Home » Air » UAVs Next Step For AESA Radar

UAVs Next Step For AESA Radar

By Colin Clark Wednesday, July 21st, 2010 11:03 am
Posted in Air, Intelligence

Farnborough Air Show – Imagine a UAV with radar built into its wings, its nose and its tail. Now imagine a squadron of UAVs sharing that data among themselves and building a huge field of regard. Add a few Super Hornets or F-35s to enlarge the field even more and to give the squadron not just eyes, but also weapons to destroy any targets identified during the run. Put all that together and you possess a likely view of the next five years of development for Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar.

The first operational AESA radar was developed by Raytheon for the F-15C fighter. The first systems were flying by December 2000. Since then AESA radars have racked up 150,000 flight hours, according to a Raytheon press release. The growing UAV market offers opportunities for AESA now because Raytheon looks to build conformal radar that weigh 2 to 5 pounds per square foot and are less than an inch thick. That will allow them to be installed in places current radar just can’t go and they could be placed in UAVs with a six-foot wingspan.

On top of that, Raytheon believes it can expand the capabilities of the radar so it can be used within the next two to five years to feed ISR and other data to other sources at the speed of an email. AESA radar already provides pilots with detailed radar maps and those maps can be shared with ground personnel via Rover or Link 16.

So far, Raytheon executives are reluctant to discuss whether any programs are underway yet for AESA radar on UAVs. Fred Lanes, head of business development for Raytheon’s Tactical Airborne Systems, told reporters today that “we are waiting to be approached.”

Join the Conversation

	Byron Skinner July 21st, 2010 at 2:25 pm Good Morning Colin, That strategy sounds a lot like the late 1930’s when the US Navy only saw the emerging Submarine as a forward scout for the battleship. After all it was only logical an S Class Submarine could only do about 7kts. which the North Carolinas could do over 25kts. Of course by 1945 submarines sank over 57% of the Japanese merchant fleet and at least one aircraft carrier and the last battleship to be built had been built. US Battleship sank no carriers or Japanese merchantmen during WW II. You can pound your chest on this one Boomer, the submariners earned their pay. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	BOOMER July 21st, 2010 at 7:37 pm thats why there are only two types of ships in reality “SUBMARINES & TARGETS”.
	@E_L_P July 21st, 2010 at 9:52 pm Now imagine a network that doesn’t exist to share this kind of data or an enemy that can geo-locate network nodes (tech already exists) and can jam out said networks. All of the above happy stuff works when you face an enemy that doesn’t have a capable air force (Afghanistan, Iraq). Now imagine an air defense system with S-300, S-400 and copied Patriot SAM tech backed up by SU-35s, SU-30s and PAK-FA. This along with containerized CLUB-K cruise missiles located who-knows-where and you can see that all of this is a lot more complicated than hoping your sat network and line-of-sight network can deal with the threat. A threat that will be even more difficult to deal with when we start retiring our few-in-number F-22s in the 2020s. Interesting as the F-22 is the only aircraft that can hope to survive against the above mentioned threats. We could save some money though. Since there is no use for the F-35 in USAF colors we can dump that requirement and keep building F-22s for the USAF. Where we need to invest our air power money is into the carrier air wing—(FA-XX and UCAS-N) No matter what path you choose, you need a Federal budget where 41 cents of every dollar isn’t borrowed money. Sticking ones head in the sand and listening to corporate press releases won’t solve any problems.
	William C. July 21st, 2010 at 10:20 pm So we are talking 360 degree radar, but such small arrays on a UAV (which won’t have an unlimited power supply) can’t have a very long range.
	anonimous July 21st, 2010 at 11:51 pm And where is located that mythical country???
	Rick W July 22nd, 2010 at 1:13 am Short range or not, the only limit to the size of the area covered is the number of UAV’s in the array.
	holdthephone July 22nd, 2010 at 1:54 am Maybe you people have missed the point. The article explains a network of aircraft that are linked together to share information and to attack targets with the best asset. The range of the picture is relavant to what assets you have in this picture. But grouping them together is better than anything we have had in the passed. Since the F-22 is part of this picture then you might inclued it in your thinking. If this is the case then the F-22 can send the UAV’s instructions to attack given targets. That Russian garbage you mention do not pose any danger to the stealth aircraft mentioned. I do not understand how you people can relate it to submarines when we are talking aircraft.
	Drake1 July 22nd, 2010 at 2:43 am I’m thinking jamming may be a problem for the UAVs in a non permissive environment…not alot of literature out there on this subject.
	Byron Skinner July 21st, 2010 at 11:47 pm Good Evening Folks, As I figured only Boomer got the hidden message of my first post. Why do you need the F-18 or the F-35? The new 21st, Century Air Combat doctrine will be Find ‘em, Follow ‘em, Fix on ‘em, and Fire on command at ‘em, If needed Fire again to Finish ‘em. No more Red Barons and silk scarfs and blazing machine guns. On radar, it’s quickly disappearing from the battle space. Turn on a radar unit and you are saying here I am, hi folks, now kill me. In fact Raytheon is showing an new Naval anti-radar missile at the air show. The new thing is passive sensors both in the air and on the ground. An unmanned AWACS outside the battle space will conduct the fight. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	@E_L_P July 22nd, 2010 at 3:58 am Wide-band ground sensors, (and now a bit wider-band air sensors (L-Band)) vs. narrow-band stealth (the F-35) (also IRST) and.. the fact that if you removed stealth from the picture, with the F-22 you have performance; wild performance; closing speed reducing enemy reaction time around 40% and height and super-cruise adding almost 50% range to weapons shots. Years ago a red team that looked at steath which had serious input into what is today the F-22, noted that stealth for steatlh’s sake in modern IADS is not enough. You have to have performance; reducing crossing shot NEZ etc. there-by reducing the effective range of the shooter). And what did LM say when the F-117 was shot down? They said that even a simple turn can increase your RCS by a factor of 100 or more. WIth a naked F-35, you don’t have much. Like it or not; the Russian “garbage” you mention, will be a factor over the next 20 years. And, their stuff doesn’t have to be all that stealthy. Just enough to reduce the PK of the AMRAAM; which only has a combat PK of around 50% vs. targets that were flown by incompetent / poorly maintained enemy. Get to the merge and suddenly the F-35 doesn’t have all that much going for it. One would expect a lot more for all that gold-plating we are paying for. And then after all the F-35 was designed to have the F-22 clear away all the big threats. Too bad we don’t have a lot of F-22s. With network denial and geo-location of network nodes (this tech exists today) UAVs will have to run off the network, kind of like a Tomahawk IV that can return to base because of a fixed flight plan. Useful but not very versatile as the hypsters suggest. But yeah, we should all buy into the “last-manned-fighter” stupidity.
	Drake1 July 22nd, 2010 at 4:27 am Enough F-22s to fight what– WW3?
	Dog Face Liberal July 22nd, 2010 at 4:42 am What about a sort of pathfinder UAV? Something with a high degree of autonomy and very, very low observability that precedes the networked strike package in an extended loiter. Hard coded waypoints and a limited payload. For instance pathfinder UAV patrols from point A to point B and attacks any radar in the preset target range that broadcasts during a certain time. Once ordinance is expended or timer has expired the UAV RTBs. Even the threat of something like that flying around the airspace would make an enemy radar site commander think twice about pressing the broadcast button.
	holdthephone July 22nd, 2010 at 4:54 am The surface look at the F-22 is impressive and that is the extent that you give the F-22. Without going into depth the F-22 has very impressive electronics, so impressive it out shines anything out there. The Russians do not have this capability and thankfully. I have stated what you need to here in this forum about the F-22. The UAV’s are air missile plateforms that give the F-22 the extra firepower. The Russian missile defense systems “garbage”, can not possibly out smart the F-22 and its air support.
	holdthephone July 22nd, 2010 at 4:54 am The F-117 is not a F-22 by any stretch of the imagination. If it was the case we would be still flying the F-117. As far as the number of F-22’s, I agree the more the better. However, the F-22 works smarter than other aircraft and you do not need to fly a formation of them. The F-22 has situational awareness… If I was planning a combat mission I would take all the old aircraft and convert them into flying drones as target practice for the enemy. That will paint the picture for the F-22 and support aircraft to kill. I agree to some extent your picture about the F-35. However, I give it a little better score card. Remember it is made by the same company that make the F-22. But putting those aircraft together to compliment each other you have an real fire power and we have not added the UAV’s yet to boot. We are playing a numbers game and trying to get the biggest baddest does not always work. If we have many cheaper aircraft we can cover the sky better.
	Jeff Dayman Fraser July 22nd, 2010 at 5:28 am Surprised this got a thumbs down, it made me chuckle, and it’s true to a point.
	@E_L_P July 22nd, 2010 at 9:15 am Where so far, the F-35 will have a long row to hoe to prove that it is “affordable”; the major goal of the program.
	Drake1 July 22nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm I pretty sure the F-35 by being the newer aircraft has a superior electronics suite– if not performance.
	Trophy July 22nd, 2010 at 12:44 pm There’s not a lot of literature out there for a reason; just like explosive ordnance disposal there’s a lot of trade secrets as far as tactics, methodology, application and exploitation. It’s a security issue. Besides, electronic warfare is studded with a lot of jargon and theories that the lay man doesn’t understand and most literature out there dummies down the concepts a lot.
	Trophy July 22nd, 2010 at 1:04 pm The new 21st century air combat doctrine you’re talking about has already been in place for about forty years now, and coincidentally it already includes all of those steps you’ve mentioned. Passive sensors isn’t a new thing either, and they too have their weaknesses as well. For example, trying to triangulate the forward scatter of stealth aircraft simultaneously at two receivers is geometrically impossible. Also, during low-observability operations stealth aircraft cut off radar and radio emissions. Anti-radar missiles have also been around for some time too (such as the AGM-45 Shrike, first used in battle in 1965). This hasn’t stopped our opponents from using them, and adapting their tactics accordingly with success (most notably in Kosovo).
	Trophy July 22nd, 2010 at 1:07 pm I forgot to mention that the technology, tactics, methodology, application and exploitation evolves very rapidly. So any literature you would find could already be outdated in a span of months.
	mike July 22nd, 2010 at 2:20 pm You all seem to forget the fact that the F-22 is a FIGHTER aircraft with very limited air to ground capability. The JSF however was designed to opperate and excel in this very type of environment. Everyone discounts the JSF to fight its way in and out of a battlefield. The same comments where being made by the F-14 jockies about the Hornet when it first roled out, that it was imposible to do both missions well in a single airframe. Well we all see the end results of that contest. F/A-18 has replaced the Tomcat and has an ever expanding and evolving role (F/A-18G).
	sferrin July 22nd, 2010 at 2:51 pm Kill the F-35 and buy FA-XX and UCAS-N. Oh yeah, THAT will be cheaper. “Since there is no use for the F-35 in USAF colors …” You might want to inform the USAF, they didn’t get your memo. (snort, guffaw)
	haha July 22nd, 2010 at 4:03 pm A system like the one they want for this already exists on other platforms, this story is stupid.
	anonimous July 22nd, 2010 at 5:32 pm Who is your sponsor??? APA????
	anonimous July 22nd, 2010 at 5:36 pm We can buy used P-51 Mustang.They are affordable.
	Byron Skinner July 22nd, 2010 at 2:32 pm Good Morning Folks, A piece to this puzzle that has not been been mentioned is is the “Scan Eagle” a C4/AWACS. Insitu Inc (owned now by Boeing) has been developing it. At this point is is little more then something the size of a hobbyist aircraft but it is capable of C2 operations. The Scan Eagle is expected to challenge the AWACS not to far down the road. The only need for a manned aircraft here lay back and to shoot down any drone that goes postal. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	jim July 22nd, 2010 at 6:44 pm Isn’t the million dollar HARM missile a passive lock on anti-radar destroying weapon? When I was in, they were hung off EA-6Bs. Now I think they’re on F-18G Super Hornet. The HARM locks and releases, kind of like a torpedo. It won’t TOW a threat, just annihilate the area.
	Trophy July 22nd, 2010 at 8:32 pm Yes, the AGM-88 HARM (which replaced the AGM-45 Shrike and AGM-78 ARM) uses a passive guidance system that locks onto radar emissions (from standard search, track or jamming emissions). The Air Force also used them on the Wild Weasels (back then the F-4G, now the F-16). It uses a fragmentation warhead meant to destroy ground radar. All F/A-18 variants are capable of carrying the weapon.
	Trophy July 22nd, 2010 at 8:36 pm There’s also a new upgrade to the AGM-88, dubbed the AGM-88E Advanced Anti Radiation Guided Missile. One of the more notable features of this variant will be a capability to counter powered-down radar (most likely it’ll continue it’s course to the location of where the radar emission last came from). It will also feature active millimeter wave guidance on top of passive radar guidance.
	Aeroengineer July 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm An un manned AWAC outside the battle space is the first target for the next gen battle. Take out the eyes and ears or any sensor system you can will be the best option for the enemy as well as ourselves. To equate the strategy to the submarine idea is interesting, but a bit naive. Connecting the radar in the JUCAV is also an interesting ploy, but I think it is only useful as a contermeasure against SAMs or other systems that can actually see you. Dont see how that would help unless you have a cleared battlefield and practically no threats up there. Lasers and sensors that are small are the newbies and the future of battle.
	Aero engineer July 22nd, 2010 at 9:01 pm You need to assume that the enemy will blind, jam and or destroy our satelite eyes, but miss other sensors such as small radar units on the ground or passive systems. I dont think this connected radar is going to help in this scenario since it begs to get these aircraft shot down. This is like fighting a battle in the dark in the middle of a sandstorm. Each unit needs direction and autonomous decision ability to figure out survival (hide and seek) and also to maintain attacks on the actual targets of opportunity. The enemy is not stupid. They know what we have and they also know limitations.
	shawn1999 July 22nd, 2010 at 9:50 pm Aero, One thing you may not consider is the fact that taking out one component doesn’t cripple the system. If deployed intelligently, the loss of one component can be quickly covered/overlapped by surrounding components as well as provide data to triagulate on the enemy that took the one component out, even if the enemy unit is stealthed. Multiple units go down simultaneously, and now we also begin to get a a picture of enemy unit size as well as location. They practically start yelling “Here I am!”. Not only that, but with only the UAVs in Active mode, and your manned craft in pass/receive-only mode, your manned aircraft get he benefits of active radar, without a big red bullseye painted on their nose-cone– in fact even better– now there are X number of decoys in the sky. I’m not sure of the detection methods for things like this, but I imagine there is also a way to modify the active output to give a signature that ressembles multiple, larger contacts and perhaps just scare the **** out of the enemy (or misdirect a large number of enemy forces).
	@E_L_P July 24th, 2010 at 4:04 am Which could actually mean something if the USAF could afford it. They can’t as the affordability train has already left the F-35 program. Important because they are supposed to be the biggest buyer.
	@E_L_P July 24th, 2010 at 4:08 am interesting for sure as once the F-22 clears the field of the high end air defense threats, any 4th gen can do the job. Which means for the USAF at least, they don’t have a solid justification for the F-35; and given its price blow-outs–or was Nunn-McCurdy just something that didn’t happen?–won’t be able to afford it in any real numbers. Best advice for the JSF partner nations is to get good lawyers when it all falls down. As for the F/A-18G–the diet coke of jammers– and the Navy new it when they fielded it.
	Byron Skinner July 24th, 2010 at 2:53 pm Good Morning Folks, Aeroengineer. It’s very logical that the AWACS would be the first target in a major air war, the question is would you rather lose an manned AWAC or an an unmanned AWAC? Currently the Us as you know used airborne C-4 for it fighter and attack missions in the forms of the E-2C and the Air Forces AWAC’s. The old Soviet System of using ground ATC is still the preferred operational systems of The Russian Federation and the PRC although both would like to use the US system but the technologies are as The Russian Federation says 20–30 years ahead of anything they have. As for “The Wild Weasel” mission, a sensor loaded UAV (X-45 or X-37 type perhaps) with AGM weapons would seem to be the obvious answer to the first shots fired in the first hour of an air war. This is not unlike what Lt. General Charles Honer did at the start of the 1991 air war, he sent up some unmanned drones, all were shot down by Iraqi ADM’s which got gifts form the trailing F-4G’s of AGM’s. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	anonimous July 25th, 2010 at 8:38 pm You don’t make any sense with your APA aproach
	anonimous July 25th, 2010 at 8:40 pm You read to much Pierre Sprey
	Skipperdoo July 31st, 2010 at 6:28 pm Beefed up Wild Weasel UAV’s would be the cat’s balls.
	Jay Citizen August 1st, 2010 at 3:42 am Well — one thing about it, if some other opposing force decides to do the same; we already tested an excellent swatter for UAVs just like this. I saw it on the Buzz just the other day. That laser made mince-meat outta that plane in seconds! Imagine having a computer controlled collimator that could shoot — say 45 of these down an hour! HA! And this was a solid state laser; what is the range of a gigawatt blue green laser?!
	jay October 31st, 2010 at 3:00 am What everyone here seems to be missing is,we need AWACS, but if a shooting war breaks out it will not be AWACS that we will use ( The countrys with high tech will target AWACS Immediately) but F-22’s will be used for that purpose. Simple, if you get Involved in a heavy A/A or A/G campaign, you have to target EVERYONE not just AWACS type else how do you know who’s carring all that sensor “Stuff”, you don’t, unless tech has come that far and I’m not aware of it. Just a thought. (AWACS is why we have such a great score againest MIG’S and other Aircraft and your right unmanned AWACS is the way to go.)

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

UAVs Next Step For AESA Radar

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments