Unless you make them smaller (this might actually happen with RBE2-XG, also thanks to the new module technology they will use for it) in-order to have more space for more T/R modules, yes - However, the current RBE2-AA doesn’t have any space for ~200 additional modules. It would also require a major airframe change to fit a bigger Radar as far as I know.
(Even though there are rumors about a new Airframe being planned for F.6, also to increase stealth capabilites…)
going off of T/R module count wouldnt that make it one of the weakest, if not the weakest, production AESA ever?
wow you guys are really false flagging now huh?
The problem is that the module cannot be “smaller”. Its size is determined by the frequency (length of the emitted wave) of the radar. If there are fewer modules than advertised, the radar’s characteristics are worse than advertised.
I don’t know. Signal processing is important too. But all other things being equal, the fewer modules, the worse the performance.
You can always supplement the raw performance with processing and how system handles tracks and so on.
And first western out of US aesa on fighter jet… noone else in EU could do that until recently. If france had military budget of US and could actually throw same ammount of cash into weapon development, they would probably dwarf US weapons and platforms in capabilities significantly.
true, but the potential of the system is limited by the number of T/R modules
and process is either equal or worse than equivalents as like you said, RBE2 AA was the first from europe so wouldnt have as refined features like that
Well, the later AESAs arent really equivalent, are they, they are nearly decade younger systems in age where radar tech progresses with lightning speed.
Stealth as we know it, might aswell be dead within next decade or so.
refined features, such as ?
US had AESA in 90’s , we have had far more time to refine and develop stuff like processing and more than enoguh money to do so, and demand for it from the military
@dedale_stargate i mean more refined signal processing capabilities from decades of R&D and operational use
Its obviously time for Dassault to bring new aesa panel with more modules and preferably rotating so it can tilt to the sides to stay relevant into the future.
This would need larger dome but now, its radar will be more and more obsolete.
But back then, you couldnt get anything better on the market. US stuff was on 5th gen or not for export.
France would sell you AESA rafale without blink of an eye.
I guess its not that bad, considering users of AESA Typhoons are getting Rafales now.
when was aesa rafale made?
Development started during 90s, production from 2008 and french rafales started using it from 2013.
I’m pretty sure the japanese were the first one to use it in a “widespread” manner, with different families (f2, some destroyers and what not). This was one of their main reasons to be quite unhappy with the AESA rafale addition before the F-2 (rightfully so, i might add)
USA started using AESA on its fighter in 1999 afaik
F-16E, AN/APG-80 AESA radar, 2003
F-15SG, AN/APG-63v3 AESA radar, 2008
USA was first to export AESA, your claim is false
we tested AN/APG-77 (F-22 radar) on a boeing 757 in 1997, but yes, the japanese tested their F-2’s AESA before then
Your discussion is drifting the topic away, if you want to keep it going please move it elsewhere or to PM.
can you make a PM gc to keep the discussion going with both or do i have to do serpately
You have to.
Keep in mind that the RBE2 AESA was upgraded over the years and more radar modes were added, capabilities expanded and even the range of the radar increased over the years. So it’s not that the radar was delivered and that was that.
While the RBE2 AESA has a limited number of T/R modules compared to other radars and does not have the raw performance of newer AESA radars, it was on the flipside a more mature product with more “refined features” as you put it.
F-35 production is also booked, what you are saying is nonsense. The Rafale is good, but it’s not great.