The test infrastructure that carried engineers through 4G and early 5G is showing its age — and most labs haven’t noticed yet. There’s a quiet crisis playing out in RF test labs around the world. Engineers are running the same test methodologies they’ve used for years, on equipment that served them well through previous wireless generations, and getting results they half-trust on devices that operate at frequencies their tools were never designed to reach.
Nobody is sounding alarm bells because the problem doesn’t announce itself with a dramatic failure. It creeps in — a radiation pattern that looks slightly off, a gain measurement that seems plausible but can’t be fully trusted, a compliance test that passes on the bench and surprises in the field. By the time the issue becomes obvious, the cost in time, re-spins, and credibility is already significant.
The root of the problem is straightforward: millimeter wave antenna testing is fundamentally different from anything that came before it, and the industry’s test infrastructure hasn’t fully caught up.
The World Has Changed. Most Test Labs Haven’t.
For most of wireless history, testing an antenna was conceptually simple. You connected a cable to a port, ran your measurements with a vector network analyser, and characterised the device under test. The antenna and the radio circuitry were separate enough that you could evaluate them independently. This worked well from VHF through 4G, through sub-6 GHz 5G, and it gave engineers a reliable playbook.
At mmWave frequencies — the bands that define 5G FR2 and where 6G research is now focused — that playbook breaks down. The short wavelengths involved mean that the RF front-end circuitry and the antenna cannot be accurately characterised in isolation from one another. As one industry analysis summarised it, at mmWave frequencies, the MMIC and antennas cannot be accurately measured independently, and any testing requires a radiated over-the-air (OTA) measurement. The cable-based “conducted test” that defined decades of antenna measurement simply isn’t viable anymore.
This single shift changes everything about how tests must be set up, what equipment is required, and what “accurate results” actually looks like.
What Makes mmWave Testing So Different?
- You can’t use a cable. At frequencies above 24 GHz, the connection between instrument and device under test is no longer a practical option. Connectors introduce loss, the cable itself becomes a significant source of error, and many modern 5G components don’t have a test connector at all. Every measurement at these frequencies must happen over the air — which means controlled RF environments, precision positioning, and equipment that can operate at the frequency of the device being tested.
- The test distance changes. In lower-frequency testing, far-field measurements require large physical separation between source and device. At mmWave frequencies, because wavelengths are shorter, far-field conditions are achieved at much smaller distances — often just one to two metres. This sounds like an advantage, and in terms of chamber size it is. But it also means that any stray reflections within a compact chamber are far more problematic. Internal reflections that would be negligible at lower frequencies can seriously compromise measurement accuracy at mmWave.
- The antenna and radio are inseparable.Modern mmWave devices — 5G modules, phased array units, automotive radar sensors — integrate the antenna directly with the RF circuitry. Beamforming, which steers energy in specific directions to overcome path loss, is baked into the device at the hardware level. To characterise how that device actually behaves, you have to measure its full three-dimensional radiation pattern, not just a single port response. That requires test systems that can measure gain, polarisation, and beam behaviour across a full spherical measurement space.
- The frequencies themselves demand better instruments. The majority of commercially available vector network analysers natively operate up to around 50 GHz. Above that — the E-band (71–86 GHz), W-band (75–110 GHz), and beyond toward the sub-THz frequencies being explored for 6G — standard instruments simply cannot reach. Testing in these bands requires frequency extension hardware that can bring measurement capability up to the frequency of interest without sacrificing accuracy or dynamic range.
What Insufficient Testing Actually Costs
The engineering consequences of inadequate mmWave test capability tend to show up in predictable ways.
- Measurement errors compound into design errors. If a gain measurement is inaccurate by even a few dB at mmWave frequencies, the link budget calculations built on that measurement will be wrong. A system designed around optimistic antenna performance may work acceptably in ideal lab conditions and fail to meet requirements in real-world deployments — a problem that only emerges after significant investment in hardware, integration, and field testing.
- Late-stage compliance failures are expensive. When a device reaches OTA compliance testing and the results don’t match what was measured on the development bench, the investigation costs time that production schedules don’t have. Re-spins at this stage are costly not just financially, but in the delay they introduce to product programmes.
- The frequency bands keep shifting. 5G FR2 currently spans 24–71 GHz. 6G research is actively exploring frequencies well above 100 GHz, with the D-band (110–170 GHz) drawing particular industry attention. Test infrastructure bought today needs to be capable of reaching those frequencies — either natively or through extension — or it will need to be replaced again within a development cycle or two.
The Upgrade Path That Most Labs Overlook
The response to mmWave test requirements doesn’t have to mean emptying a capital budget on entirely new systems. The more practical approach — and the one increasingly adopted by serious test organisations — is frequency extension.
A frequency extender integrates with an existing VNA and translates its measurement capability up to the mmWave band of interest. The extender heads can be positioned physically close to the device under test, which minimises cable loss and improves dynamic range precisely where it matters most. For antenna pattern measurement specifically, transmitter and receiver extension modules can be mounted on the positioner arms within a compact anechoic chamber, giving coherent amplitude and phase data at frequencies that the base instrument was never designed to reach.
This approach has meaningful advantages beyond cost. It means that investment in a quality base VNA isn’t wasted — it’s extended. It means that as frequency requirements creep higher, additional extension modules can be added rather than the entire test architecture being replaced. And it means that organisations can build mmWave test capability incrementally, tied to actual programme requirements, rather than making speculative infrastructure investments.
Key Parameters Every mmWave Antenna Test Setup Should Cover
For any organisation building or upgrading mmWave test capability, three measurements are non-negotiable:
- Gain. How efficiently does the antenna convert input power into radiated signal, and in what direction? At mmWave frequencies, with beamforming in play, this needs to be characterised across the full beam steering range of the device — not just at boresight.
- Radiation pattern. What does the three-dimensional distribution of radiated power look like? For phased array devices, understanding sidelobe levels, null positions, and polarisation purity is critical to predicting real-world system performance.
- Return loss. How much power is being reflected back from the antenna rather than radiated? At mmWave frequencies, impedance matching is more sensitive and the consequences of a poor match — in terms of transmitted power and potential damage to front-end components — are more severe.
Each of these requires a test system that can operate at the frequency of the device being characterised, with sufficient dynamic range to resolve the signal levels involved.
Looking Ahead
The trajectory of wireless technology is not toward lower frequencies or simpler antenna architectures. 5G NR FR2 deployments are expanding. 6G standardisation will push operating frequencies into bands where even current mmWave test equipment has limited reach. The antenna designs being developed today — highly integrated, beamforming-capable, operating at frequencies that didn’t exist in commercial systems five years ago — demand test infrastructure that can actually characterise them with confidence.
The labs that will navigate this well aren’t the ones with the biggest budgets. They’re the ones that recognised early that mmWave testing is genuinely different, invested in understanding what that means for their measurement architecture, and built capability that can extend as requirements extend.
The gap between what most test labs have and what mmWave antenna testing actually requires is real. Closing it is an engineering decision, not a procurement event.
FAQs
Q. What is the difference between near-field and far-field antenna testing?
A. Near-field testing measures the electromagnetic field close to the antenna surface and mathematically transforms the data to derive far-field behaviour. Far-field testing measures directly at the required angular distance where the wave pattern has stabilised. At mmWave frequencies, the shorter wavelengths mean that far-field distances are much smaller — typically one to two metres — making compact far-field chambers a practical option.
Q. Do I need OTA testing for mmWave devices?
A. Yes, in almost all cases. At mmWave frequencies, the integration of RF circuitry and antenna makes conducted testing inaccurate or impractical. All meaningful performance characterisation — gain, radiation pattern, EIRP — must be carried out over the air in a controlled environment.
Q. Can I upgrade my existing VNA for mmWave antenna measurements?
A. In most cases, yes. Frequency extension modules interface with existing VNAs and extend their measurement range into mmWave bands. This allows engineers to build on existing equipment investment rather than replace it, with extension heads placed close to the device under test to maximise dynamic range.
Q. What frequency range do I need to test for 5G FR2?
A. 5G FR2 currently covers 24.25 to 71 GHz. However, with 6G research already active at frequencies above 100 GHz, test infrastructure with the ability to reach D-band frequencies and beyond will have significantly longer useful life.
Q. What is dynamic range, and why does it matter for antenna testing?
A. Dynamic range is the difference between the strongest and weakest signal a test system can accurately measure. For antenna pattern measurements, high dynamic range is essential — the difference in signal level between the main beam and deep nulls in a pattern can exceed 80–100 dB, and a system without adequate dynamic range will not resolve this accurately.
Q. Does Farran offer support for custom or non-standard frequency band requirements?
A. Yes. Farran Technology has offered custom mmWave design and development services since the company was founded as an offshoot of University College Cork in 1975. The Cork-based engineering team works with customers across test and measurement, aerospace, 5G and 6G communications, radar, and space applications to develop bespoke solutions where standard product configurations don’t fully meet programme requirements. This includes custom frequency bands, modified form factors, and integrated system designs. Contact Farran directly at sales@farran.com or +353 21 484 9170 to discuss your specific requirements.
Explore Farran’s mmWave Antenna Test Solutions
Farran’s AET/AER frequency extenders enable accurate antenna gain, radiation pattern, and phase measurements from 26.5 to 500 GHz — integrating seamlessly with your existing VNA. Visit us to explore the full range or request a quote.