I read the first paper about design of AESA radar.
Frankly, PDF members would want a 1000 km looking radar tracking 100 targets and engaging 50 of those with BUR (Beyond Universe Range) Missiles. Same with S-400, that its capable of detecting anything at 400 km radius or even more, well radar doesn't work like this. Every radar has short comings, no matter how powerful it is. I still laugh at one Indian members comment about S-400," if it flies, it dies", sure mate, S-400 is God made system right.
Anyways, back to paper, radar requirements such as search, track, high target density, environment and system integration giving performance out as peak transmit power, antenna gain, and Noise Figure (NF) including processing (data) throughput, mission software, diagnostics software, and signal processing software. These are fundamentals. Any moving platform (a/c) requires additional air-to air and air-to-surface radar functions or modes. The main features to look in radar are Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), minimum
detection rage, transmit and receive peak power, and antenna gain. All these are calculated theoretically first and then a hardware(antenna leading to radar) is built around them. As we move on further for designing a modern radar, more requirements come up like Terrain collision avoidance, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), and Doppler Beam Sharpening (DBS).
Okay then they talk about fighter air to air mode and air to surface mode. They do analysis of trade offs using size, power, weight etc for selection of appropriate operating frequency, waveform, radar coverage, receiver operating characteristics, search design, tracking architectures, and target classifiers in the radar design. Jumping onto Radar Open Structure Architecture (ROSA) is based on modular Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) components. This ROSA is a basic system referenced from another article. They discuss T/R modules and other restrictions on radars which is again referenced from other papers and then jump from hardware to radar control computer (RCC), radar operating software (ROS), and radar task scheduler (RTS). Then talk about already existing AESA radars.
There is nothing PROPOSED in this paper. They are merely discussing what is already out there. Radar is a technical subject, at least, they should have proposed a new technical design of just one module of radar. No equations for calculations to back up that proposal. They talk about figure 11 (referenced form article 10) for a Multi- Function Phased Array Radar (MFAR) which they have already referenced from article 12. If they propose a design, they have to back it up with logic and technical analysis of calculations and why their proposal is feasible for modern systems or more importantly which short coming they are addressing. This is why literature review is conducted - to understand what is done and currently being done. Then find out what lacks where or which problem can be addressed to improve it further. Can you find anything like that in tis article ?
Have you read the conclusion ? Don't you find it childish. They are telling what needs to be done, fair enough, but what have these research students done themselves? Compiled information from 49 references and published it mixing them altogether. Its like summarizing all those 49 references. Are they sure this is research.
Do you know what is really disappointing ? This is a 2019 article. There just 4 references from 2016, 2 from 2017 and just 1 from 2018. This a disaster. It means there is no exposure of knowledge and information or recent advancements from 2016 onwards till 2019 which should have made the bulk of references. Out of 49, half of references should have been 2015 to 2019 at least.
There are no calculations here leading to a conclusion which is basic core of research. Well i mean, not just calculations, but ensuring that research is taken ahead even by 0.000001% overall to impact globally. If I would use this article as reference then it would just be referenced to tell readers that ROSA exists already and then moving ahead towards my newer proposed design or improved module based on calculations I conducted.
If i presented such a paper to my supervisor, he would throw it back at my face and tell me to get lost. Just 45-50 references would be for literature review of article and ending up around 150 references with at least 50 references used to support the proposed design.
