suggests this means the return signal drops with four times the square of the distance. This did not sit right with me, so I checked the reference provided. The reference says that the return signal drops with the 4th power of the distance. The reference then gives an example comparing twice the distance yielding 1/16th the return signal....which is most likely where the 'four times the square of the distance' figure was generated. The 4th power is not the same as 4 times the square unless the change being discussed is doubling. This should be corrected and the remainder of what this writer has added to Wikipedia checked for basic math errors. 70.185.104.164 (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC) BGriffin[reply]