Original non-LO rail here:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261786[/ATTACH]

I was clearly not asking for that. The Niip catalog stated AESA radar with 1-18ghz where did not mention EW systems
Notice how this statement is not talking about EW systems?

No, they said “In the AESA, every element or group of elements has its own miniature microwave transmitter working in the frequency band from 1 to 18 GHz“. Which may sound the same as the radar has bandwidth from 1-18 Ghz, but it isn’t. Bandwidth of individual transmitter isn’t neccesary the same as bandwidth of the radar. As i have shown you an example of Northrup Grumman, with an AESA operate at different frequency for radar and ECM.

I was right every time by directly stating what was stated by the sources, along with another source that stated what was completed, and what it was completed for.

You weren’t. You did cite some links but it almost always either you exaggerated or misunderstood what they said. Your reading comprehension is pretty bad, this is quite evident in your question in China air power thread.

The cutting-edge missile’s control systems need to be extremely efficient and accurate, said Wang Mengyi, deputy head of the Second Academy’s General Design Department and former leader of the laboratory.
“Metaphorically put, the mission of these control systems is to guide a needle to fly 1,000 kilometers to pierce the eye of another needle,” he said. “For researchers from Zhang Yiqun Laboratory, their mission is to turn this seemingly impossible task into reality.”
Does anyone know the RCS of a needle

https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?140394-Chinese-air-power-thread-18/page42

I expected you to read my source like the pages I provided but again for future references i will include a page and citation.

I did, and no mentioned of “700 km” like you claimed, and you still ignoring the fact that for self defensive jamming, extending the distance make it easier.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261522[/ATTACH]

Several are you twisting what is said as already stated? he said 4 of those mmics are to be used for krasukha, tarantula,khlibiny and himalayas did he not? He have an example of the 4 GaN UHF modules, than gave an example of the 4 EW systems…… Please atleast dont tell me that you think there are other EW systems that you think he is referring to? So what your saying is you actually think that the mig-35s,mig-29s and su-30s are to have GaN than their newer aircraft? Because 1. you do not believe that it is present in mentioned jammers from Rostec 2. They mentioned EW GaN is present on aircraft and EW systems but since you disagree with the 4 systems mentioned by Rostec since it is not mentioned than what other EW systems do you think they have that have GaN since they have literally stated that.

1-It is entirely possible for mig-35, su-35, su-34 to have GaN modules earlier than Pak-fa, newer generation aircraft doesn’t always have all the newest bell and whistle because you don’t want the cost to be too high reducing the number you can purchase, and you also want to shorten developement cycles so that you can get them into low rate initial production as early as possible. Moreover, newer aircraft generally have others advantages that make them much more survivable and therfore doesn’t need new system as much as legacy aircraft. This practice is more common than you would expect, for example F-15/F-16/F-18 get HMD and high off boresight missiles much sooner than F-22 or for US GaN modules are intergrated into F-15 EPAWSS and EA-18 NGJ firstbefore anything else or ATP-SE more sensors than current EOTS, there are others example but the point is life # video game, all program need cost and risk management.
2- [ATTACH=CONFIG]261494[/ATTACH] So they stated that their UHF amplifier will improve 4 specific jamming system and an unknow number of communication system, there is nothing to indicate that the later NIIP’s statement is about Himalyas specifically, you just assume that it was, but it could easily about some EW communication system or Taranlu, or Krasukha-4 or Khibiny..etc. If anything, Krasukha-4 would be the best candidate to implement UHF GaN modules, because there virtually it have no size and cooling constraint , and thefore very low risk, a support jamming system will also benefit more from high power UHF amplifier than a self-defensive ECM of stealth aircraft because stealth aircraft can already do well with jammer several hundred times weaker.

Not even once have they mentioned the majority of their EW systems are GaAS there better not be any voices in your head to suggest otherwise which is why you post a catalog page but an actual quote

I always try to post photos that consist of the whole paragraph, because it is neutral and everyone can see what is actually said. When you write a short quote , it can be misleading. Also, it is a fact that currently, on the market there are more EW system with GaAs than with GaN.

Are you on damage control or something? As stated multiple times,
You say they didnt say GaN but they state they used GaN. You say they use GaAS more than GaN while they only state the use both not even once stating they used GaAS.

Iam not on damage control, but you either playing dumb or you don’t understand what they wrote.
They didn’t specified that THEIR equipment use GaN and GaAs but merely that GaAs and GaN are usually used in active elements of present day EW equipment, which is true when the whole market is considered. Oh and Gallium arsenide is GaAs.

no no no there is a huge difference in comparing apples and oranges. 2014 they state where the GaN MMICs are to be used, apg-77v1, N036 and apg-81 there can be multiple sources found that state they used GaAS.

Where are the sources that state ASQ-239 and APG-81 uses GaAS? Iam pretty there are no information on what material they used, only assumption

The difference is they mentioned the Himalayas GaN MMIC features months later say they have present GaN on their EW systems.

That isn’t really what they said, they say they made 4 type of UHF GaN modules, which will improve size and efficiency of EW system, one of these EW system they mentioned is Himalayas but it isn’t the only one. Also they didn’t really said “they have present GaN on their EW systems but rather present day EW systems uses GaAs and GaN, which really isn’t limited to their product”

The only EW systems they mentioned of GaN are their newest EW appliances.Give me a hint what other new EW systems that came out in 2015 to make you believe that it is GaN? I already gave you a clue.

No and could easy be Krasukha-4

What kind of example is this? Are you suggesting that there are different aircraft that can be fitted with the Himalayas?

…..
I meant the relationship between Himalayas and these UHF modules is the same as the relationship between B-1 and sniper-XR pod. You are trying to suggest that these UHF modules are created specifically for Himalayas, but they aren’t.

4 GaN UHF modules, 4 systems that are to use GaN as stated, OK I hope you mean that the UHF elements were created specifically for 4 different systems? Unless your thinking those GaN mmics are for the mig-29 or whatever because they state 4 different GaN for 4 different specific EW systems.

Help yourself
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261494[/ATTACH]

Which is why I was asking a question in the 1st place if anyone knew the sizes of either being based off of LTCC besides the same size reduction and if one is applied with GaN using LTCC for EW systems is it applied for their T/R modules regarding their radar? That is all.

So exactly what i said.

http://tass.com/defense/942027
Krasukha-20 The entire system is deployed within several minutes without a man’s participation, after which it is capable of disabling an AWACS at a distance of several hundred kilometers.

That would make a decent source until they mentioned the Donald Cook , Su-22 incident hoax then all their credibility gone……..

This is what happened with the US destroyer Donald Cook in 2014 when the warship’s air defense systems locked on a Russian Su-24 plane.

The data appearing on the warship’s radars put the crew at a loss: the aircraft would now and then disappear from radar screens or suddenly change its location and speed or create electronic clones of additional targets while the destroyer’s information and weaponry control combat systems were actually disabled
More:
http://tass.com/defense/942027

Either way, the number is quite meaningless without knowing radar cross section of friendly aircraft you want to protect and how far are they from the AEW&C
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261503[/ATTACH]

http://www.deagel.com/Protection-Sys…003124001.aspx Rychag-av stating 700km, AVM unknown.

There is no mentioned of “700 km” inside that page like you claimed, may be your English isn’t very good but “several” # “seven” , either way you would know it is BS if you understand the concept of radar horizon. By the way, why cite from some trash site like deagel.com when you can cite the manufacturer’s video ?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unrtNOTJd34
Honestly though, it kinda funny when their market department think it is impressive when a self defensive system can jam from 300 km when it should be the opposite, short range jamming is harder.

Murmansk-bn http://www.deagel.com/Tactical-Vehic…003384001.aspx max coverage 3000km

Jamming Communication system # Jamming radar system

If most of their new EW systems like were presently operaional before feb-2015 I would have not said a word. But the fact that there were no newer systems that I can think between 2014-2015 other than the Krasukha-4 and himalayas being presented between that timeline, that they were introduced with GaN between, that time and now state they have already GaN present in their EW systems.

See above.

I hope that you are pulling my leg 2-20ghz for ECM and jamming. OK how about a patent with that range regarding “”””radar””””.

Iam not pulling your leg, each individual microwave transmitter can transmit between 1 to 18 GHz doesn’t mean the bandwidth of radar will be from 1-18 Ghz. You can see in Northrup Grumman pattern that the elements can transmit and receive between 2.0 GHz to 20.0 GHz, but only in the narrow band of 9.2 to 10.2 GHz the multi functional array will operate as radar. Due to this. Jamming don’t have as strict requirement about beamwidth and side lobe as radar

Denial, not reading anything that was actually cited, calling something experimental when said to be completed and another source later state presently used on EW equipment…….These are usually the symptoms I have come across from patients that don’t like something being better than something they like

No, it more like you don’t have a reasonable or logical argument so you can’t convince others to agree with what you want to believe.

https://rostec.ru/upload/iblock/749/…0c077564e8.pdf page 63 so again why did they say they have created the modules and that it would be used as advanced components for weapons? It clearly states that

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261426[/ATTACH]
I see nothing wrong with their statement, they created some GaN UHF modules and said those modules Will Soon be used in Military applications. That totally fine. On the other hand you said “their project was complete and that the GaN modules were already created for tarantula, khlibiny, Himalayas and Krasukha systems than feb 2015 this catalog states that GaAS and GaN modules are already present on their active phased array antenna EW equipment.” basically you implied that current variation Himalayas already uses GaN module while the source stated no such thing. Finished development of new technologies that can be used in future upgrades is one thing, transferring those technologies directly to current pre-planned production chain is another. You are equivalent to someone who think F-16 block 60/70 has TVC because of Vista program, or AIM-120D uses ram jet because of FMRAAM.

Literally stated the model numbers of the 4 different modules as being GaN modules, Feb 2015 stated they clearly have GaN present on their AESA antennas on the catalog? How is it this hard to put the 2 together?

I haven’t see the Feb 2015 edition and to be honest, it kinda hard for us to trust your words. Either way, unless they specifically said in Feb 2015 that Himalayas has Gan modules, I don’t see how can you make the jump

It was mentioned on the rostec 2014 pdf that that the GaN modules were created for the himalayas

This is you playing with word to make your point sound more “correct”, these UHF modules was not created for Himalayas. As stated in rostec, they are part of development project, and they will reduce dimensions of Khibiny-M, khrasnuka-4, Tarantul and Himalayas. This is quite different from something designed only for Himalayas, because only if these modules are made only for Himalayas then you could have made the jump you did in previous paragraph

and it was mentioned that the Himalayas EW was to be used as a smart skin. Since GaN is by default smaller than GaAS modules this is a hint or indication it most likely is. Can you give a source where GaAS modules can be smaller than GaN or GaAS modules being able to fit throughout of the body of an aircraft?

This is some very big leap of faith again for no reason. “Smart skin” can mean anything from dedicated RWR to dedicated ESM, they don’t have to fully covered the airplane and PAK-FA won’t be cover fully in transmitter either. Either way, you don’t need GaN to have “smart skin”, iam pretty sure they called Spectra and Barracuda “smart skin” sometimes even though, they don’t use Gan at the moment, nor do they fully cover the aircraft.

I think I should have posted the rostec 2014 pdf book to begin with besides talking about it. Because the book clearly stated the project was completed, and that the modules would be used. Though I dont know why you consider them experimental t/r modules since they are completed and the fact that the modules were stated to be present on their EW systems from the Niip catalog.

Same way I consider T-3, Hyfly to be experimental. It sort of a technology demonstrator.

I am talking about the same LTCC modules with the same reduction of the in size and efficiency being exactly the same as the LTCC modules of their EW equipment that they have currently stated as GaN.

Citation needed, you aren’t really helping your case here when you making many outstanding claim but doesn’t provide sources for us to double check. Instead of writing your theory, it is better to give the links first
I don’t think you can estimate the efficiency and beside when you talked about “reduction in size” what exactly are you comparing it to….????? . It sounds to us that you saw they written “new modules X is 50% smaller than the old one” then you read somewhere that GaN modules is half as big then you leap to the conclusion that module X is GaN based

Than just look at the estimated claims.

You didn’t give citation for any of the numbers you written and beside they are meaningless without context, like saying your eye can detect things from several billions km, technically that true when you look at stars, but it does not help us estimates how good your eye sight is.

As the niip catalog stated they have 1ghz-18ghz AESA radars.

Where did they said that

Ah man I am afraid I might rekindle an old fire causing arguements to explode again which depends how many critics are in this thread because my statements and questions might not be to their liking.

I don’t want to be mean but to be frank, your questions and statements aren’t really to anyone liking, because either you don’t really understand what you wrote or you are being disingenuous because your documents doesn’t say what you you claimed they do.Then the lack of citation and extreme JSR like attitude doesn’t help either.

I am bringing up this old catalog again. Pdf page 16 https://www.niip.ru/upload/iblock/4c…0b3fb41e86.pdf

Rostec’s 2014 english pdf book on google pg 63 stated their project was complete and that the GaN modules were already created for tarantula, khlibiny, Himalayas and Krasukha systems than feb 2015 this catalog states that GaAS and GaN modules are already present on their active phased array antenna EW equipment.

They didn’t, come on, why are you lying? last time you cite the document it was about some experimental UHF GaN T/r modules

So these modules are using ceremic substrates and film technology which helped reduced EW hardware costs 5 to 15 times. However the FGA-35(3d) has used the same ceramic substrates and film technology they are using on their EW modules. The point that I am heading torwards is since they had GaN present on their newest EW systems and Guskov also stated that this same technology will also be put on the latest mig-35 in production. What are the chances that the mig-35 would be using a GaN radar?

Guskov in an interview from a ato.ru article source was asked would a similiar based LTCC radar platform be on an SU-57 he stated no but we have plans.2013 production of LTCC modules began, late 2014-2015 EW systems were present with these GaN LTCC modules. October 2014 http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art…ew-system.html the new EW system acts like a smart skin. Guskov stated in nov 2012 that these LTCC modules will make a smart skin radar. Even though this says defense aerospace its says its got its source from rostec the same company that stated they already created the GaN modules for the mentioned EW systems. So since Guskov said that LTCC modules can do this for a radar to function like a smart skin.
niip catalog stated they have GaN modules(based on ceramic substrates and film tech similiar to the fga-35(3d) which is LTCC) in feb 2015 present on their current EW systems

Those are very big leap of faith and still lacking in links

. Rostec on the both late 2014 sources says GaN modules are implemented on Himalayas, Himalayas acts as a smart skin for the SU-57. So this basically means Himalayas is using LTCC modules which happen to be GaN.

Iam quite certain that they didn’t said that and beside, GaN isn’t a requirement to have smart skin

The reason why I said I will cause arguements on this thread is that GaN UHF modules like the one implemented on the SU-57 have yet to be tested in 2020 for as NGJ for the F-35 and EA-18 Growler. While the SU-57 from these sources have shown that they already have a present GaN UHF on them since late 2014.

You are making the assumption that experimental t/r modules will be used immediately on production line

Pg 19 in pdf states of that niip catalog of ROFAR having smart skin, weight and efficiency similiar to the GaN EW systems they talked about to be implemented in the 2020s.

ROFAR is a different thing

KRET speaks of krasukha-4 jamming in the 300km which utilizes GaN MMICs as already stated by rostec 2014 eng book pdf. Krasukha-20 having a 700km jamming range for AWACs, Very new A-100 system to be introduced by 2020. Rychag-AV jamming 700km not counting the newer version they are creating. Peregrine falcoln 100km jammer for drones, Murmansk-Bn etc etc.

I don’t know where you pull these numbers from but jamming distance isn’t a fixed value.

Their issues for ROFAR is making it optimal as they say. PG-20 of pdf states they have AESA radars working 1-18Ghz ultrabroadband(However KRET was boasting about 1hz-100ghz for ROFAR and obviously being too close to either 1hz and 100ghz will not work well, But the KRET official did say for the mig-41 it used UHF). While most GaAS modules like the F-22s works at a 8-12 Ghz range.

ROFAR is pretty much therotical at the moment, beside, fire control radar operate in 8-12 Ghz range because it give you a good balance between accuracy and atmospheric attenuation, and you wouldn’t want a radar that operate from 1hz and 100ghz because it affects others things like directivity, grating lobes ..etc

It’s also as “marketing-y” as it gets.
Angle looks well within 120° to me

Of course it will look “marketing-y” that the point of advertising video.
Logically, if they wanted to illustrate radar jamming then they would just make the animation the ray from the nose (like in Northrup APG-81 video), no need to super accurate angle

The don’t mention APG-81 because it’s not made by BAE.
We know it can operate without AESA radar

They don’t have to specifically mentioned “APG-81” but logicallyif they intended to show ASQ-239 using APG-81/ALE-70 to transmit jamming signal then they would have atleast said that ASQ-239 can perform electronic attack through radar aperture/towed decoy..etc. No such information was mentioned in the video. Animation of ASQ-239 perform jamming is the same as in EPAWSS and DEWS vid, so why the assumption and excuse that it must means something different?

You’re assuming it must be an active ECM system because other active ECM systems are active ECM systems…

No, i assume that an electronic warfare system that has a threat library and can computing/create jamming waveform for radar/towed decoys to transmit, will also be able to transmit RF waves by its own antenna. To sum up, i consider ASQ-239 to be an active system because:
1- BAE themselves said it can perform jamming and digital electronic attack.
2- BAE videos shows F-35 perform jamming in the same fashion they did with DEWS and EPAWSS videos
3- ASQ-239 have cognitive jamming technology, which is more advanced than most jamming systems.
4- ASQ-239 is able to computing/create jamming waveform for radar/towed decoys.
5- ASQ-239 has more antennas than many active ECM systems.
6- i haven’t heard of any internal electronic warfare system that can computing/create jamming waveform but at the sametime can’t transmit with their own antenna. ( Falcon edge/IDECM/Spectra/DASS/DEWS/EWPASS.. etc, none have that behavior)

Sure but it’s not used when stored or part of ASQ-239

And? Do you consider a fuel probe on F-35B an internal or external system?

1. There seems to be provisions for active elements, as mentioned.
2. Terma Multi Mission Pod

1. The same period when people thought F-35 didn’t have a fiber optic towed decoy
2.That pod will affect RCS. It called a multi mission pod because you can put many things inside such as 25 mm cannon, dedicated EO sensor similar to DB-110, GaN SUPPORT jammer similar to NGJ. We are talking about self-defense jamming systems.

OK. What does it mean? Only the decoy itself is a transmitter. Basically, if I understand it correctly, ASQ-239 tells ALE-70 what to send and ALE-70 sends it. Same with the radar, no?

ASQ-239 uses the onboard computers to generate an optimum jamming pulse, converts it to light, sends it down the fiber optic cable, where the ALE-55/70 converts light to the appropriate frequency and radiates it. In contrast, the earlier ALE-50 had to make all its decisions with its limited onboard logic

Maybe they use legacy components. They also list antennas and transmitters unlike ASQ-239.

No they don’t, they didn’t list antennas and transmitters in DEWS brochure and video. They only talk about Digital Radio Frequency Memory jamming but that is an electronic method for digitally capturing and retransmitting RF signal. In other words, it refer to the process of record signal digitally for later use (adding delays/shift the frequency.. etc) . What will you use to re-transmit signal is not related. Using your logic, we also assume that DEWS is a passive system and can only trasmit through AESA and RT-1489/ALE

No it doesn’t.

The illustration is the same between ASQ-239, EPAWSS and DEWS. So where is the evidence/indication that they refer to towed decoy and radar in ASQ-239 video but airframe aperture in EWPASS and DEWS video?

I was reffering to 360° usage of ALE-70, not aft sector. Clearly it works in the aft sector. The question is does it work 360°, if yes, there you have your 360° active system. But it still isn’t ASQ-239

Actually, how is that relevant?. If i understand correctly, you quote the original article to shows that because F-35 may not have aft jamming => ASQ-239 is a passive system. But that argument doesn’t hold ground because ALE-70 itself can operate as aft jammer.

Of course there is, weight and cost. Adding an active transmitter costs money and eats up internal volume from airframe. Active ECM jammers were very rare in fighter aircraft before the ’90s and even today many have them only as external pods. F-22 also has passive EW system only.
Also, for stealth aircraft, there is simply less need for active EW, in fact often its use would be counter-productive.

Except that you don’t have to add active transmitters , ASQ-239 has 10 antenna aperture. For comparision, Spectra has 8-9 antennas, i don’t see why it is neccesary to add more antenna to ASQ-239 for it to perform similar tasks.
Actually, there are many aircraft with internal jamming system such as:
F-16 block30/50 (ASPIS), F-16 block 50+ ( ASPIS II), F-16E/F (Falcon Edge) , F-15C (ALQ-135) ,F-15E (ALQ-135/DEWS/EPAWSS), F-18C/D (ALQ-165/ALQ-214), F-18E/F(ALQ-214), F-14D (ALQ-165), Mig-29 (L203B), Eurofighter (DASS), Rafale (Spectra), Gripen (MFS-EW). Except F-15 family, all others aircraft mentioned above are smaller than F-35. If internal volume and weight is not a big concern for them , it won’t be for something the size of F-35. It not like a jammer with the weight of 50-80 kg will make an aircraft that weight 13-14 tons much heavier (accounted for 0.3-0.4% of the total weight).
F-22 didn’t have an active jammer because by the time it was design, it didn’t really need one, but F-35 was designed with rack and bay door for Fiber optic towed decoys (basically a towed transmitter) ,so i don’t see why would they limit its ability to trasmit through airframe aperture. Nor is any evidences shows that is the case.

APG-81 has a FoV of 120 degrees has it not. Never mind the rays coming from the center of the aircraft, neither system’s antennas are located there. APG-81 in the nose obviously, ASQ-239 in the wing leading edges.

At least, you admitted they try to illustrate jamming. There is aperture in the inner wing leading edge too
Note that they showed exacty the same thing in EWPASS video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lluNa_BIrpg
The point is they didn’t show that ASQ-239 rely on APG-81 to transmit, nor do they depict that it has to rely on the towed decoy to perform the task. There is no reason at all to believe it perform so different from EPAWSS.

Not only APG-81 but also ALE-70. Note they don’t say jamming must performed with -239 either, but “give pilots the option to evade, engage, counter or jam threats.”

No one say that it must perform jamming through ASQ-239 aperture, all we say is that, it can.

The reason it can’t operate like any other internal jammer might be because it isn’t an internal jammer.

That would make sense only if they didn’t said “Simultaneous jamming without interfering with radar and radar warning receiver”. If it can perform jamming and it is internal, then it is an internal jammer. There is actually nothing to indicate that it have to operate different from Falcon Edge, EPAWSS, ASPIS II..etc.

Anyway, jamming without interfering can be done with ALE-70 or multitasking with AGP-81.

But where is the evidence that it cannot perform jamming just like literally all other internal jammer like: DASS, Spectra, IDECM, Falcon Edge, EPAWSS, ASPIS II..etc?

As to why, same reason the AN/ALR-94 (on which the -239 is based) is passive, active ECM was deemed unnecessary for stealth aircraft.

If actice ECM is deemed unneccesary for the F-35 then it won’t have the towed decoy rack/launcher. The ASQ-239 won’t have a waveform generator and it won’t be able to jam even with the radar or ALE-70 aperture. The fact that ASQ-239 can use APG-81 to jam mean it has a waveform generator, if it can use fiber optic towed decoy, that mean it also has a frequency -light converter ( very similar to IDECM and ALE-55)

I was referring to LRUs/black boxes (though they are actually light gray). The EPAWSS video shows the components at 1:15, among them active stuff like transmitters. Maybe that stuff is all integrated into fewer boxes (Rack 2A/2B) for the -239, but maybe it doesn’t have transmitting components at all.

They have the same number of box, just with different name. Who know what really inside rack2A, Rack2B and countermesure controller box?
The only thing different is that F-35 use the same aperture for receive and transmitting.

Note how it says Radar Warnign System – 360° coverage and refers to the 10 ASQ-239 antennas as radar warning or emitter locating antennas. Both sound passive to me.
Whereas the ESM beacon is coming from the radar with its 120° FoV.

Well that graphic doesn’t even include ALE-70, which we know by now that F-35 has

May = aircraft with 360° jammers, now or in the future (could include F-35)
May not = aircraft without 360° jammers (like F-22, F-35, B-2?)
Boeing is probably aware about what systems were required and are therefore included. Unless requirements were added after they lost?

Actually, given that F-35 carry ALE-70, it is already an aircraft with 360° jammers.
https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsus-approves-1087m-sale-of-ale-70-radio-frequency-countermeasures-to-australia-5893336/

Without a source clearly stating ASQ-239 has active components besides towed decoys and APG-81, I think we should assume it doesn’t have them.

BAE themselves illustrate ASQ-239 perform electronic attack from wing aperture in their video. They also stated ASQ-239 can perform offensive and defensive digital electronic attack and deploy multi spectral counter measure. For what exact reason that they should make ASQ-239 a passive system only?. Moreover, exactly the same wording is used for their EPAWSS brochure, should we also assume EWPASS has no active aperture other than the radar?.

You are going way out of the way to read into the brochure what you want to believe rather than what it actually states

Agreed, couldn’t have said it better
I don’t think BAE could be any clearer with their wording.