Lets start from the pointy end.

How many large exercises have European air forces conducted with fighters equipped with AESA so far? Do they hae real world operation experience wielding their new weapon in a fighter?

The Americans have been developing fighter based AEASA radars since the mid 90s. Their firs airborne AESA first flew in the 80s with the B1-B. Why the gap in time?

Do you really think that the LPI algorithms, the ground attack algorithms, the EW algorithms and the targeting algorithms are going to be found on non fighter based AESA?

The American R&D budget is huge. Do you really think they are going to be sitting on their hands with their current generation of AESA? What advances will they come up with in the 2012 – 2015 time frame?

They already have fielded in squadron service over 150 fighter AESAs with many more to come between now and 2012 – 2015. I am sure they have learned a thing or two about AESAs with their real world experience.

What has Selex done during this time? What about Thales?

There is a huge advantage.

I did not say that there is no gap; I said the gap may be smaller than some people think.

Saab and other European companies have done R&D on fighter AESAS for quite some time; this in combination with their real-world non-fighter AESA experience will give a flying start to their fighter AESAs. Another thing you also do not consider: Saab has extensive collaboration with other companies (and not just Selex) in the development of AESA. You are right in stating that Saab would struggle to do everything alone; but that is not what is happening. It is a collobarative effort that was started many years ago.

you may also want to read this.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/03/327305/f-35-chief-endorses-competition-for-engines-and-radars.html

For different reasons, Heinz said that in theory he could support selecting Raytheon or Thales to supply an alternative radar for the F-35.

It seems that the F-35 chief has a bit higher confidence in European AESAs than you got… :rolleyes:

L

We were discussing AIRBORNE fighter AESA sets due to the requirements of small size and power usage.

I strongly suspect that experience gained from operating other kinds of AESA is highly relevant; it is often claimed that the software part of the AESA is not only important but also very tricky. I would think that many of the basic algorithms developed for one AESA would be applicable for another, even if one is an EriEye (or even ship based) and the other is in a fighter plane.

Size and power usage are parameters more relevant for the physical components of the system; they are seldom relevant for the software, with one exception; new computers are more powerful use less power and weigh less than the older — if anything this is an advantage to Saab 🙂 They have developed sophisticated algorithms that can run on the powerful but heavy computers on the Erieye systems — with the newer, more powerful CPUs those same algorithms can with some mods be moved into a fighter…

I suspect the gap between US and Europe in terms of AESA is not as large as some people here claim. There is a gap, but Europe is probably not “several generations behind”.

L

More the the SE:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3acfb19b80-dbc1-4cc1-adce-18bccd187551

Boeing clearly attracted some attention when it unveiled the stealthy F-15SE Silent Eagle in March, saying it could match the frontal-aspect radar cross-section of the Lockheed Martin F-35. Now the company is fleshing out that claim with trade studies and chamber tests.

The issue is not what level of RCS reduction can be achieved, says program manager Brad Jones, but what the U.S. government will release for export – and that will depend on the customer. So Boeing is conducting the studies to generate data on the different levels of RCS reduction possible. That data in hand, the company will begin licensing discussions with the U.S. government, he says.

The timetable is set by the timing of the first request for proposals from a potential customer. That is expected to be South Korea some time betweeen mid-2010 and 2011, Jones says. Korea is looking for a third tranche of aircraft under the FX fighter program. The first two were F-15Ks, so the SE stands a fair chance.

While the biggest contributor to reducing frontal RCS is replacing the conformal fuel tanks with conformal weapons bays and flying without external stores, Jones says a variety of techniques can be used to provide different levels of stealth depending on what the U.S. government decides is releasable to each country. Of course, he won’t say what those techniques are.

Interestingly, Boeing has clearly received interest in retrofitting Silent Eagle features. The company now shows range data for both a new-build F-15SE with canted tails and a retrofitted F-15E with the original straight tails. The reduction in radius from removing the CFTs is 220-240nm for retrofit and 180-200nm for new-build, because the canted tails, digital Fly-By-Wire and digital EW reduce weight and restore some fuel volume. A new F-15SE loses 950 U.S. gallons of fuel compared to 1,500 galloans for a retrofit, Jones says.

As for the F-15SE versus F-35 on frontal stealth, Jones says what Boeing is looking for is an assurance from the U.S. government that all competitors will be set at the same level of RCS reduction. Let the battle begin.

Well I think it’s good that LM gets some competition. In the long run it’s good also for the F-35 customers, although some people obviously don’t like it. :rolleyes:

L

Tyhpoon would probably suit Japan well, but I wouldn’t discount Super Hornet.

I would have thought that using stealth aircraft might be considered a bit aggressive for Japan, as they can be construed as first-strike weapons?

It seems that Japan is considering F15, together with F-22, F-35, Typhoon, SH, and Rafale:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/JAPAN060909.xml&headline=Japan%20Likely%20To%20Delay%20F-X%20Order

Under the F-X requirement, the ministry wants to buy 50 fighters to take over the Phantoms’ air-to-air role. It really wants the F-22 and will buy that stealth fighter if the U.S. will let Lockheed Martin sell it (Aerospace DAILY, June 4).

Apart from the Lockheed Martin contenders, the country is considering the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15FX Eagle, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale. The latter is considered a long shot, and its manufacturer appears not to be putting so much effort into the competition as the others are.

A lack of information on the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II is forcing the ministry to spend more time studying the requirement, the Yomiuri Daily says. That focus on the two Lockheed Martin aircraft is a hint that the F-35, now formally recommended to Japan by the U.S. administration, is at least a strong contender, and possibly the favorite if the F-22 remains unavailable.

My uneducated guess: If they cannot get F-22 and F-35 arrives to late, then it’s between the Typhoon and the F-15, perhaps the silent eagle (since they seem to be much focused on the stealth aspects).

For a2a most people seem to agree that the Typhoon would be preferrable to the SH (assuming the Eurofighter people can deliver a decent AESA), however I am wondering where the F15 Silent Eagle would fit in?

L