Radar AESA GaN vs. Radar AESA GaAs !

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

7 years 6 months

Posts: 194

Radar AESA GaN Tech vs. Radar AESA GaAs Tech !

what the difference between both of type radar AESA ?

AN/APG-63(V)2 is a AESA GaAs
APG-63(V)3 is a AESA GaN

I have heard that AESA GaN has jamming capability, lower power consumption, the range farther, less heat output than AESA GaAs. Does anyone have any comments?

Original post

Member for

8 years 10 months

Posts: 4,168

Since when APG 81 is GaN based???
GaN has a roughly 4 to 7 higher efficiency.

Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 3,106

Since when APG 81 is GaN based???
GaN has a roughly 4 to 7 higher efficiency.

It isn't. There isn't an GaN based AESA fighter radar currently flying.

Member for

5 years 2 months

Posts: 906

I have heard that AESA GaN has jamming capability, lower power consumption, the range farther, less heat output than AESA GaAs. Does anyone have any comments?

The one using GaN is expected to have larger output power compared to its GaAs sibling. How much larger. Theoretically 10-50 times AFAIK. if a GaAs module can do 10 watts.. same module of GaN can do 50 watts.

Main benefit of GaN over GaAs is higher breakdown voltage compared to GaAs. Thus it can take more electric power and convert into EM power.

Power consumption is still dependent on module efficiency which, so far never exceed 50%. and No..with GaN you will have heat problem. In fact the GaN introduction practically changed the challenge of AESA, from getting viable output power into how one actually cope with the heat flux from the module.

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 203

The first phased array radars didn't really offer much over the latest and greatest mechanical sets so can we expect the same of the first GaN radars compared to current CaA designs?

Member for

4 years 8 months

Posts: 145

There is a size difference as well.
The GaN power amplifier is 1/3 the size if the GaAs power amplifier,
and you need a lot of them.

SAAB has offered Gripen with GaN radar to India.
SAAB GlobalEye is GaN based, and will have 70% more range than the previous GaAs version.
It is also able to detect stealth aircrafts at much larger distances
They claim they are the world leader for GaN based radar and got an award
from Aviation Week in 2015 for this.

Attachments

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 203

Other than more raw power (which admittedly does matter) I don't see why it would be any different at detecting stealth aircraft.

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 4,731

There is a size difference as well.
The GaN power amplifier is 1/3 the size if the GaAs power amplifier,
and you need a lot of them.

SAAB has offered Gripen with GaN radar to India.
SAAB GlobalEye is GaN b byased, and will have 70% more range than the previous GaAs version.
It is also able to detect stealth aircrafts at much larger distances
They claim they are the world leader for GaN based radar and got an award
from Aviation Week in 2015 for this.


Why will any one buy stealth aircraft after GaN radar. SAAB has the weakest powersupply of AWACS.

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 276

GaN's higher efficiency and heat dissapation gives manufacturers the ability to increase input and output power, decrease size (higher power density) or increase bandwidth of the output of the high power amplifiers used within the transmitter part of AESA TRMs.

Cree is the undisputed king of HPA technology and now have Lband HPAs just 2x1cm in size that run at a whopping 900w output. They are only available for purchase by US Lband radar manufacturers. US is also continuing their stealth fighter program even though they are years ahead in Lband component manufacture.

Current Russian equivalents are still prototypes, run at 40W are far less efficient, lower bandwidth, and are multiple times the physical size of the Cree 900w.

European, Korean and Japanese manufacturers trail behind Cree an Triquint.

Member for

4 years 11 months

Posts: 1,081

Why will any one buy stealth aircraft after GaN radar. .

GaN is not some magical material that makes physics irrelevant

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 4,731

GaN's higher efficiency and heat dissapation gives manufacturers the ability to increase input and output power, decrease size (higher power density) or increase bandwidth of the output of the high power amplifiers used within the transmitter part of AESA TRMs.

Cree is the undisputed king of HPA technology and now have Lband HPAs just 2x1cm in size that run at a whopping 900w output. They are only available for purchase by US Lband radar manufacturers. US is also continuing their stealth fighter program even though they are years ahead in Lband component manufacture.

Current Russian equivalents are still prototypes, run at 40W are far less efficient, lower bandwidth, and are multiple times the physical size of the Cree 900w.

European, Korean and Japanese manufacturers trail behind Cree an Triquint.


Russia has microwave gun so why will the modules have less power.

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201506151023369522

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 276

Because that's all their manfacturers can produce with incredibly obsolete foundry equipment purchased from European countries 10-15 years ago (Russia doesn't produce its own mmic production equipment).

Jo has already shown us proof with the photos of the equipment from inside the foundries.

Cute, that "gun" is a truck sized, poor man's laser. 6km range... impressive... back in the 80s.

Member for

7 years 9 months

Posts: 253

The main difference between the two types is cost. Currently you have to add at least a zero to costs of GaN radars. Moving forward they hope to reduce the cost disparity between the two types. That being the case GaN will eventually replace GaA radars.

Until then GaA is natural choice on systems for mass deployment for the next decade. GaN is the long term choice but is cost prohibitive at the current time. GaN is being used in limited numbers at this time.

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

16 years 5 months

Posts: 12,109

Until then GaA is natural choice on systems for mass deployment for the next decade. GaN is the long term choice but is cost prohibitive at the current time. GaN is being used in limited numbers at this time.

Really depends upon the application. On the ground radar side GaN has pretty much already replaced GaAs when it comes to the material of choice for new radar applications if one looks at some of the new systems in development in the west. Practically all of the USAF's, USN's, and USMC's new AESA systems that are in development or being solicited have switched over. Whether that is the very large AN/SPY-6 or AN/TPY-2, or the antenna upgrade for the much smaller AN/MPQ-64. In fact, some of the newer solicitations even demand GaN be explored the solution of choice.

On the airborne side this appears to be the case when it comes to Electronic Warfare solutions ( Next Generation Jammer for the US Navy, and the EPAWSS for the USAFs F-15s, Gripen-NG EW Suite and future Rafale upgrades) and is highly likely for larger sensor applications as well (Aviation Week predicts GaN radars on both JSTARS competing sensor choices). I think on the fighter radars the transition will happen over the next decade as affordability comes in with scale and as power, and thermal requirements become clearer for follow on versions and upgrades. It is also a requirements thing as in the operator is unlikely to pay for system performance enhancements unless they are required given that they have to juggle priorities all the time when it comes to funding.

In the US large radars and programs for X band GaN components should help bring costs down in the short term. The programs that will contribute here are the AN/TPY-2 which may move to 2 radars a year if certain export discussions materialize (thats 50,000+ T/R modules a year), JSTARS sensor, and Navy's AMDR-X which would be a substantial US Navy acquisition program. Even the AN/MPQ-64 upgrade program will be substantial given both existing base and potential new applications with the IFPC and other SHORAAD uses in mind. Across the sensor portfolio it seems that Raytheon is putting some distance between it and its US and international competitors when it comes to volume production and deliveries going forward.so it may be able to leverage its investment and capacity to get ahead of the game by offering a more affordable path airborne GaN antenna upgrades..say for example on the Super Hornet upgrade program. SAAB has a radar prototype but so far neither a taker nor a path for Gripen integration.

Member for

8 years 10 months

Posts: 4,168

The main difference between the two types is cost. Currently you have to add at least a zero to costs of GaN radars. Moving forward they hope to reduce the cost disparity between the two types. That being the case GaN will eventually replace GaA radars.

Until then GaA is natural choice on systems for mass deployment for the next decade. GaN is the long term choice but is cost prohibitive at the current time. GaN is being used in limited numbers at this time.

Recent talk with AESA RBE2 head of program : GaN was considered for next upgrade, but too costly atm.

Member for

7 years 6 months

Posts: 194

Because that's all their manfacturers can produce with incredibly obsolete foundry equipment purchased from European countries 10-15 years ago (Russia doesn't produce its own mmic production equipment).

Jo has already shown us proof with the photos of the equipment from inside the foundries.

Cute, that "gun" is a truck sized, poor man's laser. 6km range... impressive... back in the 80s.

Russia has two type of Zhuk-A radar

Zhuk-A (FGA-35) = AESA GaAs
Zhuk-A (FGA-35 3D) = AESA GaN

Japan similar

J/APG-1 = AESA GaAs
J/APG-2 = AESA GaN

And China

KLJ-10 = AESA GaAs
KLJ-7A = AESA GaN

APG-80 vs APG-83

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/ANAPG80AESARadar/PublishingImages/pageImages/hero_AN-10136.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QYMXg37vcz0/Vm-JP7INLII/AAAAAAAABmg/swz967N59ZA/s1600/APG-83%2BSABR%2BA%2BNGC.jpg

APG-63V2 vs APG-63V3

http://sohanews.sohacdn.com/k:thumb_w/640/2015/8-1438541848350/he-thong-dien-tu-hang-khong-cua-dai-bang-f15-co-gi-dac-biet.jpg
http://www.ausairpower.net/USAF/AN-APG-63-V-3-AESA-F-15C-1S.jpg

Distinctively through its appearance, AESA GaAs has a number of striking microchips on its surface, while AESA GaN is a flat surface.

both of APG-77/81 are GaAs tech ?

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/ANAPG81AESARadar/PublishingImages/pageImages/hero_AN-10137.jpg
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/ANAPG77AESARadar/PublishingImages/pageImages/hero_AN-10135.jpg

Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 3,106

The main difference between the two types is cost. Currently you have to add at least a zero to costs of GaN radars. Moving forward they hope to reduce the cost disparity between the two types. That being the case GaN will eventually replace GaA radars.

Until then GaA is natural choice on systems for mass deployment for the next decade. GaN is the long term choice but is cost prohibitive at the current time. GaN is being used in limited numbers at this time.

Even replacing the GaA TRM's of an array run about 2 million USD (2008- I recently was looking up NG costs associated with replacing the TRM of the APG-77), the costs might have come down since then due to volume. GaN isn't there yet and replacing the modules of an existing fighter fleet's radar, like the AN/APG-79 of the Super Hornet fleet, would run into the billions.

Like you said, I could see new AESA sets developed/manufactured in the early 2020's using GaN, but retrofits are unlikely in the near future as most of these GaA sets are new and still relatively scarce outside of the US.

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 13,432

The main difference between the two types is cost. Currently you have to add at least a zero to costs of GaN radars. Moving forward they hope to reduce the cost disparity between the two types. That being the case GaN will eventually replace GaA radars.

Until then GaA is natural choice on systems for mass deployment for the next decade. GaN is the long term choice but is cost prohibitive at the current time. GaN is being used in limited numbers at this time.


SAAB has customers for its GaN ground-based radars. It's hard to believe that buyers would pay ten times as much. It's also sold Erieye-ER GaN AEW systems & upgrades of older Erieyes to GaN Erieye-ER, for which contract prices have been published. While the radar is only part of the cost, the prices don't look as if the radars cost ten times as much as the GaAs original Erieye.

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 4,731

Because that's all their manfacturers can produce with incredibly obsolete foundry equipment purchased from European countries 10-15 years ago (Russia doesn't produce its own mmic production equipment).

Jo has already shown us proof with the photos of the equipment from inside the foundries.

Cute, that "gun" is a truck sized, poor man's laser. 6km range... impressive... back in the 80s.


No can't show any proof as he no nothing. That Obsolete European foundry are past tense .
Russia built 300M foundry at Mikron for chips and 200mm at Angstrem for communication equipment. Micran and Istok are the MMIC manufacturer. Your confusing mmic foundry with chip foundry. The mmic foundry does not cost more than $100mm. The chip foundry upgrade cost about $1b cost and new one about $5b. so spare your bs to some one else Just to give you costs clue Russia 3.5 generation nuclear reactor cost $3b and Russia built 4 for China and building 10 for itself.. One French or Westinghouse reactor cost $15b and is years delayed. You can't compete with Russia on construction new foundries or factories
Profile picture for user obligatory

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 6,983

the main difference is performance, GaN is the only logical option if given a choice