Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Airborne Radar
Message-ID: <1991Mar1.053903.944@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 1 Mar 91 05:39:03 GMT
References: <1991Feb28.052606.10693@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby)
In article <1991Feb28.052606.10693@cbnews.att.com> yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) writes:

[radar stuff deleted]

>Second, radars on fighters seem to be located in the nose cone, and to point
>forward.  The AWACS planes seem to have a large radar, in the shape of a
>disc attached to the top of the plane.  What is the mechanism these radars
>use to scan their beams?  

Video footage shows that the entire disk on the E-3 AWACS rotates.  I'm not
sure about the hawkeye.

Most modern fighters used phased array grids in the nose.

>Second, the limit on a radar's range is due to a combination of antenna
>geometry and output power.  Is it the AWACS's superior antenna or its higher
>power that gives it range advantages over fighter radars?

Both.  Most tactical fighters can't possibly house a big antenna or the
high power gear to really light one up.


Neil Kirby