Advances in Russian and Chinese Active

Electronically Steered Arrays (AESAs)

Carlo Kopp
Clayton School of Information Technology
Monash University, Clayton, 3800, Australia
Carlo.Kopp@monash.edu
DANCE pulse Doppler air intercept radar, developed for the
large MiG-31 FOXHOUND interceptor. This aircraft had the
challenging role of intercepting low flying US air, sea and
ground launched cruise missiles. The Zaslon was built to
concurrently guide four long range R-33 AMOS missiles
against low RCS targets in ground clutter, and was the first
volume production ESA fitted to a fighter aircraft. An
innovative feature was that an L-band IFF interrogator PESA
was embedded in the X-band array [1][5].

AbstractRussian and Chinese AESA technology remains

largely unknown in Western literature. This survey explores
recent advances in Russian and Chinese AESA designs operating
in the X-Band, S/C-Band, L-band, and importantly, VHF-band.
Keywords Active Electronically Steered Array, AESA, radar

I.

INTRODUCTION

A recent development of some importance is the emergence

of Russian and Chinese radars employing Active Electronically
Steered Array (AESA) technology. This subject area has not
been widely studied, in a large part due to incomplete or
irregular disclosures in Russia, and especially China, but also
the need to translate publications. Gaps in disclosures, whether
intentional or otherwise, impose often the need to perform
detailed forensic analysis of published materials. Such effort
entails the need to develop numerical models of the designs, to
establish likely performance parameters, or feasible bounds on
performance.

PESA technology continues to be used in a number of new

production Russian designs, including the hybrid ESA
Tikhomirov NIIP N011M BARS radar in the Su-30MKI/MKM
FLANKER H fighter, the derivative N035 Irbis E radar in the
Su-35S FLANKER fighter, the Phazotron Zhuk-MFS/MFSE
PESA for the Su-33 FLANKER D naval fighter, the Leninets
B004 multimode attack radar for the Su-34 FULLBACK
bomber, modelled on the Westinghouse APQ-164, and the
NIIP Ryazan GRPZ Pero PESA upgrade package for the
N001VE FLANKER radars. The unusual Pero is a reflective
PESA. The technology is also used in the X-band 9S36
engagement radar developed for the new 9K317 Buk M2 / SA17 GRIZZLY SAM system, and evolved 9S32M GRILL
SCREEN, 92N6E GRAVE STONE and 91N6E BIG BIRD
designs [1][2][3][4][6][7].

At this time the most extensive open source forensic study

of this subject area is a collection of technical reports and
journal papers published by Air Power Australia, an
independent privately funded military think tank, based in
Australia. This paper comprises mostly a survey of these
works.
II.

III.

ESTABLISHED RUSSIAN PASSIVE ESA TECHNOLOGY

Established Soviet era X-band 5N63/30N6 FLAP LID S300PT / SA-10 GRUMBLE and 9S32 GRILL PAN S-300V /
SA-12 GIANT/GLADIATOR engagement radars are PESA
designs, developed to engage aircraft, cruise missiles, standoff
missiles and tactical ballistic missiles. All three also shared the
same design approach, using a optical space feed and
transmissive primary antenna array of passive phase shift
elements. First described by Barton, these designs used an
elaborate dual plane monopulse feed horn arrangement, placed
behind a lens assembly [1][2][3][4].

The 1990s saw a progressive transition in the United States

and EU to AESA designs in key applications, with Russia and
China now following. While the new AESAs exploited much
of the technology previously developed for PESA radars, they
introduced fundamentally different transmitter technology [1].
NIIR Phazotron was the first Russian manufacturer to offer
an X-band AESA in 2007, with the Zhuk AE for the MiG-35
FULCRUM fighter, soon followed by the competing
Tikhomirov NIIP with a much larger AESA for the Su-27/30
FLANKER fighter, and the low observable Sukhoi T-50 PAKFA [1][7][9].

This feed arrangement was also adopted in the Soviet Xband 9S19 Imbir / HIGH SCREEN ABM acquisition radar,
developed for the S-300V / SA-12 system. The Janus-faced Sband NIIIP 5N64/64N6 BIG BIRD battle management radar
developed for the later S-300PM / SA-20A GARGOYLE is
also a transmissive PESA [1][2][3][4].

A. Phazotron Zhuk AE Design Philosophy

The Zhuk AE developed for FULCRUM production and
upgrades was the first Russian AESA radar to be disclosed
publicly. The manufacturer, NIIR Phazotron, released a
considerable volume of technical literature detailing the design
philosophy and technology employed in this radar. This preproduction radar operates at the lower end of the X-band and

While early US effort in airborne ESA radar focussed on

bomber radars, the first Soviet airborne X-band PESA was the
1,700 element Tikhomirov NIIP BRLS-8B Zaslon or FLASH
Illustrations and other material in this paper were sourced from Air Power
Australia (APA), with permission. The author co-founded APA in 2004.

978-1-4673-1127-4/12/$31.00 2013 IEEE

RUSSIAN X-BAND AND L-BAND AIRBORNE AESA

DEVELOPMENTS

29

has a lower TR channel count than Western radars of

similar aperture size, yet delivers power-aperture performance
superior to all but the very latest Western small aperture fighter
radars. The Zhuk AE employs lower density liquid cooled quad
channel transmit receive module packaging technology which
is comparable to first generation of US AESA designs
[9][10][11][12][13].
The stated design aim was to build a low sidelobe AESA
with a maximum beamsteering angle of 70. This is the basic
problem in all AESA designs, insofar as grating lobes require
element spacing of less than one half of a wavelength, while
the resulting volumetric packing density presents heat transfer
problems.
The power rating and PAE (Power Added Efficiency) of
the drive transistor was considered a problem, with initial
estimation at 6 to 8 Watts CW (12 to 16 Watts peak at 50%
duty cycle). The small size of the aircraft and its limited power
and cooling capacity were seen as serious constraints. The
drive transistors are operated in A-class to provide best
possible linearity, with a performance penalty in a design with
an overall PAE of 22% to 25%. C-class operation was rejected
due to its adverse impact on signal purity.

Fig. 1. Zhuk AE on MiG-35 demonstrator at AeroIndia 2007 (RSK MiG).

Phazotron stated, that the greatest difficulties were

encountered in engineering the TR modules. The approach
chosen from numerous alternatives was to integrate four TR
channels into a single quad module. An interesting
observation is that this is a scheme identical to that used for
first generation AESAs by US designers in the late 1980s,
followed by the TR stick module scheme used in early US
production AESAs.
Fig. 2. Zhuk AE configuration (NIIR Phazotron).

Extensive design tradeoff studies were performed,

covering power aperture and range performance versus thermal
load performance for average TR module power ratings from 1
Watt to 15 Watts. A major issue was beamsteering to 70, as
problems arose with sidelobes and projected aperture area
beyond 60 of beamsteering angle.
Phazotron appear to be exploring digital beamforming
techniques in what Chief Designer Dolgachev describes as a
two stage processing scheme, with initial beamforming
performed in the AESA, and additional beamforming in the
digital receiver, downstream of the ADC stage. Adaptive
nulling of mainlobe jammers is also raised as a benefit of the
AESA design. Dolgachev also observed that a key factor in the
design process was maintaining a focus on key performance
parameters, and exploiting computational simulations
extensively throughout the design process.
Single channel TR modules were rejected in favour of a
more thermally efficient 4 channel quad module design.
The proprietary diamond lattice placement of radiating
elements used in earlier NIIR Phazotron PESAs was rejected,
as it presented difficulties in splitting the array cleanly into the
multiple phase centres required for monopulse angle tracking,
nevertheless the stagger in the elements still provides a robust
diamond lattice pattern.

Fig. 3. Zhuk AE lattice pattern (RSK MiG).

30

Fig. 4. Zhuk AE TR Module (NIIR Phazotron).

Fig. 7.

GaAs Gain Controller MMIC die (NIIR Phazotron).

Fig. 8. GaAs buffer amplifier MMIC die (NIIR Phazotron).

Fig. 5. GaAs 2-bit phase shifter MMIC die (NIIR Phazotron).

Fig. 6. GaAs 4-bit phase shifter MMIC die (NIIR Phazotron).

The resulting module configuration is designed to carry RF

signals along the shortest geometrical path between the array
face and the feed, with coolant flow transverse (normal) to the
antenna boresight.

Fig. 9. Packaged Gain and Phase Control GaAs hybrids for use in TR
module construction (NIIR Phazotron).

Performance claimed for the final element placement was a

first sidelobe at -30 dB, an average of higher order sidelobes at
-50 dB, mainlobe width degradation of 4 dB at maximum

The result of these tradeoff studies yielded the final

placement of the radiating elements in vertical columns, each
comprising an integer multiple of four elements to
accommodate the TR module structure.

31

beamsteering angle, and no grating lobes within the intended

beamsteering angular range.

components are Schottky transistors. High order bit stages are

implemented in two 8 dB stages, for a total of 16 dB of
controlled loss. The low order bit control stages are
implemented as 1 dB stages. The total insertion loss of the
controlled attenuator is 8 - 10 dB, with a stated RMS error of
0.5 dB between 4 and 11 GHz, and total attenuator bandwidth
of 4 to 14 GHz.

Computational simulations were performed to determine

the quantisation increments for antenna TR channel phase and
gain control. Five bits were found to be adequate for
amplitude, and six bits for phase control. Each TR channel in
the array is individually addressed.

The 6-bit phase shifter function was split between two

GaAs MMIC dies. Phazotron stated that the shifters were
intentionally built using a folded directional coupler design
rather than switched filters. The four higher order bits,
covering 180.0, 90.0, 45.0 and 22.5 shifts are implemented
on one die, the two low order bits for 11.25 and 5.625 shifts
on a second smaller die. This approach was chosen to obviate
problems with device yield. The design has been proven to
perform between 8 and 11 GHz with an RMS phase error of
around 6, i.e. one bit. To compensate for the insertion loss of
the attenuator and phase shifter stages, an additional buffer
amplifier was included in the hybrid design. This GaAs MMIC
design provides 7 to 9 dB of gain between 8 and 11 GHz.

The backplane feed uses an undisclosed radial waveguide

design, rather than the segmented linear branched feeds seen in
first generation Western AESAs and ESAs. A network of
coaxial waveguide switches between the feed network and TR
modules is used to manage phase centres and perform
monopulse summing and differencing for angle track modes.
Modules and channels are independently addressed,
evidently with two low order bits reserved for the channel, and
the remaining eight high order bits for module addressing.
An exciter preamplifier stage was developed to boost the
output from the master oscillator module to compensate
insertion loss from injection into the antenna feed backplane.
The liquid cooled amplifier module has four ganged amplifier
chains with a peak power output said to be 20 Watts.

According to Phazotron, the performance of the hybrids

proved initially below expectations, the intent is to transition to
LTCC (Low Temperature Cofired Ceramic) and MCM-D
(Multi Chip Module - Deposited) technology to get high
production yields.

Power supply distribution to the TR modules presented

similar problems with module 'pulling' during current drain
transients, and was accommodated by the pragmatic expedient
of attaching a large charge store capacitor on the main power
bus near each of the TR modules.

Taking a critical technical perspective on the Zhuk AE, it

is a remarkable exercise in producing a viable design using a
technology base which shows chronic underinvestment in key
areas such as component packaging and MMIC fabrication.
Technologically the Zhuk AE compares best to first generation
US AESAs like the 1990s APG-63(V)2 design deployed in
limited numbers on the F-15C fleet. The technology especially
for module packaging is similar to late 1980s US
developmental designs.

Cooling was arranged by mounting each TR module on an

integral frame cold plate, the latter being actively cooled by
liquid flow. Heat is transferred from each MMIC or transistor
into the base of the module, and then into the cold plate for
removal. Phazotron have not disclosed the thickness of the cold
plates or TR modules, but clearly the horizontal element pitch
is the bounding constraint. Each TR module includes an
embedded thermal sensor which forces a module shutdown if
overheating occurs, and restart cannot occur until the module
cools down. All modules are thermally compensated in
amplitude and phase to ensure that the performance
characteristics remain aligned regardless of temperature and
operating frequency.

Notably, the Zhuk AE with 652 TR channels has between

50% and 70% of the TR channels of a comparably sized US
radar, which is typically in the 900 to 1200 single TR channel
module count class.
The low element count will be reflected in sidelobe
performance, to the extent that a relatively sparse array like the
Zhuk AE design is inherently much more sensitive to phase
and amplitude errors in the array TR channels, compared to
more dense arrays. This is difficult to assess accurately in the
absence of performance data for the phase and amplitude error
correcting mechanisms embedded in the array. If they perform
well, this may not prove to be an problem, if not, sidelobe
performance cited at -30 dB may be difficult to maintain.

Dolgachev stated the following TR module parameters:

average power of 5 Watts, transmit path gain of 34 dB, receive
path gain of 30 dB, receiver noise figure of 2.5 dB, phase
shifter control increments of 5.625, amplitude control
increments of 0.7 dB, dynamic range for amplitude control of
24 dB, overall PAE of 25% [10].
Phazotron stated that the existing Zhuk AE design was
performing below its potential, since its processing was taken
unchanged from earlier mechanically steered arrays and is thus
not optimised to exploit the AESA.

Phazotron have not disclosed the taper function employed

nor even alluded to such. The choice of taper function will
influence aperture efficiency, sidelobe behaviour and phase
front behaviour in the mainlobe. As it is one of the parameters
applied dynamically to the TR channel gain settings,
Phazotron's taper functions are likely to evolve over time.
Beamsteering agility in terms of duration to switch modules
has also not been disclosed, but given published data
describing other Russian ESA designs, a figure of the order of
0.4 milliseconds can be expected.

A separate paper by Semyonov et al discusses in some

detail the design of GaAs MMICs used in the gain control,
driver and phase shifter blocks of the TR channel. These were
packaged together in single 8 x 22.5 x 2.5 mm sized hybrid
with a heat transfer optimised metal case. The 5-bit digitally
controlled attenuator is a GaAs MMIC die which uses 50
Ohm/sq resistive film for resistor components. The active

32

The Russian TR modules deliver around 5 Watts average

power per channel. The peak power for the Zhuk AE has
however been disclosed at around 6 kW which puts the per TR
channel peak power at around 10 Watts, accounting for some
taper function induced reduction in overall power output. What
Phazotron have not disclosed is the headroom in cooling
capacity provided by the TR module packaging and cold plate
design, which will put the upper bound on TR channel output
stage peak power ratings, but they do allude to growth
potential.
Given the penchant of Russian designers to build as much
headroom as possible into designs, this may not be a critical
constraint to long term growth of the design using newer
Gallium Nitride transistors.
The bandwidth of the AESA has not been disclosed, the
critical bottleneck in any such design is usually in the phase
shifter blocks, as GaAs MMIC amplifiers are inherently
wideband. Therefore an estimate for the TR module of 2-3
GHz centred on 9.5 GHz will not be unreasonable, with
potential for further growth with refinement of the gain/phase
block MMIC designs and packaging. This is however not
consistent with the array design.
The upper frequency bound of the AESA will be
determined by element spacing and grating lobe formation, for
the existing design this appears to be at 8.5 GHz assuming for a
diamond lattice a 17.5 mm spacing in the horizontal plane.
This suggests a usable bandwidth of around 1 GHz or less
centred on less than 8.5 GHz, accuracy of measurement
permitting.

Fig. 10. Instrumented AESA prototype (Tikhomirov NIIP).

The details of the radial feed have not been disclosed and
this may further constrain usable bandwidth. The literature
cites 16 centre frequencies which if separated by 100 MHz
bandwidth would suggest 1.6 GHz, feed permitting. This
would put the centre of the band coverage at about 7.7 GHz
which would be consistent with past Russian design practice.
B. Phazotron Zhuk AE Growth
Phazotron stated, in 2007, an intent to scale up the Zhuk
AE for the FLANKER, in the manner of the Zhuk-27 and
Zhuk-MSFE variants, using a 0.98 metre diameter aperture. If
we assume that such a scaled up design uses exactly the same
quad module technology as the Zhuk AE does, and an enlarged
cooling plate and mounting frame, then the achievable
performance will scale with the aperture size. For the 0.98 m
antenna outside diameter, assuming a similar unused area
around the emitter array, the total usable aperture diameter will
be around 0.8 metres, and the element count will sit at around
1160. If we assume tighter placement and a 1.1 metre antenna
outside diameter, as used in the Pero PESA, then the total
usable aperture diameter will be around 0.95 metres, and the
element count will sit at around 1630, or about the same as the
Zhuk-MSFE PESA design.

Fig. 11. AESA antenna mounting. This example is constructed using TR

module sticks, using an arrangement similar to the BARS and Irbis E,
including the slot radiators. This brochure image may be of a developmental
antenna, as the example presented in the Vesti video uses the same style of
circular dielectric radiator as the competing Zhuk AE/ASE series (Tikhomirov
NIIP).

With a peak power rating of 10 Watts/channel the latter

yields a peak power of the order of 16.3 kW which results in a
radar which outperforms the N011M BARS, APG-63(V)1,
APG-71 and APG-79 in cited raw power-aperture product
performance.

If Phazotron improve the TR channel power rating as they

have stated an intent to do, then the results bear some careful
consideration. Once Phazotron have engineered a Zhuk ASE
with ~1630 TR Channels, then scaling up power aperture

33

performance is only a matter of changing the TR Module

design to use more powerful transistors, and improving the per
module heat transfer performance in the AESA. Both of the
latter represent fairly low risk incremental design changes.

GaAs components are employed. Cited capacity is sufficient

for 50 AESA radars annually [7].
The Tikhomirov NIIP AESA design for the PAK-FA
employs an antenna aperture very similar in size, if not
identical, to the aperture of the N035 Irbis E hybrid PESA. The
design is intended for fixed low signature tilted installation,
rather than gimballed installation, and auxiliary cheek arrays
are planned for, emulating intended F-22 placement. The
design is claimed to have been integrated with an existing
BARS/Irbis radar back end for testing and design validation
purposes.
Public statements made in Russia claim 1,500 TR module
elements. Counting exposed radiating elements on video stills
of the antenna indicates an estimated 1,524 TR channels, with
a tolerance of several percent. This is within 5% of the 2008
model for a FLANKER AESA, produced by Air Power
Australia [7][15].
NIIP have publicly claimed detection range performance of
350 to 400 km (190 to 215 NMI), which assuming a Russian
industry standard 2.5m2 target, is consistent with the cited 2008
model for a radar using ~10 W rated TR modules, which in
turn is the power rating for the modules used in the Zhuk AE
prototypes. This puts the nett peak power at ~15 kW, slightly
below the Irbis E, but even a very modest 25% increase in TR
module output rating would overcome this.

Fig. 12. X-band TR Module stick. Of particular interest is that the feed
networks are symmetrically split, permitting this design to produce dual plane
monopulse sum and difference outputs from a stack of such sticks
(Tikhomirov NIIP).

C. Tikhomirov NIIP X-Band AESAs

In August, 2009, Tikhomirov NIIP were permitted to
publicly display the new AESA developed for the PAK-FA,
and also a clear candidate for FLANKER retrofits, stating that
the integration of an AESA into the FLANKER airframe
would not present difficulties [15].

There are distinct differences between the AESA displayed

by NIIP for Vesti, which has less depth and uses circular
radiators, and the examples displayed at MAKS 2009 and
depicted on brochures, which are constructed using TR module
sticks and are several inches deeper. Until further disclosures
are made, the final AESA configuration will remain uncertain.

The large 0.9-1.1 metre diameter aperture provided by the

FLANKER nose and radome design will be especially
attractive to an AESA designer. This aperture size permits
around twice as many AESA modules of similar size to most
current Western designs, apart from the F-22A Raptor APG-77
and F-15C APG-82.

The best strategy available to the Russian industry for

reducing AESA cost is the export of AESA upgrades to the
large global community of FLANKER users over the coming
decade, emulating the US approach with this technology.
Tikhomirov NIIP brochures state that the existing AESA
would be the basis of AESA upgrade designs for the Su27/30/35 FLANKERS.

The implications of this are sobering, insofar as with

modules rated at half the peak power of the current state-ofthe-art, such a radar could provide about the same peak power
rating as current upper tier US AESAs. The power aperture
would thus be higher due to the aperture area being so much
larger. With COTS derived modules of much higher peak
power rating than current US military GaN HEMT technology,
a future FLANKER AESA could have a very much higher
Power Aperture Product figure [7].

D. Tikhomirov NIIP L-Band Leading Edge AESA

An interesting parallel development to Russian X-band
designs is a Tikhomirov-NIIP L-band AESA intended for
embedding in the leading edges of fighter wings and strakes,
providing a dual role IFF and Counter Low Observable
capability [16].
This design has clear potential to provide a genuine shared
multifunction aperture with applications including search,
track and missile midcourse guidance against low signature
aircraft; Identification Friend Foe / Secondary Surveillance
Radar interrogation; precision passive angle tracking and
geolocation of JTIDS/MIDS/Link-16 emitters, IFF and SSR
transponders, L-band AEW&C/AWACS radars and surface
based search radars at long ranges; high power active jamming
of JTIDS/MIDS/Link-16 emitters, satellite navigation
receivers, guided munition command datalinks, L-band
airborne and surface based search radars at long ranges [16].

In 2009, there were two candidate AESA designs for

installation in new build, or retrofit into existing service
FLANKERS. These radars are NIIR Phazotron's intended
Zhuk-AS/ASE, scaled up from the Zhuk AE, and a
derivative of Tikhomirov NIIP's new PAK-FA AESA.
Both radar designs would be based on the quad channel TR
module technology first disclosed during the public release of
the Zhuk AE. These X-band modules are now being mass
produced on an automated line by NPP Istok, who are also
planning S-band module production. Mostly Russian produced

34

Performance modelling for a range of feasible

configurations indicates the radar will deliver tactically
credible search range performance for feasible TR module
power ratings.

the leading edge of the wing flap, with the geometrical

broadside direction normal to the leading edge. The leading
edge skin of the flap covering the AESA is a dielectric radome
which is conformal with the flap leading edge shape.

The volume, weight, power, cooling and cost penalties of

installing an L-band search radar in a fighter have historically
precluded the use of this band in such applications. An X-band
or Ku-band radar provides for greater accuracy, and directivity,
given the available installation geometries. The only reason to
pursue the L-band is thus if it can do something which cannot
be done easily in the X/Ku-bands. That is the ability to produce
useful skin returns from targets, which are difficult to detect
and track in the X/Ku-bands. Embedding an IFF/SSR function
in the design simply increases the design payoff, as a single
design can perform two functions, interleaving IFF/SSR
interrogation messages with target search pulse trains.

Fig. 16. NPP Pulsar quad high power L-band TR-module used in the L-band
AESA design. Note the use of eight RF power transistors in the design (NPP
Pulsar).

Fig. 13. L-band AESA general layout (Tikhomirov NIIP).

Fig. 14. L-band AESA quad radiator element subarray (Tikhomirov NIIP).

Fig. 17. The array geometry produces a fan shaped mainlobe which is swept
in azimuth by phase control of the twelve TR modules, providing a 2D
volume search capability (Kopp, Falkenberg).

As the array is only one element deep in height, the angular

coverage it provides in elevation will be fixed, and determined
by the vertical mainlobe shape of the antenna elements. The
arrangement of the AESA produces a fan shaped beam which
is swept in azimuth to cover a volume in the forward
hemisphere of the aircraft.
Whether the AESA can actually sweep the full volume
which is geometrically available depends primarily on the
mainlobe shape and boresight direction of the antenna
elements, which remains to be disclosed. As the imagery of the
antenna elements conceals the internal structure under a
dielectric cover, at best we can make reasonable assumptions
about the design.

Fig. 15. NIIP antenna control module for the L-band AESA (Tikhomirov
NIIP).

The most likely technology employed is that of a microstrip

antenna with a dielectric foam or air gap spacer, forming a
sandwiched block. This technology has been used extensively
in L-band designs for communications and satellite navigation.
This technology would also permit precise shaping of the
mainlobe in both axes and control of element sidelobes.

The basic array design and its integration into the leading
edge flap structure are well documented via a wealth of
imagery produced at the MAKS 2009 event. Each array
employs twelve antenna elements. Three quad TR modules
each drive four antenna elements, in three subarrays, for a total
of twelve elements per array. The linear array is embedded in

35

There is an inherent tradeoff in such a design. Elements

with higher gain will impose restrictions on bandwidth, and in
beamsteering angle. The latter is critical in this application,
since wide beamsteering angles in azimuth dictate a wide
radiation pattern in azimuth. The element mainlobe angular
width must be greater than the maximum beamsteering angle,
or significant loss in total array gain will occur as the AESA
mainlobe is steered into the region where element gain falls off
rapidly with azimuth angle. The physical alignment of the
array is with the leading edge of the wing, at ~42 for the
FLANKER airframe.

Modelling of the radar's performance for a range of viable

configurations shows detection range performance against 1 m2
class target to be tactically credible, especially for
configurations with higher gain antenna modules and higher
TR module average power ratings. This analysis is inherently
limited by the poor availability of data covering the actual
design, especially in terms of coherent processing parameters
and other basic choices. By increasing dwell times and
coherent processing interval durations, range performance
could be further improved in this regime.
The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA has considerable
growth potential by virtue of the large size of the FLANKER
airframe, permitting additional antenna elements, cooling and
power. Growth options include: increasing the power rating of
the existing TR modules, retaining conduction cooling; further
increasing the power rating of the TR modules and introducing
liquid cooling; improvements to antenna element design to
increase gain; extending the arrays further along the wings, to
add an additional one, or two, subarrays; addition of receiver
arrays in the leading edge of the vertical tails to provide dual
plane monopulse precision angle tracking capability for fire
control purpose.

Two possible design strategies for the antenna elements.

The first is to employ very low gain elements, to provide the
best possible angular coverage. However, it also drives up the
emitted power requirement for any given detection range
performance, as the total array gain is reduced.
An alternate strategy is to sacrifice total angular coverage
to increase total array gain, and thus maximise power-aperture
product. If the AESA is intended to provide significant
detection performance operating as a radar, this is the preferred
strategy.
Both design strategies permit single plane monopulse angle
tracking within a narrow angular volume around the nose of
the aircraft, where a target is within the coverage of both the
left and right wing mounted AESAs. This is an operationally
acceptable arrangement as the precision angle tracking
provided by monopulse operation is employed primarily for
weapon targeting. This does not preclude performing single
plane monopulse angle tracking within each of the AESA
arrays, using the subarrays, but affords higher total gain,
greater baseline, and detection range performance.

Increasing the array size to 16 elements improves poweraperture product for the existing design by almost 80%, by
virtue of additional gain and transmit power. The use of more
powerful TR modules provides for further improvements. The
practical limit will be the available leading edge flap volume as
the design progressively tapers toward the wingtips, and
system constrains liquid cooling capacity.

Several estimations of element gain can be applied. The

first is the simple rule of thumb estimate of ~6 dBi per element.
If we assume a more refined design, with a mainlobe of 80 in
azimuth and 40 in elevation, and apply Barton's
approximation, G = 30,000/(az x el), the element gain is ~9.7
dBi. Finally, we might assume a dielectric lens or more
aggressive microstrip design, or some combination thereof,
with an mainlobe size in elevation of 20, which yields, again
using Barton's approximation, an element gain of ~13 dBi.
Sidelobe performance will be poor compared to X-band
AESAs, due to the limitations inherent in a 12 x 1 element
linear array.

Fig. 18. NRIET J-10B X-band AESA cited at ~1200 TR channels. An 8

element L-band IFF interrogator array is embedded (NRIET)[17].

Receive path noise figure performance should be excellent,

due to the short feed between the TR module and antenna
element, the potential for low loss integral directional coupler
design, and typical transistor noise figures in the L-band of a
small fraction of a deciBel.

IV.

CHINESE AIRBORNE AESA DEVELOPMENTS

To date, disclosures of substance on China's X-band AESA

technology, have been mostly scarce [1].

Choices in PRF, CPI, duty cycles and pulse compression

technique Tikhomirov NIIP remain to be disclosed. Public
disclosures on X-band designs suggest that Barker codes may
be in use for pulse compression. Open source data indicates
that most operating modes in Russian pulse Doppler designs
emulate those commonly used in US designs, with medium and
high PRF modes commonly used.

China has a highly active research and development

community working in radar, especially in phased arrays.
Researchers are resident in universities, research laboratories
and industry, the latter primarily in NRIET (Nanjing Research
Institute of Electronic Technology / No.14 Institute), and
collaborations are common. The principal academic publishing
platform is the Chinese language peer reviewed monthly
journal Modern Radar, published since 1979, and covering

36

topics from basic theory advances through to case studies of

applications, including frequent surveys of non-Chinese
technology advances.

FLANKERS, i.e. the J-11B, J-11BS, J-11BH and navalised J15 [19].
This AESA has 1760 TR channels, which is 6% more than
the Russian NIIR Phazotron Zhuk MSFE PESA developed for
the Flanker, or 8% more than the 2008 APA model for a
Flanker-sized Zhuk ASE AESA. The array packaging
appears similar to the Zhuk AE, but there is insufficient
disclosed data at this time to conclude that the design is the
result of a technology transfer from NIIR Phazotron. Some
earlier NRIET planar array X-band radars were based on NIIR
Phazotron technology, derived from the Zhuk-8II for the
Shenyang J-8II FINBACK fighter. The use of 17 separate
coaxial receiver feeds indicates the AESA is divided into
multiple phase centres for monopulse operation, and possibly
GMTI/MMTI operation. The backplane mounts an array of
Digital Direct Synthesis exciter/driver modules.

The most substantial disclosure to date on Chinese X-band

AESAs is a poster, likely authored by NRIET, providing some
basic details on three developmental AESAs built for fighter
aircraft applications [17].
A. NRIET J-10B X-band AESA
Described thus: The NRIET J-10B AESA is our 1.5th
generation design based on GaAs dual channel TR module
technology, providing ~1200 TR channels, the J-10B AESA
is the first design to be publicly shown installed in a fighter
aircraft, and may be an evolution of the 1152 channel
demonstrator described by NRIET engineers Xia and Niu [18].
The airborne demonstrator employed a linear subarray
configuration, with modules arranged in vertically aligned
sticks [18].

C. NRIET J-20 X-band AESA

Described thus: Built in 2009, the J-20 AESA is our 3rd
Generation design, using eight channel four layer GaAs 3D
Multi-Chip Module (MCM) technology, providing 1856 TR
channels., this large AESA is the first Chinese design to
employ a tiled TR module packaging scheme, evidently
modelled on contemporary US AESA designs, but employing
eight TR channels per tile, with 232 tiles in the array. The J-20
is a large F-111-sized delta-canard low observable
supersonic cruise optimised fighter [17][20].
The cited number of TR channels is 12% higher than the
Zhuk MSFE, 14% higher than the 2008 APA model for the
Zhuk ASE, and 23% higher than the cited number for the
Tikhomirov NIIP AESA. Only modest array repackaging
would be required to produce a variant sized for a FLANKER
airframe, given similar airframe nose cross section.

Fig. 19. NRIET Flanker X-band AESA cited at ~1760 TR channels,

employing dual channel GaAs TR modules. The upper right caption describes
16+1 coaxial outputs from receive path subarray feeds, the lower right caption
the DDS technology exciter array, and the bottom caption the carbon fibre
composite mounting frame (NRIET) [17].

Fig. 21. An early production KJ-2000 AEW&C system. The dielectric panels
on the dorsal radome indicate this is a three sided phased array, probably
operating in the L-band and evidently influenced by the design of the Israeli
Elta Phalcon system (Zhenguan Studio via APA).

D. Chinese Airborne Early Warning & Control AESA

Developments
AESAs penetrated into the global Airborne Early Warning
and Control (AEW&C) radar market during the 1990s. Israel's
IAI/Elta developed the L-band EL/M-2075 Phalcon on a
Boeing 707-320, later selling the demonstrator to Chile [1].

Fig. 20. NRIET J-20 X-band AESA cited at ~1856 TR channels, employing
dual channel GaAs TR modules. The captions translate to a.AESA layout;
b.AESA element emitters; and c.3D MCM tile (NRIET) [17].

B. NRIET FLANKER X-band AESA

Described thus: Our 2nd Generation Direct Digital
Synthesis technology J-16 AESA employs a TR stick module
arrangement, providing 1760 TR channels, this AESA was
developed for installation in the J-16 FLANKER, which is a
dual seat long range strike variant of the Chinese built J-11BS
FLANKER C fighter, modelled on the Boeing F-15E Strike
Eagle. While developed for the J-16, the physical sizing of this
AESA is implicitly compatible with other Chinese built

The same technology was sold to China, the order later

cancelled under pressure from the Clinton Administration. The
cancellation of the Israeli order led China to initiate the
development of the KJ-2000 system, which is evidently
modelled on the three sided EL/W-2090 L-band AESA
previously offered to Australia, and has been supplied to the

37

Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), on the Ilyushin

Il-76 CANDID airframe. The Peoples Liberation Army Navy
has been procuring the KJ-200, itself evidently modelled on the
Swedish SAAB/ Ericsson PS-890 Erieye design [1].

with an Erieye style AEW&C system would be expected to be

equivalent in performance and endurance to the C-130/Erieye
proposals offered during the late 1990s [22].

At least three KJ-2000 prototypes were built, but there

have been no substantive technical disclosures to date [22].

Chinese search and acquisition radars are also seeing

increasing use of AESA technology. The Chinese S-band Type
305A / K/LLQ305A appears to be fundamentally influenced by
the Thales/Raytheon Groundmaster series S-band GM200 and
GM400 designs. The depth of the primary antenna and its
structural frame is typical for AESA designs in this category,
using a stacked modular feed network arrangement; this is well
documented in a number of Russian AESA designs. The new
Type 305A 3D acquisition radar is otherwise unique and does
not resemble any other known Chinese radar designs. The
stated use is for early warning and battle management against
aerial and ballistic targets [1] [23].

V.

Imagery clearly shows three sided phased array dielectric

radomes, and wingtip ESM fairings, on a rebuilt Il-76
CANDID airframe.
There has been some speculation that the PRC may be
attempting to clone the Israeli Phalcon system using
indigenous technology. Given that L-band radio frequency
power transistors of suitable ratings are available
commercially, cloning is feasible and entirely consistent with
the long running PLA policy of concurrently developing
indigenous products while importing foreign equivalents. An
L-band array TR module design of suitable performance and
configuration could be used for both the A-50 system and the
smaller Y-8 design, sharing most of the system hardware and
software. A least one image exists of a ground based antenna
testing rig, built up as an AESA radome and mount on top of a
mast on a larger building [22].

CHINESE LAND BASED AESA DEVELOPMENTS

Specific performance parameters for this AESA, such as

module count and peak power rating, remain to be disclosed. It
is reasonable to speculate that these parameters would be very
similar to the Israeli Elta design, to which the PLA had
considerable exposure. Media reports suggested that in late
2009 four PLAAF KJ-2000 systems were operational, but it is
not known what the actual status of the onboard mission
systems is [1].

Fig. 23. Type 305A phased array acquisition radar deployed (Bradley Huang
via APA).

Fig. 22. KJ-200 balanced beam AESA arrangement (Zhenguan Studio via
APA).

The second smaller AEW&C program has been labelled the

KJ-200 or Y-8 Balanced Beam system. Installed on a late
model Y-8F-600 airframe with Pratt & Whitney Canada
PW150B turboprops and Honeywell avionics, the KJ-200 has
been observed in the Nanjing area flying with a dorsal structure
resembling the Erieye AESA system, as well as ventral
radomes. With a similar payload/volume to the C-130A, a Y-8

Fig. 24. Aft view Type 305A antenna, deployed (Chinese Internet via APA).

The rear face of the antenna frame is largely occupied with

voluminous equipment housings, of similar depth to the
antenna frame itself, and of equal height. These would be

38

consistent with the installation of low voltage AESA power

supplies, cooling equipment, receiver, and exciter hardware.
VI.

76T6 and 77T6 ESA engagement radars are respectively

optimised for aerial and ballistic missile targets, much like the
9S32 and 9S19 space fed PESA radars employed in the S300V/VM/SA-12/SA-23 systems [25].

RUSSIAN LAND BASED AESA RADARS

The Russian Almaz-Antey / NNIIRT 1L119 Nebo SVU

and 55Zh6ME RLM-M/ME Nebo M/ME VHF-band threedimensional Counter Low Observable search and acquisition
radars are unique, globally [1].
A. Almaz-Antey/VNIIRT 67N6E Gamma DE
The 67N6E Gamma DE is a long range L-Band 3D AESA
MTI search and acquisition radar intended to support
interceptors and Integrated Air Defence Systems. It is claimed
to detect and track aircraft, cruise missiles, precision guided
munitions and tactical ballistic missiles at medium and high
altitudes. Performance claims include azimuthal tracking
accuracy of 0.17-0.2, elevation accuracy of 0.2-0.3, range
accuracy of 60-100 metres, and detection range of 330-400 km
against 1 m2 targets for the D1E variant [24].

Fig. 26. 1L119 Nebo SVU deployed. At least one unit has been repeatedly
photographed in Iran (NNIIRT).

Both the 76T6 and 77T6 are described as AESAs in the

Russian media, including the respected Voenno-Promyshlenniy
Kurier web journal, but official documents validating this have
not appeared to date. The 91N6A(M) is also poorly
documented this time, the best item being an animated
illustration, and may or may not employ AESA technology.
C. Almaz-Antey/NNIIRT 1L119 Nebo SVU
The VHF-band 1L119 Nebo SVU AESA, first disclosed
in 2001, was intended to replace the 1L13 Nebo SV BOX
SPRING. The intent of this new radar was to produce a design
capable of detecting and tracking Very Low Observable (VLO)
and Low Observable (LO) aircraft designs. Like the Nebo SV,
this development project was led by Igor Krylov at NNIIRT.
Interviewed by Russian television in 2002, Krylov stated We
can see the Stealth [F-117A] as clearly as any other
plane[26].

Fig. 25. Almaz-Antey/VNIIRT 67N6E Gamma DE deployed , the upper half

of the AESA is folded back when stowed (VNIIRT).

Gamma DE installations can be supplied with three

different AESA module power ratings, yielding the D1/D1E,
D2/D2E and D3/D3E variants. A single Gamma DE system
comprises a towed antenna head trailer with the 1280 element
8 x 5.2 metre AESA on a turntable, a semi-trailer radar cabin
with electronics and operator stations, and a dual redundant 16
kiloWatt diesel generator. An option cited for the Gamma DE
is deployment of the radar head on the 24 metre 40V6M or 40
metre 40V6MD semi-mobile mast systems [24].

The design rationale for the earlier NNIIRT 55Zh6UE

Nebo U TALL RACK has been discussed in detail in Russian
literature, but no such document exists for the Nebo SVU at
this time. Therefore we can at best infer the reasoning of
Krylov's NNIIRT development team, based on the observable
or publicly documented features of the radar [26].
The Nebo SVU was the first ever VHF band AESA, with
multiple Russian sources elaborating on the use of antenna
array mounted TR modules. The similarity in array size, range
performance, overall power consumption, operating frequency
and general arrangement to the earlier BOX SPRING
thermionically powered radar suggests that a peak power rating
of the order of 120 to 140 kW should be expected. With 84
elements this indicates a per TR module peak power rating of
1.4 to 1.7 kW per module which is readily achievable with
mature off the shelf technology. Russian datasheet tables
claiming a 20 kiloWatt peak power are not consistent with
cited performance [26].

While publicly listed at this time on the Russian Ministry of

Defense website, there is no evidence proving that any
significant number of Gamma DE systems have been deployed
by Russias armed forces.
B. Almaz-Antey S-500 Triumfator M / Prometey Radar
Systems
The new S-500 Triumfator M or Prometey antiballistic and air defense missile system is intended to become
the upper tier of Russia air and space defense system. While
disclosures remain fragmentary, it is known that three ESA
radars will be employed in the system. One of these is the
NIIIP 91N6A(M) acquisition and battle management radar,
which supplants the BIG BIRD series employed in the earlier
S-300PS/SA-10, S-300PM/SA-20 and S-400/SA-21 missile
systems, and similar in role to the US TPY-2. The X-band

Commercial low cost VHF band MOSFET transistors rated

at ~500W are available in the global market, therefore building
a VHF band TR module rated at 2 kW with four ganged

39

MOSFETs presents no great difficulty. With the low packaging

density for a VHF AESA, it is clear that this did not present
any obstacle for Krylovs team.

Russian documents state that the radar employs Complete

space-time digital signal processing. This may be a poor
translation of Space Time Adaptive Processing (STAP), or
simply suggest the radar uses digital processing. At this stage
the issue of STAP capability in the Nebo SVU remains
unresolved, but it is a likely capability in this family of radars
longer term. There are no obstacles, which preclude dividing
the array into multiple receive path phase centres.

What remains to be disclosed is how NNIIRT designed the

beamsteering control of the antenna, as the claimed module
providing this function is quite compact. At such a low
frequency a Digital RF Memory (DRFM) solution might have
been adopted, rather than a classical analogue delay line or
phase shifter solution - if a carrier frequency of 150 to 220
MHz typically seen in Russian VHF radars is assumed, extant
Russian DRFM technology would suffice [27].

D. Almaz-Antey/NNIIRT 55Zh6ME Nebo M/ME

In late 2008, details emerged of a new multiband 3D radar
system in development by NNIIRT, designated the Nebo M,
radically departing from previous Russian designs [24][26].

The radiating antenna element design is a three element

hybrid - a vertically polarised two wire 3/8 folded dipole with
a single parasitic director, using additional support frame
mounted reflector elements. Scaling vehicle dimensions yields
estimation of the wavelength at ~2 metres with a symmetrical
~1 metre array element spacing. The choice of a 3/8 folded
dipole permits tighter element spacing in the array. Gain is of
the order of 3-4.5 dBi per element, but may be reduced by
array coupling effects [28]
Grating lobe performance is interesting in this design. If
we assume that electronic beamsteering is used mostly for
precision angle tracking of targets near the boresight, grating
lobes do not impose the burden they do in fixed X-band
AESAs, and there is some flexibility in operating frequencies.
If electronic beamsteering is used for sector searches, with
significant deflection angles, then grating lobes become a
potential problem in the design, and the <1/2 element spacing
rule limits the upper frequency of the design to around 150
MHz, with degraded gain in the 3/8 folded dipole imposing
the lower limit on frequency agility. The range of measurement
error in array geometry suggests the design was sized for larger
deflection angles, so 45 to 60 off boresight is achievable,
subject to aperture foreshortening, sidelobe performance limits,
and the shaping of the hybrid folded dipole element mainlobe.
Were the design limited to small off boresight steering angles,
the element spacing could be greater.

Fig. 27. Rendering of Almaz-Antey/NNIIRT 55Zh6ME Nebo ME deployed.

The VHF-band component is at the right of the image, the S/C-band
component is at the left of the image, the L-band component in the
foreground, and the data fusion system, in the background. All components
are carried on high mobility vehicles. At least one hundred of these systems
will be procured for the Russian Federation Air Defence Forces (NNIIRT).

With only 84 elements, the Nebo SVU uses a sparse array,

so highly accurate calibration of module phase/delay and gain
are absolutely critical to achieving the intended sidelobe
control and accuracy [26].
Russian literature covering the Nebo SVU describes it as
capable of detecting and tracking aircraft and ballistic missile
class targets. The antenna can be tilted at least 17 in elevation,
specifically for ballistic missile acquisition [26].
The antenna can also be mechanically rotated for aerial
target acquisition, or pointed in a fixed direction to cover a
specific threat sector. Using a circular sweep pattern the
antenna is claimed to be limited to an elevation angle of 25,
but in its fixed azimuth/sector target tracking mode the highest
beam elevation angle can be as high as 45 to 50. If we
assume the design is mechanically limited to a tilt angle of 17
this suggests an electronic beam deflection angle in elevation
of 28 to 33. A similar bound thus applies to horizontal
deflection angles, through commonality in delay/phase shifter
hardware.

Fig. 28. 55Zh6ME Nebo M RLM-ME VHF-Band Radar System, employing

24 x 7 3/8 dipole short Yagi elements (Vitaliy V. Kuzmin via APA).

The self-propelled Nebo M is a package of three discrete

radars and a single processing and command van, all hosted on
BZKT BAZ-6909-015 8 x 8 all terrain 24 tonne chassis,
common to the S-400 / SA-21 missile system, and networked
using Ka band links, likely the Luch M48 series [26].

40

The integration of three radars, each operating in a discrete

band, is novel. A track fusion system in the KU-RLK
command post vehicle will be required, providing a capability
analogous to the US Navy CEC (Cooperative Engagement
Capability) system. CEC technology was previously developed
for the Salyut Poima E naval track fusion system [26].

The RLM-ME system component appears largely identical

to prototype hardware shown in poor quality imagery released
some years ago, with 24 x 7 3/8 dipole short Yagi elements,
common also to the earlier Nebo SVU demonstrators. The TR
modules appear to be embedded in the structural beams. The
compact cabin at the base of the folding antenna mast houses
the hardware for beamsteering, exciters, and receivers. Coaxial
cables from the elements to the central enclosure are
discernable on the horizontal antenna beams [26].

The improved and larger self-propelled Nebo M RLM-M

system extends the ideas employed in the Nebo SVU design.
Parametric modelling of performance suggests a 40 percent
range improvement over the Nebo SVU if equal TR module
power ratings apply. Angular error in azimuth is almost halved,
further increasing the potential of the design for midcourse
SAM guidance [26].

Fig. 29. 55Zh6ME Nebo M RLM-ME hybrid two wire 3/8 folded dipole
elements (Vitaliy V. Kuzmin via APA).

Fig. 31. 67L6M/E Gamma S1M/E ESA Radar deployed (Said Aminov via
APA).

The Nebo M RLM-DE L-band component general

arrangement is similar to the Thales Groundmaster GM-400
series and VNIIRT Gamma S1E AESA designs, with TRmodule enclosures mounted on the rear face of the antenna
frame. Radiating elements are arranged in quad blocks, with
four dipoles per block. There are 38 columns and 48 rows of
elements, for a total of 1824 elements, with a 4:5 aspect ratio
slightly favouring heightfinding performance. This number of
elements would allow for very low sidelobe performance
should a suitable taper function be employed [26].
Illustrations of the Nebo M RLM-SE S/C-band component
show similarities to the S/C-Band 67L6E Gamma SE, a solid
state ESA acquisition radar recently introduced into service. It
is not clear from Russian literature whether the Gamma SE is a
genuine AESA, a hybrid PESA, or PESA using distributed
solid state power amplifier technology [1].

Fig. 30. 55Zh6ME Nebo M RLM-DE L-Band Radar System (Vitaliy V.

Kuzmin via APA).

CONCLUSIONS

The Almaz-Antey/NNIIRT 55Zh6ME Nebo ME was

displayed publicly for the first time at the Ramenskoye Air
Base centenary open day and air show at Zhukovskiy, near
Moscow, August, 2012. Of the four components comprising
the Nebo M multiband radar system, only the S/C-Band RLMSE component was not displayed [26].

Russian and Chinese AESA technology has yet to reach the

refinement and maturity of US, EU and Israeli technology.
Reflecting many formidable technology base obstacles, extant
designs frequently follow design strategies previously used by
US and EU designers. In many respects Russian and Chinese
AESAs closely follow established US design approaches, but

41

with often unique adaptations to overcome a range of

limitations in the respective technology bases [25][30].

[13] Y. Guskov, Active Phased Array Radar: History and Progress Made,
Phazotron, Information and Analytical Magazine of the Phazotron NIIR
Corporation, Special Issue, AeroIndia 2007.
[14] V. Litovkin, :

, [The long
arm of the fifth generation: Tikhomirov NIIP presents AESA for future
multirole fighters], , August, 2009, [Online].
Available: http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2009-08-14/7_5generation.html
[15] Vesti Podmoskoviye (2009, August 19), NIIP's radars from MAKS
2009 including PAK FA's AESA radar and Irbis-E, [Online]. Available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JVpvZo
KHT0s
[16] C. Kopp, Assessing the Tikhomirov NIIP L-Band Active Electronically
Steered Array, APA-2009-06, Air Power Australia Analyses, vol. VI,
iss. 6, September 2009, [Online]. Available:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html
[17] M.Andrew, C. Kopp, Active Electronically Scanned Array Fighter
Radars: Addendum to GI Zhou Newsletter Number 134, Technical
translation, GI ZHOU NEWSLETTER, Iss. 134, 5th Aug. 2013,
Australia.
[18] C.Xia, B.Niu, A Kind of Active Phased Array System with High
Density Architecture, Modern Radar, Vol.2011 Iss.5, May, 2011.
[19] C.Kopp, PLA-AF and PLA-N Flanker Variants, Tech.Rep. APA-TR2012-0401, Air Power Australia, April, 2012, [Online]. Available:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Flanker-Variants.html
[20] C.Kopp and P.Goon, Chengdu J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter Prototype;
A Preliminary Assessment, Tech.Rep. APA-TR-2011-0101, Air Power
Australia, January, 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-J-XX-Prototype.html
[21] Israel to receive the first of three Eitam AEW aircraft, Defense
Electronics (RF Design) Magazine, February, 2008, [Online]. Available:
http://rfdesign.com/military_defense_electronics/news/israel_receives_a
ircraft_0213/
[22] C. Kopp, PLA-AF Airborne Early Warning & Control Programs,
Tech. Rep. APA-TR-2007-0702, Air Power Australia, July, 2007,
[Online]. Available: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-AWACSPrograms.html
[23] C. Kopp, J.C.Wise, HQ-9 and HQ-12 SAM System Battery Radars,
Tech. Rep. APA-TR-2009-1201, Air Power Australia, December, 2009,
[Online]. Available: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-HQ-9-12Battery-Radars.html
[24] C. Kopp, Russian / PLA Low Band Surveillance Radars (Counter Low
Observable Technology Radars), Tech. Rep. APA-TR- 2007-0901, Air
Power Australia, April, 2012, [Online]. Available:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Low-Band-Radars.html
[25] C. Kopp, Almaz-Antey S-500 Triumfator M Self Propelled Air /
Missile Defence System / SA-X-NN, Tech. Rep. APA-TR- 2011-0602,
Air Power Australia, April, 2012, [Online]. Available:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-500-Triumfator-M.html
[26] C. Kopp, NNIIRT 1L119 Nebo SVU / RLM-M Nebo M, Assessing
Russia's First Mobile VHF AESAs, Tech. Rep. APA-TR-2008-0402,
Air Power Australia, April, 2008, [Online]. Available:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Nebo-SVU-Analysis.html
[27] TsNIRTI, Digital RF Memory and Exciter, FSUE CNIRTI named
after academician A.I. Berg, 20 Novaya Basmannaya St., Moscow,
Russia 105066, Available: http://www.cnirti.ru/catalog-11-24.htm
[28] J.D. Kraus, Antennas, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, 1988, 11-39, 11-61.
[29] C. Kopp, P.A. Goon, Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA, APA-2010-01,
Air Power Australia Analyses, vol. VII, iss. 1, February 2010, [Online].
Available: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html
[30] D. Lynch, Jr, C. Kopp, Multifunctional radar systems for fighter
aircraft, in Radar Handbook, eds M. I. Skolnik, McGraw-Hill,
Columbus OH USA, pp. 5.1-5.46, 2008.

A recurring theme observed in Russian designs is

exploitation of globalised COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf)
semiconductor device and software technology, to overcome
critical gaps in domestic technologies.
Russian designs such as the multiband Nebo M/ME or LBand airborne AESA display considerable originality, and
present as unique innovations in radar design and integration.
Future advances in Russian and Chinese device technology
will over time result in progressive convergence with Western
technologies, in many key areas of AESA design.
REFERENCES
[1]

C. Kopp, Evolution of AESA Radar Technology, Aerospace and

Defense Channel, Microwave Journal, vol. 55, ed. 8 sup, Horizon House
Publications, August, 2012, [Online]. Available:
http://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/17992-evolution-of-aesaradar-technology
[2] D.K. Barton., The 1993 Moscow Airshow, Special Report,
Microwave Journal, Horizon House Publications, May, 1994, [Online].
Available: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Russian-SAM-RadarsDKB.html
[3] C. Kopp, Almaz S-300P/PT/PS/PMU/PMU1/PMU2, Almaz-Antey S400 Triumf; SA-10/20/21 Grumble/Gargoyle, Tech. Rep. APA-TR2006-1201, Air Power Australia, December, 2006, [Online]. Available:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html
[4] C. Kopp, NIEMI/Antey 9K81/9K81-1/9K81M Self Propelled Air
Defence System / SA-12/SA-23 Giant/Gladiator, Tech. Rep. APA-TR2006-1202, Air Power Australia, December, 2006, [Online]. Available:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Giant-Gladiator.html
[5] .. [Tikomirov NIIP
research institute],
-31, [Zaslon fire control system for MiG31 interceptor], [Online]. Available:
http://www.niip.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1
2:-l-r-lr&catid=8:2011-07-06-06-33-26&Itemid=8
[6] C. Kopp, NIIP 9K37/9K37M1/9K317 Buk M1/M2 Self Propelled Air
Defence System / SA-11/17 Gadfly/Grizzly, Tech. Rep. APA-TR2009-0706, July, 2009, [Online]. Available:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html
[7] C. Kopp, Flanker Radars in Beyond Visual Range Air Combat, Tech.
Rep. APA-TR-2008-0401, Air Power Australia, April, 2008, updated
2009, [Online]. Available: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-FlankerRadars.html
[8] C. Kopp, Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback, Russia's New Heavy Strike Fighter,
Tech. Rep. APA-TR-2007-0108, Air Power Australia, January, 2007
[Online]. Available: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Fullback.html
[9] C. Kopp, Phazotron Zhuk AE/ASE, Assessing Russia's First Fighter
AESA, Tech. Rep. APA-TR-2008-0403, Air Power Australia, July,
2008, [Online]. Available: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Zhuk-AEAnalysis.html
[10] A. Dolgachev, Optimising Active Phased Arrays, Phazotron,
Information and Analytical Magazine of the Phazotron NIIR
Corporation, Special Issue, AeroIndia 2007.
[11] A. Dolgachev, X-Band Active Phased Array: Scope of Work Report,
Phazotron, Information and Analytical Magazine of the Phazotron NIIR
Corporation, Special Issue, AeroIndia 2007.
[12] E. Semyonov, et al, Compact Amplitude Phase Control Module for Xband Active Phased Array Transceivers, Phazotron, Information and
Analytical Magazine of the Phazotron NIIR Corporation, Special Issue,
AeroIndia 2007.

42