The fact remains, France has to date produced only a handful of AESA radars, none of which are competitive with the latest US designs.
.
i know (and i use it sometimes :angel:) the fact that on a forum it is funny to exaggerate, any clue about what you are saying apart from personal opinion? PS Thalès is producing ground/sea AESA for a bunch of time now (including in cooperation with Raytheon btw.)
and if the RBE-2 was always designed to be upgraded to an AESA design, why doesn’t it include the features the more modern US radars do? Why is it -just- a radar while the US has moved on to radars that are so much more?
Because jamming etc. Are dedicated to spectra antennae (remember, the ones GaN made flying this year, if not already done)? Btw there are some nice functions like very low level automatic followground.
Really, France launched development of a “stop gap” radar in 1989 with the intention of replacing its antenna ~25 years later?
A radar since the beginning aimed to evolve to an AESA? Yes.
And we are to believe this, while you take everything we say (with northrop grumman links) about the Apg-81 having removable assemblies and being easy to upgrade with a BUCKET of sale? Hypocrisy ?
Partly , yes (hypocrisy). Aimed to what goal in your opinion?
Spud – Yes, Rover appeared after SDD started.
However, it is now essential (that is, it has been mandatory for CAS in some AORs) for the primary mission of the third largest customer, and has been so since 2008-10. If not added outside the Block process it will not now be available until 2022, seven years after that customer’s alleged IOC and 14 years after its value was recognized.
Clearly, a highly flexible and adaptable system.
. That was my point, i would really love to know if this due to the rigidity of the system or of the program management. And personally i’m really pissed with that rover missing capability (you know why). One of the defects of F-35 i’d sincerely love to see corrected quickly, even if i’m not found of the program.
How is this the F-35, or Northrop Grumman/Lockheed Martin’s fault? Or how does this even remotely relate to the fact that northrop grumman had design goals in mind when they designed the APg-81, and ended up meeting those design goals?
See above. And keep in mind we are on a forum, some sentences are as much made to people react(and think) than anything else. Call it trolling if you wish, but sometimes some US citizens (def not all) need to be trolled (kindly, i have no aggro to any of you)
I would suspect that by 2020 Northrop would have capacity to shift Apg-81 T-R module production over to GaN
In the end that is my question, is APG-81 software architecture able to accept that without extensive change? Aswell as eg cheek arrays. RBE2 can.
In the end non quoted biggest RBE2 issue : not really fully interleaved (incomming on indian version, but not yet uin place). That is a big issue! On the other hand it has qualities : wide angle for a fixed antenna, good range, excellent discrimination etc.
Sign In
