Don’t know what experience you’re talking about re the F-16 and LM , certainly LM did not built and upgraded it until at least Block-50/52 (of course , you already knew that). Did they designed and built themselves the Block-50+/52+ and Block-60 or were they already designed when LM took over GD ?

The General Dynamics Fort Worth Division (where the F-16 was designed and is still being built) was sold to LM in 1993 (about half way through the Blk 40/42 production run, just after Blk 50/52 started, and before Blk 60 or the F-2 started). This is the same location that the F-35 was designed and is being built. So yes, the F-16 experience directly applies.

If we were to proceed according to your logic then LM should never have won the JSF competition, at least not for the Marine version. What practical experience did they have with VTOL fighters compared to MDD/Boeing which have developed and built Harrier I and IIs for decades.

The JSF is a tri-service fighter and experience from LM (F-22 & F-16), Northrop Grumman (YF-23, F-14 & A-6), and BAE (AV-8) allowed it to produce a better fighter that served all three roles (the primary role being a F-16 replacement).

As to European AESA: I did not say that their first version would only be as good as the APG-63(v)2, only that it will not measure up to the APG-77/81, especially in the area of LPI.

IIRC the RAAF preferred the longer range of the ASRAAM over the better maneuverability & seeker of the 9X for their F/A-18As. It was a doctrinal decision that favored long range bomber defense (as opposed to WVR combat), not a technical one. IIRC, their new F/A-18E/Fs are not setup for the ASRAAM.

It took the ROW how many years to start deploying AESA? Yet you think that they are at the same level of US tech despite the US having a 10+ year lead in airborne AESA tech?

You’re must be right. Considering that LPI must be so easy that a student can do it, I am surprised that any RwR works at all. 😉

Yet Raytheon does not claim APG-77/81 levels of LPI.

however an aircraft scheduled on a production line, however uber, can not beat an aircraft that is actually flying.

If we always used that analogy, nobody would ever develop a new fighter.

They have to do so, when demanded by the US forces because the related development work is payed by the US-taxpayer. It was done in the past. 😎
The only exception is a private development work without the input from technology payed from public money. Just that know how can not be vetoed by the administration for exports or given to foreign investors.

You are not serious. NG has demanded the same from ITT few years ago regarding night vision technology. It was a public funded research and they got all results they demanded, even if patented by ITT.

As SENS stated, it depends on who PAID for the work on the LPI encoding. If NG (if they were smart) spent their own cash on the LPI modes (unarguably then most important aspect of the radar unit) then they cannot be forced to give it up.

If the LPI IP can be obtained so easily, then why has Raytheon not done so with the APG-63(V)3, 79, and 82(V)1?