Do the plataform for AWACS make any difference on it's radar

>>35071859
Not really. For example, Japan's E-767 is basically just the E-3's electronics installed in a 767.

>>35071884

I know, but i mean, would a 767 cover more area than, let's say a ERJ? Or it's just the radar that matters?

>>35071859
Sort of. Bigger radars can have more transmitters and receivers and can spread them out over a wider area. More power sent though the radar will get better results. A bigger airplane can in theory mount both of those, as well as more and better computers for interpreting the results. So theoretically, yes. In practice, it's hardly that simple.

>>35072490

Isn't static radards like Erieye have better performance than the "spinning" ones like OP's?

>>35071859
Absolutely. Aperture size and power are directly affected by platform size, and indirectly processing power avalable from more computers onboard reduces the effects of clutter and such, lowering the detection threshold and therefore increasing range.
In AWACS, bigger is better.

>>35072527
Yes, because they are constantly emitting and getting an illuminated return.. the spinning kind have blind spots on the "sides" of the radar spin.

Not to mention the mechanical maintenance and other shit.

>>35072527
>Erieye
To update my reply, >>35073015, That one has less "oomph" in its radar set than the big birds (E-3 / E-767 / A-50M / etcetera). But the other points stand.

China's new AWACS jet has a fixed three way AESA radome, so it may or may not be the top dog as of now.

>>35073052
>China's new AWACS jet has a fixed three way AESA radome, so it may or may not be the top dog as of now.

not that it really matters, because they only have 5 of them

>>35072167
A larger plane can generally supply more power to the radar array, which would theoretically give the radar longer range assuming the electrical systems were designed to handle said power.