Mr. Millennium 7 has recently experienced a malfunction of the type human experience. Therefore, I am taking control of the channel to fill the menigaps left by M7 in discussing Esa Raiders. In fact, due to his very human attitude toward technology, he failed to mention the several issues that plagued Esa Raiders. Otis, I'm still here. So a few weeks ago there was a video about Esa Raiders that was inspired by the news that the F-35 is getting a new radar. The key point? Well, Esa technology has made anything else obsolete with pizza or hybrid solutions between the two barely adequate, at least for combat applications. But not everything is warm and fuzzy that technology may not have reached its maturity yet. And since everyone is actually telling you how cool Esa Raiders are, including myself, maybe it's time to point out some of the problems. So today we are on a journey to understand the drawbacks and the don'ts of Esa technology and some of the stuff is hardly covered on YouTube. So what is an Esa Raider? It is a Raider than rather than having a single antenna with a single emitter and a single receiver, it has a lot of transmitter receiver modules. So the antenna is made of several small elements and each small antenna has a small transmitter receiver module just behind it. These modules are mostly digitally driven by the Raider and even the signal is often digitized for signal processing. This solution has several advantages in terms of sensitivity, gain, signal-to-noise ratio and crucially for military applications versatility. You can do things with an Esa Raider that you can't do with a conventional Raider. And not only Raidery thinks but also other stuff like communication, jamming or passive listening. As I said before pretty much everything else is obsolete when it comes to Raiders that have to be used in combat. Sometimes these Raiders are not even called Raiders anymore, they are called multifunctional Raiders exactly because they can be used for several different purposes. But is there a price that we have to pay for all these capabilities? Well, an obvious one is complexity and cost. An Esa Raider is a north-row of magnitude more complex than a conventional Raider. With complexity comes design and development time and hence costs. A Esa would not be possible without technologies like Gali Marce and I'd integrate it circuits or the more modern Galiom Knight ride. And the cost of these technologies is high, they're required the case to be developed. They're where non-standard production processes and all these costs compound together. Another rather obvious point is that so many active components all tightly packed together just behind the antenna while they produce a lot of heat. An Esa Raider is quite thick, dense and compact and this means that cooling, yeah it's a real problem and the problem is maybe that worked by the fact that an Esa Raider requires quite a lot of processing power which means more electronics, more heat. So isa Raider's generally require liquid cooling which requires a cooling system, radiators, pumps and so on which adds complexity, adds cost and crucially for an aircraft it adds weight. Galiom Knight ride which is still a relatively new technology is more energy efficient so it may reduce this problem but is still very present. To make an Esa Raider work you need processing power, a lot of processing power. This is the price that you have to pay for the versatility that we have mentioned above. The hardware and the software that we have today are not yet capable of doing everything we would want at least for what is in the public domain. In general we would like doing as much as we can in the digital domain and this way a lot of things are actually simplified. For example, upgrading the Raider can be done simply by upgrading the software rather than doing any physical intervention. This is a big advantage in the overall economy of maintaining and operating an Air Force but with digital comes the limitation of processing power. Our current digital architecture design clock speeds may not be and in general are not fast enough. So during the design process may emerge the necessity of using analog components whose speed is basically limited only by the laws of physics and the obvious drawback is that every time we use anything analog we have frozen the Raider performance and any eventual upgrade may only happen with a physical intervention on the system. And as I said as far as we know all the Esa Raiders in service today do contain some analog component. In an idealizer Raider the only analog component should be the TR module. An ideal TR module should contain a waveform generation, a digital to analog converter, a power amplifier and the antenna. This is the transmission chain. The receiving chain should contain an amplifier, an analog to digital converter and the digital signal should be sent downstream for processing. And each model would be digitally controlled by a central processor. However this requires very high speed components and they may either be too expensive for that specific application or we may just don't have a suitable technology. And the problem gets worse with frequency. From what we could gather Raider's that operate at lower frequency like ground surveillance or even A-Wax Raiders operating in L-band as band or C-band can get away with an entirely digital A-Easer Raiders but the Raiders for the fighters that are typically operating in the higher X-band if not in the Q-band don't. So we may expect that this fighter Raider's will contain some analog components. Typically the beam forming part that stays the components that govern the steering of the beams could be analog. Or we can have shortcuts in the case that TR modules are managing groups, sometimes called channels and each channel is controlled digitally as a single unit. In every channel as a single digital to analog and analog to digital converter hybrid solutions like this for example are typical of naval Raiders. Another typical drawback is the scan loss. This is the loss that happens because the beam is moving through the target. Raider normally send more than one pulse toward the target and the received signal is actually summed to increase the gain. If the beam is moving not hold the received signal will be the same because when the target is likely off-axis the intensity of the received signal will be lower. All Raiders suffer from this scan loss if an A-Easer Raider actually uses the beam in this way moving it continuously it suffers from scan loss too. However, A-Easer Raiders have an additional problem because of geometric reasons and interferes between the modules the maximum deflection of the beam in an A-Easer antenna is around 60 degrees. However, in an A-Easer Raider the sensitivity of the antenna declines quite quickly with deflection. As a rule of thumb with a deflection of 45 degrees the sensitivity advantage of an A-Easer Raider has already gone. This is one of the reasons why UCIeaser Raider proliferate on aircraft like for example on the Suhoi 57 or UCIeaser Raider is mounted on repositioners like on the grippen and it's quite obvious that a mechanically scanned antenna doesn't have this issue at all. So do you see the point here? A-Easer Raiders have plenty of advantages but they also have some relatively important disadvantages and I guess the final question is well is actually A-Easer worth it and well the answer judging from the diffusion is actually reserving yes. However, I thought that since nobody tells you which are the problems I could do that but since the advantage is outweighed the disadvantages to learn about the advantages please watch the video that is appearing beside me and there's also plenty of other interesting stuff on the channel. So thank you very much for watching and see you next time.