To my understanding AESA antennas are tilted upwards to reflect incoming energy away from emitting direction and thus lower frontal RC.

If you have any proof of what you are saying, pls post it.

Sorry dude, but my “proofs” are not online..so well you can claim i’m lying through the internet wisdom

BAE USA, England, Africa, Mars are the same..

Sensor fusion is a old concept, and the 22 was not the first one using it, but guess was the first one doing all the marketing, anyway nice exposition..

You didn’t undertand, they are not covering all the plate, all the elements on PESA can act as receivers too..such huge overhipping on AESA..sometimes is funny

The ALR-94 is a bae product, don’t get me wrong but tales is more advanced on electronic systems, the ALR-94 probably was nice 20 years ago, but i doubt is more advanced than spectra, but then both are electronic stuff, hard to say their real capabilities, and as flex said, well, there is always the “classified” thingy to speculate

A) It is much easier & less costly to design & built flat sides.

Design itself is a fixed cost and should have to do in this case with research and development, and i bet if the “curved” thingy would have better performance, they have chosen “smooth curved” design, and after all the experience designing “gaussians” concepts…they had go with their “gaussian ship”

The point is, a ship does not need to fly, so faceted LO design can be aplicated better, and faceting is the best idea for LO

RCS computer prediction techniques require the outer mold line be broken into triangular cell mesh similar to the finite element analysis mesh used by structural engineers. The 1970s vintage IBM 360 used for Have Blue and F-117 RCS analysis was unable to handle anything other than a very coarse mesh and took the better part of 2 days of CPU time to complete.

Infinite “triangules” turn in a curve, but that is not the thing on stealth, is about to concentrace all your RCS in a place, leaving some “quiet zones”, infinite “triangules” mean infinite returns to a wider area, even the F-117 is a example of the limits that impose the aerodynamics, the “perfect” stealthy shape was the hopeless diamond, it turned more and more poligonal on the 117 not because stealth, but because aerodynamics

All this “canards are bad for LO” is a huge confusion, if you add more control surfaces, yes , potencially your LO characterists will decrease, so if you add canards or more tailplanes, then probably your radar signal could be higher at some aspects, bu that does not mean the canards are not stealthy per ce.

Lockheed research for JSF..

Canard foreplanes are merely an aesthetic feature. FBW does the flying work

Yeah, of course, everything is abut computers,”Wings are merely an aesthetic feature. FBW does the flying work”,seriously your statement is no that far from this last one..

The JSF had considered the use of canards, but due mass balance issues, and aerodynamic balance problems, canards were rejected, so i really doubt having canards affect the RCS of a design, actually there is no hard evidence for that, just usual rumors

The ATF designs rejected canards most likely due supercruiser/drag issues

As for the Su-27/35/33, i think something important was the cost and the added weight for the 35, since sukhoi wanted to fit more electronics on it, so canards went out, i find funny to think these relative small canards would become in a a huge RCS source…considering the shape and size of the flanker

Canards add agility and low speed handling, the problem is to know, if the flanker’s canards were meant to increase the performance or increase the plane’s handling

There is another thing, probably with modern FBW, and systems the Su-37 could have better performance, but these Kg. used on canards would be better used on electronics and wiring for a better multirole aircraft , and a better commercial product