What published modeling exists that estimates detection ranges of AESA radars (Raven ES‑05 vs APG‑83) against varying RCS and altitude scenarios?
Executive summary
Public, published modeling that directly pits Leonardo’s Raven ES‑05 against Northrop Grumman’s AN/APG‑83 across multiple radar‑cross‑section (RCS) and altitude scenarios is limited in the open literature; available technical work instead provides radar‑equation based estimates for APG‑class AESAs (including APG‑83) and descriptive performance claims and features for the Raven ES‑05 from vendor and trade reporting [1] [2] [3] [4]. Where comparative numeric modeling exists in accessible papers, it typically shows detection range curves for APG‑series radars versus scan angle for a canonical 1 m² RCS, not full matrices of RCS × altitude for ES‑05 vs APG‑83 [1] [2].
1. What published models actually show: APG‑83 range estimates and scan‑angle curves
Academic and conference analyses apply the radar equation with assumed transmitter/receiver parameters to derive detection‑range versus off‑boresight (scan) angle curves for APG‑class AESAs; one such work explicitly plots estimated detection ranges for APG‑83 (alongside APG‑68(V)9 and APG‑80) against a 1 m² RCS as a function of scan angle, noting scan‑loss effects that reduce range at high off‑boresight angles [1] [2]. Those papers also make explicit assumptions about TRM counts and peak power (e.g., treating APG‑83 as similar in TRM count/performance to APG‑80) to produce approximate ranges, meaning the outputs are model‑dependent and sensitive to unpublished internal radar parameters [2].
2. What’s available for the Raven ES‑05: feature claims but not open detection‑range matrices
Trade reporting and vendor material describe the ES‑05 Raven’s distinctive wide field‑of‑regard via a roll‑repositionable AESA and call it “high performance,” which implies operational benefits for look‑angle and engagement geometry but does not provide the kind of published detection‑range versus RCS/altitude tables that the APG‑83 modeling papers produce [3] [4] [5]. In short, the Raven’s engineering novelty (±100° field of regard) is well documented in industry reporting, but open quantitative models of its raw detection ranges against multiple RCS/altitude cases are not present in the cited sources [3] [5] [4].
3. How researchers construct these comparisons and why direct ES‑05 vs APG‑83 matrices are scarce
The publicly available modeling uses the classic radar equation plus explicit assumptions about TRM power, antenna gain, scan losses, and atmospheric/altitude effects to estimate detection range; the conference papers that include APG‑83 do this and present results for standard RCS values like 1 m² [1] [2]. Vendors and trade press instead emphasize system capabilities and mission effects, not raw detection tables—an expected mismatch because detailed performance curves are commercially and militarily sensitive and thus rarely released in full [4] [5] [3].
4. What the available comparisons imply — caveats and alternative views
Where APG‑83 appears in modeling, it is shown to offer increased detection ranges compared to older mechanically scanned radars under the models’ assumptions; however, AESA off‑boresight scan loss can make some AESAs less effective at extreme angles versus mechanically scanned arrays in select scenarios, an effect noted in the research literature [2] [1]. Vendor and trade narratives that portray either radar as generically superior reflect marketing and national‑industrial agendas: Northrop touts APG‑83’s lineage to APG‑77/APG‑81 and broad fielding [6] [7], while Leonardo and Saab highlight the Raven’s wide field‑of‑regard and mission ergonomics [3] [4], so independent numerical comparisons remain constrained by source bias and limited data.
5. Bottom line and research next steps for a robust comparison
No public source in the supplied reporting presents a comprehensive, peer‑reviewed matrix of detection ranges for Raven ES‑05 versus APG‑83 across multiple RCS values and altitude slices; the best‑available models for APG‑83 derive from radar‑equation studies and conference papers that give scan‑angle/1 m² RCS curves [1] [2], while Raven performance is described at the system level in vendor and trade materials [3] [4]. For a rigorous comparative study, one should obtain or recreate radar‑equation models with stated TRM power, antenna aperture/gain, scan‑loss functions and atmospheric propagation terms, and then run them across the desired RCS and altitude grid—recognizing that accurate input parameters for Raven ES‑05 are not published in the supplied sources and would likely require access to manufacturer data or classified test results [4] [3] [5].