Not sure you can talk of LPI and dismiss the development of rwr so easily. That is rather akin to ignoring the elephant in the room to “prove” your point.
If the rwr has developed to the point where your “lpi” system is no longer “lpi” then a “non lpi” as defined by yourself may be “better.”

That sort of thing is akin to saying anti-stealth radar though. It’s not a matter of adding some improvement that renders LPI completely visible. There certainly may be improvements in RWR systems to improve the likelihood of detection, but you have to understand how they work. It’s not a matter of just looking for any signal, and alerting the pilot. It’s looking for a recognizable signal and comparing it against a threat library, while filtering out background noise to prevent false alerts. LPI works by not providing a recognizable pattern, and appearing to be background noise to the RWR, among other techniques. That’s why there’s no simple solution that will just render it ineffective.

From my memory, it was detection range, especially at lateral scanning angles. The arguments were that if you don’t need to go for A-A and A-G at the same time (which you normally don’t) and if you don’t care about enemy RWRs, then high power PESA outperfroms AESA (of course it is less flexible, noone argues about that)

And of course, cost. Riding 5 miles everyday to your work and back does not justify purchase of a Ferrari Scuderia, even if it’s probably ‘better’ than your everyday Stratus.

I think saying that PESA outperforms AESA must be used in context, and with a very loose definition of the word. It certainly doesn’t outperform AESA in terms of detection range, or scan rate. The benefits there outweigh a few degrees of azimuth where a PESA might have the slight advantage. Side arrays, etc…can compensate if need be, while maintaining all of the other performance advantages.

No. The ranges are always directly comparable, LPI or not. If you are right, then the compromising range of APG-79 must be considerably shorter than the one of BARS (assuming identical type of warning receiver). If we have figures like that at hand, then you have proven your point. Otherwise you have proven nothing.

He’s not talking about the range that the BARS or APG-79 can detect another aircraft. He’s talking about the ranges that another aircraft’s RWR can detect the BARS or APG-79. There’s no comparison there- a non-LPI system will trigger RWRs at greater ranges than the detection range of the system itself(by factor of 50-100%). That’s why AESA is so desirable, in addition to all of the other advantages that have been mentioned. Non-LPI radars are akin to a bright searchlight in the darkness.

AESA is not automatically better than PESA in all aspects, it strongly depends on what you are after. The main reason for replacing PESA by AESA is reduction in maintenance and added versatility since AESA handles combined A-A/A-G modes much better.

Are many missions where you need to fire AMRAAMs and throw Paveway IIIs at the same time? I don’t think so, for most air forces even PESA is overkill and they would easily come by even with slotted arrays. All this ‘AESA required’ looks more like a ‘me-too’ attitude to me.

BTW, MKMs carry the Avitronics EW suite, are you sure there is so much difference to SH? SAAB would surely want to disagree.

Let’s rephrase this. In what instance is a PESA better than an AESA, in terms of capabilities?

AESA offers
-more flexibility
-higher resistance to ECM
-higher reliability
-far more discreet with regards to RWR

just to mention a few advantages.

HINT: The F22 is a interceptor, a plane originally designed for air superiority, it was never meant to sneak in a SAM network, the one designed for strike missions is the F-35

Guess which one has rounded exhaust :rolleyes:

The F-22 is primarily an air supremacy fighter, but…..the DEAD mission was always an important secondary mission, due to its survivability in that role.

it is a very sleek and very big fighter, so, it should have little drag and a huge fuel load, which should put it very high in these areas…

It’s drag remains to be seen, but I’m not sure using the fact that it’s big is the best choice of words to show low drag. As for the range, the 5500km figure is Ferry range(including an aerial refueling), not on internal fuel.

So much talk, so little number or evidence?

The original N001 as I’ve already pointed out was far less capable, not to mention suffered from reliability problems that weren’t solved till early 90s. It wasn’t till you started seeing radars like Bars, where the Flanker started to have similar capabilities(either in range, or multi target track/engagement).