The insane engineering of the F-35 AESA radars! 

Thanks for pointing out!

In clear sky, all missiles give themselves off to modern missiles warning systems, the moment they are fired. The numbers of TRM is not the only parameter that decide output of radio power. Aperture and output power/TRS is equaly important. Can you eplain in detail how this number affect the capability of the radar, please?

I believe that one version of F-15 radar could be datalinked with other radar to increase aperture?

🤫 no more talking please

Except the F15 keeps getting smashed by the F35 and F22 in war games because it is unable to detect it with it's radar.

it probably very much IS

learnt?

@@housemana That is correct.

a "quantam" level... does that mean an unimaginably minute amount?? 🤣

EM cancelling system would eventually allow for fully stealth designs like cloaking technology from star treak

@@hphp31416 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth That is one most hyped features that Su-57 was claimed to have when the fighter was revealed and it was mythical by its features. As who would be able to do that, they could effectively become transparent to RF spectrum.

@@paristo The SU-57 has the ability to do what exactly?

No this is just a technology to allow a transmitter and receiver to simultaneously transmit and receive on their shared antenna. It has nothing to do with stealth.

@@gags730 I'm no expert on the subject but I will refer you to this video which is great ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-p7zWBF1P_Bs.html

@Gags you're welcome buddy :)

Digital beam forming was present in WiFi 802.11n, at least a decade old. PESA uses beamforming, either in the analogue or digital domain. It's the bit where you change the phase to change direction of the beam without moving the antenna.

@@amzalkamel3009 well your reply isnt visible. Did yt remove it for some reason🤔

@@gags730 Well, in 5G you have maybe a dozen antennas to control and the target is moving around at a few meters per second if at all. In a jet you control about a 1000 antennaes (the pictures seem to show such a module count) and the beams have to be adjusted perhaps a 100 times per second ....

Do you really have a GaN component electric motor controller in your motorcycle? What type of motorcycle is it and was this advertised, or a modification made?

How much does a mechanical scan radar like the -65 increase RCS when it's moving?

Is there some reason for that? It seems unlikely that they would introduce additional mechanical complexity and thus maintenance and downtime on a radar unless they needed to, or if there was some benefit from it. What application would need even higher scan speeds than normal AESA radars already can produce? Hypersonics?

@@jonathanpfeffer3716 First off, I made a mistake, it's two back to back rotating panels. An AESA panel can't see 180° of sky, so you either rotate the panel or rotate the ship. And the ability to see art high off angles is reduced, reducing your vision even more, so rotating is even more important. Aegis solves this problem with more than two panels, a more expensive solution. SAMPSON is designed to defeat supersonic sea skimmers, where fractions of a second is life, so scanning rate is life. Every fraction counts.

@@jonathanpfeffer3716 This next part is speculation. You could have 3 or 4 panels that don't rotate. But maybe having radars overlap is a bad thing? Certainly is another problem to solve, filtering out each others transmissions. Whereas with two panels that can't ever interfere with each other. But with two panels, they _must _ rotate, otherwise you have native dead spots where the radar can't see, "shoot here to win"

@@MostlyPennyCat Makes sense, that’s certainly an ingenious cost saving measure, although I doubt the improved scan rate would really come into play just given how (as the video describes) GN AESA radars are basically instant already. As to your speculation, the way you get multiple radars to not interfere with each other is just done by angling them correctly and using some fancy software to filter the side lobes out. That’s what American destroyers do.

It's even more amazing how much he CANT put in. 😂

@@alleycatsphinx LOL yeah

FYI, F-35 didn't skip the "active stealth" feature when coupled with passive stealth.

From "Out Of The Shadows: RNLAF experiences with the F-35A" via Combat Aircraft Magazine May 2018 F-35A Block 3F used its "active stealth" feature to hide the Blue team's friendly F-16A against the Red team's F-16A MLU.

Thank you very much! There is a little bit more to come, actually.

Currently Gripen E have GaAs in the nose AESA and the Gripen C is being upgrade to GaN nose ASEA plus the Avionics of Gripen E, and more powerful engine. Gripen E will be full GaN(and SiC) soon.

@@atlet1 The radar upgrade for Gripen C is to MK4 so it's not an AESA radar. There are some indications that Gripen E might get a completely new radar in the future, it could be the SAAB GaN based one but there is no real information about it yet.

Incorrect. Gripen E will never have as many GaN TRMs in its nose and wingtips, even compared with a single AESA in the F-35. The US pioneered and controls the supply chain of GaN TRMs, which have gone into F/A-18A/C+, F/A-18E/F Block 3 with APG-79(V)4, and other programs not mentioned publicly. The US stacks TRMs closer to each other than any other nation’s Radar assembly companies, who are using a lot of licensed technology from Raytheon via Foreign Military Sales and technology sharing agreements. Old F/A-18s in USMC and RCAF service have a superior Radar than what is currently in any of the Gripens, including the Gripen E. The one area where the Gripen E has an advantage is the ability to rotate the AESA to provide side aspect continual tracking after offsetting abeam of airborne fighters in the BVR timeline. But since the Gripen’s Radome size is so small and the Leonardo Radar doesn’t have high TRM stacking density, its maximum detection and tracking ranges will be limited compared to a Hornet+ or Super Hornet Block 3, let alone anything 5th Gen even with GaA TRMs.

@@LRRPFco52 False! SAAB is the leading company in GaN tech and the whole supply chain is in Sweden. Only Gripen have GaN AESA, which are several times more powerful than GaAs. Even the range of wavelengts is bigger. The area of the nose antenna is approximately the same in Gripen as in F-35. The elements in the distributed aperture system in Gripen is approximately the samme as in F-35. This make Gripen AESA more powerful, especially in a tactical mening.

Some USMC F/A-18C have GaN AESA radar i.e. Raytheon APG-79(V)4.

Thanks for sharing

"Your budget is approved"

Gripen E is full of sensors of different types, it has 50 antennas for a sphereic all around coverage.

Australian CEAFAR has 5 faces with AESA fcr

Irbis has 2 TWT’s and thus 2 transmitters. The advantages of AESA is mainly reliability and jamming. But AESA has the potential to have greater bandwidth but is hampered by this due to beam steering technology.

Very little of the really interesting stuff in EW technology is anywhere near the public domain, and rightly so.

@@hb1338 True but I have seen some articles and videos from a Spanish channel "portierramaryaire" that are interesting. But I think this channel can offer something "more" and "more synthesized". Thank you .

Current gen (semi) active missiles don't need guidance from the source so no need for "illumination" . Just to be able to detect the targets is where the game is at then launch and steer the missile in a general direction until the missiles guidance system takes over. This can be done with passive systems like AESA in passive mode or IRST. The analogy with how submarines operate is also more and more applying to air warfare these days. Also more likely the detection will be done by platforms like ground radar / AWACs and maybe even SAR equipped satellites. Much harder to hide an aircraft than a submarine from those.

Don't forget you still need ranging information, not just direction

Nice. I'm betting that's why there's a move from speculation on AESA radars being used as DEWs to the possibility being part of the USAF NGAD.

@@j.f.fisher5318 Looking over my DC uno cards, I'm gonna play "I don't seem to recall". It's a much stronger card than "I'm not at liberty to say" or "I don't have that information in front of me right now", as it gives unlimited plausible deniability for one turn.

Fingers crossed!

I had been waiting for this comment since I published the video! It took 4 days...congratulation for bring first!

@@unknownuser069 if all body is covered with antennas they could work like noise cannceling headphones and simply make radar obsolete achieving full stealth

Similar but different. MRI looks for resonance of tissue based on the magnetic frequencies. Radar utilizes electromagnetic waves and looks for reflected energies.

X band has a hard time targeting stealth

Nop, it is all open source.

I worked on electronically steerable phased arrays for civilian use about forty years ago. Even then there was quite a lot of literature and a good understanding of what the problems were. The principles are straightforward and easily understood. Building kit that works well at radar frequencies is a bit harder though.

It is not a gymball, it is a repositioner, it just rotates

I always liked the ability to shoot a missile at BVR and then fly away while continuing to track the enemy and guide the missile. Gives me more time before their missile gets to me (hopefully meaning they get destroyed before they finish guiding their missile onto me).

@@Millennium7HistoryTech thanks, I didn't knew the difference.

You could just change an individual module in theory. However it would probably be faster to just change the entire dish and send the defective one to a specialised maintenance base. Also, the modules need cooling, so building large portion of the an aircraft skin out of them is out of the question.

@@shi01 I'm thinking years if not decades in the future for the skin AESA with miniature modules. Also, the cold temps of high altitude might be enough of an coolant for the system. Again, waaay in the future...☺

​It is the switch at the back of the module that need cooling the most, not the antenna themself.