And UAI will end the practice of “AMRAAM Diplomacy”

In that case, I will gratefully reject your 15-year head start in development and operational use, thank you 🙂

If you would have researched the proposals you would have known that it’s going to take 4 Elta arrays to cover what was only going to take 2 APG-81s. Not only that, but they are substantially lower in performance vs the -81. (1024 T&Rs vs 1600+).

Like I said, it’s about meeting spec while keeping costs low.

The -81s were overkill vs the spec.

Sorry, got the First Flight and IOC dates mixed.

“Almost” 20 years become “Almost” 15 years.

Premise still stands.

To assume that a company’s 1st attempt at a fighter AESA will overcome a 15 head start in development and operational use is displaying a large amount of hubris, especially considering that budgets are more of a problem for that 1st time company.

European AESA fighter radars have been in front-line service for a while.

What do you define as “a while”?

Complacent? Hardly.

Complacent would be claiming superiority or even parity without ever doing it before.

Complacency would be thinking slapping OTS systems into existing 4th gen fighters will make them competitive/survivable for the next 25+ years.

Ah, so you expect Japan to lead the world in “processing of what it does receive” in fighter AESAs, since it had the first one declared operational.

Japan had the first fighter AESA (they beat the US by a few months), but stopped there (no other Japanese fighters use AESA). They have limited operational experience while the US has developed/used AESA radars in no less than 8 fighter/radar combos in every corner of the globe (on top of the plethora of other AESA radar types they use).

Of course, there’s no cross-over from non-fighter AESAs (even other airborne AESAs) to those on fighters, & spending lots of time working alongside the developers of non-fighter AESAs & working with arrays on testbeds while waiting for fighter hardware to catch up & governments to pay for production models doesn’t count for anything.

I am not saying that they don’t have some experience, just not as much as the US. If it were that easy, then why has the EF & Rafale AESA programs programs taken so long? I’m not saying that they won’t work, just not as well as US systems given their lead in developing, using, learning from their use, and implementing those lessons into the next version.

but how do all those extra modules track the photons that go screaming past the edges of a smaller aperture?

By better processing of what it does receive. Remember that is is not NG’s first time at the rodeo of Fighter AESA (unlike Rafale, Eurofigher, Saab, Su, Mig, etc).

Besides, It’s certainly not that small and is on par with the APG-79 and is likely bigger than the APG-80, Rafale SAAB, etc.

On another note, what is the black foam behind the radiating elements, RCS reduction measures?

I would not be surprised if it contained RAM. This way incoming radar waves don’t get to bounce off of the sides of the AESA mount or back of the bulkhead.

You may be right in that’t intentional as an inspection mirror issue.

Here is a wider shot from the same angle and you can see from the JSF Decal on the Fuselage that the photo is not reversed.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235979[/ATTACH]