Current F-16 Versions Are World's Most Advanced Multi-Role Fighters?

[DarthAmerica]

Last month, they were about where the F-18Es AESA radar was last September, i.e. in production & undergoing final operational qualification tests before being accepted for service. In an emergency, they'd be used.

I seem to remember you saying much the same about the F-18E before the APG-79 entered OPEVAL (July 2006) as you're saying now, & citing the AESA radar as one of the reasons for its superiority, even though it was then further from operational acceptance than the AASM is now.

[Addendum]
Raytheons website still says the APG-79 is undergoing OPEVAL. What's the expected date for service entry?

1st QTR FY07. And when I mentioned AN/APG-79 before, it was in the context of discussing it's superiority to legacy radars like CAPTOR or RBE2. Exactly how you are relating this to AASM is confusing. The FAF will get about ~70-80 of them throughout the year for testing. They will be of great benefit to Rafale when they reach service. It will bring the Rafale PGM capability near the F-16C, F/A-18C(Circa ~2000). But to even be that competitive it will need Damocles.


DA

 

[tphuang]

They are replacing the Su-24s?

I thought parts of the Su-24 fleet is in the middle of an upgrade programm and the Su-34 are only replacing parts of the fleet.

Sorry, for being off-topic.

I think they are looking to replace some su-24s and tu-22M3. This is one of the articles that mentionned this.

Russian Air Force to add 24 newest warplanes by 2010 - Russia's Defense Ministry
NOVOSIBIRSK: Russia's Defense Ministry will purchase a regiment of 24 newest Su-34 planes for the Air Force by 2010, Deputy Prime Minister, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told reporters on Thursday.

"Everything has been coordinated and decided upon in a short-term perspective. The Defense Ministry was granted the right from 2004 to conclude long-term three-year contacts with defense companies. As a result, two batch-production Su-34 planes will be purchased in 2006, six in 2007, ten in 2008, with purchases increasing in coming years. Therefore, we have to buy a whole regiment of 24 Su-34 planes in 2010," the deputy prime minister said.

Air Force chief Vladimir Mikhailov, who is accompanying Ivanov on his tour of Siberian defense firms, told reporters that two Su-34 have already been manufactured and soon will be supplied to the army.

"It is planned to purchase in the future ten such aircraft each year," he said.

According to the Defense Ministry, the Air Force currently has ten regiments of frontline Su-24 bombers, which will be gradually replaced by new Su-34 fighter-bombers.

The Air Force has 222 Su-24 planes and 100 Su-24MP reconnaissance planes.

Speaking about the modernization of defense sector companies, Ivanov said it should be implemented at the expense of the Investment Fund, not the Stabilization Fund.

"We need to re-equip companies of the defense-industrial complex, because otherwise we'll be unable to develop quality and competitive military hardware. But I doubt that we have to take money from the Stabilization Fund, because there is the Investment Fund available," said the deputy prime minister who in charge for defense sector problems in the Cabinet.

"There's another side to the issue. There are companies that invest their own funds, derived from profit, in the reequipping of production assets," Ivanov said.

For example, the Chkalov aircraft company purchased two high-tech machine tools with its own money, which are as effective as a whole shop.

"One shouldn't make the federal budget carry 100 percent of expenses," the deputy premier said.

NAPO is the largest producer of Su planes. It is part of the Sukhoi aviation holding company. It produces Su-34 fighter-bombers and An-38-120 multi-purpose planes and participates in the program of developing the RRJ regional plane. It also upgrades Su-24M bombers.

 

[Scorpion82]

@Darth

Please name a mission where a ECD would out perform a Super Hornet?

Especially the Typhoon would be superior in the airdefence role at all. One reason for this is the superior supersonic altitude performance, acceleration and climb rate which are essential for short reaction times.

Then there is the matter of the Super Hornet being set up to use the Wideband Networking Waveform, TTNT and is already Link-16 compatible. Now lets face a fact. Typhoons and Rafales are operated by close allies and will probably receive the MIDS JTRS eventually. But this is a FY07 Super Hornet capability and is second to none for NCW so on the basis or NCW comparison, ECD are not competitive with the Super Hornet if NCW is a key requirement...

I have to admit that I missed the MIDS JTRS. Thanks for sharing the links. This information is indeed interesting and I agree with you on that part.

Again, these are incorrect assertions. Not only is the F/A-18E/F's IDECM as capable as SPECTRA or DASS. It also has a towed decoy system. The Super Hornet's AESA also adds superior ELINT and Offensive AEA capability...

http://www.eis.na.baesystems.com/bro...01_b38_001.pdf
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images..._Feb06_EOE.pdf

...this should settle the debate on ECM within reason. The Super Hornet actually has a more comprehensive ECM suite considering the towed decoy. And all ECD lack AEA capability all together.

As mentioned I like to know some additional information especially about the ALR-67(V3). What is interesting me is, if the RWR is able to precisously locate emitters or does it only gibe bearing information.
The AESA offers capabilities not available for any other radar I agree with you on that. A towed radar decoy is available for the Typhoon as well (BAE Systems Ariel). The Super Hornet still lacks MAW and LWR, so I wouldn't say its the most comprehensive EWS. Is it the best? No one can tell you that as these systems are highly classified and a lot of important data are unknown to truely jugde about these systems.

I provided data on sensor fusion. The F/A-18E/F has sensor fusion just like the ECD. You are bringing in a very subjective analysis to even include it. I could sit in a Eurofighter, and for me, I could think its the greatest sensor fusion in the world. Another person may think the F/A-18E has the best. We might as well be discussing which is the best color paint job at this point. MMI???...LOL. All aircraft have MMI. Just more or less. People who have flown and been to war with the Super Hornet scream nothing but praises. Its said to be one of the easiest aircraft in the world to fly. Considering the difference between life and death combat and a manufactures unverified claims, there is no higher praise.

I don't bring in a very subjective analysis. I raise questions, as some factors are unknown to me and I would like to learn more about it for the SH, as this aircraft interests me as well. For an objective comparison it is necessary to know about the capabilities of all the aircraft you want to compare.

...Beyond 60km, on the fly and against unplanned targets while simultaneously firing AMRAAMs conducting terrain avoidance and offensive electronic warfare against threat radars. In addition, the F/A-18F can fight from both cockpits against both air and ground targets independently.

Beyond 60 km with JDAM?
All the other capabilities described, except for EA, are available for the Rafale as well, especially the twinseat B version.

To date, other than state subjective opinion, you have provided no explanation or evidence to suggest that the Super Hornet Lacks behind the ECD in any way.

In fact I want to learn more about the SH blk.2 capabilities. A lot of factors are unknown and as long as information are missing I take the blk 1 modell, adding known improvments and base my comparison on that. If new information are available I include them and I have no problem to admit that I was wrong somewhere, because of some missing details which brought me to a wrong conclusion.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Especially the Typhoon would be superior in the airdefence role at all. One reason for this is the superior supersonic altitude performance, acceleration and climb rate which are essential for short reaction times.

Again, that is not correct. Typhoon and Super Hornet are optimized for different aerodynamic performance based on their design specifications and in the case of the SH, it's true multi-role performance carrier based fighter. I agree that Typhoon is faster and its delta wing offers superior supersonic performance. But absolute flight performance has little to do with actual air combat. I can shot many examples of slower arguably less maneuverable platforms slaughtering faster higher flying aircraft. For example, Mig-25s and SR-71s exceed both Typhoon and Super Hornet in super sonic high altitude performance. But neither of those aircraft would be as competitive. Another example is the F-16 kills vs the Mig-25/29...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16#Combat_service

It's not just the absolute flight performance. It's also the weapons , sensors and situational awareness(NCW) in addition to training ect. We know the Super Hornet enjoys these advantages over Typhoon. So while the Typhoon may out fly a Super Hornet at 50,000ft, what difference is that going to matter in modern combat where the Super Hornets superior sensors out range it's opponents and its able to get the first shot? What difference is it going to matter when the Super Hornets AESA is offensively jamming the threat radar? What difference is it going to matter when the noisy CAPTOR's non-LPI emissions betray its presence long before its able to engage the threat? I'm not saying the Typhoon is bad, just that like the Super Hornet or any other platform, it has strengths and weaknesses. If the Typhoon for what ever reason looses altitude then the advantage swings the other way. So flight performance alone isn't the sole benchmark for which platform is better in a2a combat. This is an era of BVR engagements, stealth and electronic warfare. Those are the Super Hornets strengths in this comparison and they more matter more than absolute performance. Think of it like two guys with guns. One a little slower than the other but with a better gun, better eyesight, better cammo and better communications. It doesn't matter much if his opponent is a world class track star if he is deficient in the areas that determine who wins the fight.

As mentioned I like to know some additional information especially about the ALR-67(V3). What is interesting me is, if the RWR is able to precisously locate emitters or does it only gibe bearing information.
The AESA offers capabilities not available for any other radar I agree with you on that. A towed radar decoy is available for the Typhoon as well (BAE Systems Ariel). The Super Hornet still lacks MAW and LWR, so I wouldn't say its the most comprehensive EWS. Is it the best? No one can tell you that as these systems are highly classified and a lot of important data are unknown to truely jugde about these systems.

The Super Hornet does has a MAW. I'm not aware of a LWR but then again I'm not aware of any laser guided AAMs or SAMs. Not saying they don't or wont exist, just not aware personally.

Here is some info you asked about:

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/sas/documents/asset/alr67.pdf

Beyond 60 km with JDAM?
All the other capabilities described, except for EA, are available for the Rafale as well, especially the twinseat B version.

There are JDAM-ER kits that allow for ranges of up to 90km. Also SDB has a range of well over 100km. What capabilities are you claiming for the Rafale?




DA

 

[Scorpion82]

@Darth

Again, that is not correct. Typhoon and Super Hornet are optimized for different aerodynamic performance based on their design specifications and in the case of the SH, it's true multi-role performance carrier based fighter. I agree that Typhoon is faster and its delta wing offers superior supersonic performance. But absolute flight performance has little to do with actual air combat. I can shot many examples of slower arguably less maneuverable platforms slaughtering faster higher flying aircraft. For example, Mig-25s and SR-71s exceed both Typhoon and Super Hornet in super sonic high altitude performance. But neither of those aircraft would be as competitive. Another example is the F-16 kills vs the Mig-25/29...

Don't get me wrong. I didn't mean that flight performance is all what's needed. Performance is one factor of many and it may improve the chance to make the first shot. For sure you need the look before you make the shot. And I don't speak about absolute performance. The Super Hornet has been designed as a carrier born MRF, but that's the reason why its aerodynamics are compromised and its aircombat performance suffers. That doesn't mean that the SH would automatically loose a fight or being inferior. It's only ONE of many factors.

It's not just the absolute flight performance. It's also the weapons , sensors and situational awareness(NCW) in addition to training ect. We know the Super Hornet enjoys these advantages over Typhoon. So while the Typhoon may out fly a Super Hornet at 50,000ft, what difference is that going to matter in modern combat where the Super Hornets superior sensors out range it's opponents and its able to get the first shot? What difference is it going to matter when the Super Hornets AESA is offensively jamming the threat radar? What difference is it going to matter when the noisy CAPTOR's non-LPI emissions betray its presence long before its able to engage the threat? I'm not saying the Typhoon is bad, just that like the Super Hornet or any other platform, it has strengths and weaknesses. If the Typhoon for what ever reason looses altitude then the advantage swings the other way. So flight performance alone isn't the sole benchmark for which platform is better in a2a combat.

Though the SH crew enjoys an edge thanks to the AESA and improved NCW capbilities (which aren't operational yet?), the Typhoon can detect an enemy early enough. And AESA don't gives you the guarantee not to be detected! The Typhoon can hide its presence away from the enemy using PIRATE and DASS or even better the MIDS. With the correct support and/or tactics the Typhoon is able to operate silently.

The Super Hornet does has a MAW. I'm not aware of a LWR but then again I'm not aware of any laser guided AAMs or SAMs. Not saying they don't or wont exist, just not aware personally.

Here is some info you asked about:

http://www.raytheon.com/products/ste...sset/alr67.pdf

First thanks for the link to the ALR-67(V3).
About the SH having MAW is there any information available? I never heared about MAW for the SH and I'm reltive sure that such a system wasn't available at least for the block 1 modells.
LWR can also alert you in the case of laser range finders are used. They can be useful in close-range aerial engagements and in AG operations, though I have no idea about laser guided missiles too.

What capabilities are you claiming for the Rafale?

In a twin seat Rafale B the crew can perform AA and AG stuff simultaneously. The RBE2 was in fact the first radar with the ability to interleave AA and AG ops. The aircraft can attack targets with AASM previously unknown and not pre-planned. Meaning to fly low, while attacking air threats and ground threats simultaneously, jamming threat emitters is a capability provided by the Rafale B too.


BTW just for info. I'm currently writing a revised version of my article "Eurofighter Typhoon in aircombat". The article describes the aircraft's current capabilities in aircombat and that which are proposed for the future. The article deals with both dogfighting and BVR combat. I think I can release it the next weekend here.
The prevoius version is available as well on 2 other forums. But I say wait for the new one which is more compact, excluding some details which are nice to know but not that important at all.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Don't get me wrong. I didn't mean that flight performance is all what's needed. Performance is one factor of many and it may improve the chance to make the first shot. For sure you need the look before you make the shot. And I don't speak about absolute performance. The Super Hornet has been designed as a carrier born MRF, but that's the reason why its aerodynamics are compromised and its aircombat performance suffers. That doesn't mean that the SH would automatically loose a fight or being inferior. It's only ONE of many factors.

I agree its only one factor. ALL things considered though the current SH vs the EF in the a2a role the SH has MORE decisive advantages not unlike the advantages the F-16 enjoyed over Mig-29s. Now I do acknowledge that the EF has the potential to be as competitive at sometime in the future when its sensors, weapons and NCW capabilities are brought up to similar levels of performance. The EF is after all primarily an a2a fighter with a secondary a2g role. Its just like comparing todays Mig-29/35 with todays M2000 or F-16(except the Blk 60). Over time, Russia has improved the Mig to the point of being on par. But it took time and the the blk 60 took the state of the art even further. Over time, the EF will get an AESA, METEOR and maybe higher bandwidth NCW capabilities. When this happens it will have more formidable a2a performance to compliment its flight performance. We will have to see where the SH is at that point and evaluate this question again.

Though the SH crew enjoys an edge thanks to the AESA and improved NCW capbilities (which aren't operational yet?), the Typhoon can detect an enemy early enough. And AESA don't gives you the guarantee not to be detected! The Typhoon can hide its presence away from the enemy using PIRATE and DASS or even better the MIDS. With the correct support and/or tactics the Typhoon is able to operate silently.

Nothing can guarantee not being detected. But an AESA LPI radar makes that much harder, much more resistant to ECM and offers significantly lower RCS over a mechanical scan dish antenna. Anyway you look at it the SH radar gives considerable advantage. Tactics can increase any aircrafts survivability but the additional feature of the AESA gives the power of active surveillance which in turn allows for much longer range and improved situational awareness. Using DASS, PIRATE and MIDS by comparison would limit the effective area a Typhoon could cover and require LOS to Link-16 equipped platforms using detectable emissions.

First thanks for the link to the ALR-67(V3).
About the SH having MAW is there any information available? I never heared about MAW for the SH and I'm reltive sure that such a system wasn't available at least for the block 1 modells.
LWR can also alert you in the case of laser range finders are used. They can be useful in close-range aerial engagements and in AG operations, though I have no idea about laser guided missiles too.

http://www.eis.na.baesystems.com/brochures/pdfs/05_b22.pdf

In a twin seat Rafale B the crew can perform AA and AG stuff simultaneously. The RBE2 was in fact the first radar with the ability to interleave AA and AG ops. The aircraft can attack targets with AASM previously unknown and not pre-planned. Meaning to fly low, while attacking air threats and ground threats simultaneously, jamming threat emitters is a capability provided by the Rafale B too.

They can do it as a crew, but not individually. Rafale does not have "decoupled" cockpits. If that's changes could you advise please. Also, RBE2 isn't the first radar to do that. Actually it wasn't even done by a fighter first...

BTW just for info. I'm currently writing a revised version of my article "Eurofighter Typhoon in aircombat". The article describes the aircraft's current capabilities in aircombat and that which are proposed for the future. The article deals with both dogfighting and BVR combat. I think I can release it the next weekend here.
The prevoius version is available as well on 2 other forums. But I say wait for the new one which is more compact, excluding some details which are nice to know but not that important at all.

I would love to read it. Could you PM me the links to the other forums?




DA

 

[Scorpion82]

They can do it as a crew, but not individually. Rafale does not have "decoupled" cockpits. If that's changes could you advise please. Also, RBE2 isn't the first radar to do that. Actually it wasn't even done by a fighter first...

There you are wrong informed. Rafale B's cockpits can be operated "coupled" for training and "decoupled" for combat operations. I meant the RBE2 was the first fighter radar to be designed and introduced with that capability.

For further information the developers Fox3 publications are useful, though you won't find an answer for everything.

http://new.isoshop.com/dae/dae/gauche/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/index.htm

would love to read it. Could you PM me the links to the other forums?

I PM you the link to one of the forums.

 

[DarthAmerica]

There you are wrong informed. Rafale B's cockpits can be operated "coupled" for training and "decoupled" for combat operations. I meant the RBE2 was the first fighter radar to be designed and introduced with that capability.

If the Rafale has decoupled pits, thats great and I was not aware of that. Sorting all the info I read on Rafale is hard. But thanks for the update. If you know a link that references it I'd also be interested in studying it. I'll do some looking of my own though and If I find out anything I'll post it here.

Also, when we discussed real time targeting of JDAMs or AASMs. Were you suggesting something akin to this...

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q4/nr_031021m.html

...I'd like to know. The reason why is that I dont doubt the Rafale/AASM combo being able to go after point targets handed off to it during a mission. But outside of that, typically Satellite guided munitions require "pre-planned" targets which is a little different. Do you understand what I'm trying to explain?



Thanks
DA

 

[crobato]

Nothing can guarantee not being detected. But an AESA LPI radar makes that much harder, much more resistant to ECM and offers significantly lower RCS over a mechanical scan dish antenna.

That is not necessarily true. LPI by virtue of its weak signals, actually makes it more vulnerable to ECM. Strong signals, not weak ones, are what you need to burn through ECM.

RCS? No. The materials used on T/R modules, mainly Gallenium Arsenide, is not radar absorbant. It will reflect radar just like anything else. And its not the function of the array itself to reduce RCS or anything.

This has to do with the design of the radome, and that's independent of AESA or MSA techniques. Which means both systems can avail of this. Radomes can use a frequency selective material that absorbs all frequencies except the ones the radar uses and lets those pass. By doing so, it reduces RCS and counters ECM at the same time (stopping all unneeded radiation), except if the ECM happens to be exactly on the right frequency the radar is using. That's why effective ECM is matter of good SIGINT.

The hope of LPI is that enemy SIGINT won't detect it. But if it so happens to be compromised by espionage and even more clever SIGINT, then it can even be intercepted and jammed if the enemy knows what they are looking for precisely.

 

[Scorpion82]

That is not necessarily true. LPI by virtue of its weak signals, actually makes it more vulnerable to ECM. Strong signals, not weak ones, are what you need to burn through ECM.

RCS? No. The materials used on T/R modules, mainly Gallenium Arsenide, is not radar absorbant. It will reflect radar just like anything else. And its not the function of the array itself to reduce RCS or anything.

This has to do with the design of the radome, and that's independent of AESA or MSA techniques. Which means both systems can avail of this. Radomes can use a frequency selective material that absorbs all frequencies except the ones the radar uses and lets those pass. By doing so, it reduces RCS and counters ECM at the same time (stopping all unneeded radiation), except if the ECM happens to be exactly on the right frequency the radar is using. That's why effective ECM is matter of good SIGINT.

The hope of LPI is that enemy SIGINT won't detect it. But if it so happens to be compromised by espionage and even more clever SIGINT, then it can even be intercepted and jammed if the enemy knows what they are looking for precisely.

Crobato AESA offers some capabilities that increase ECM resistance. For example the AESA radar can create a null on the radiation pattern in the direction of a jammer, "thus" gating it out. AESA additionally offers a significant higher scanning speed and the processors used (they are necessary for the AESA radar operation) further improve the CM resistance.
Most current radoms are optimized to accept the own emissions only, but you have to take into account that advanced radars use different frequencies. Todays jammers will generate similar jamming signals which are optimized in waveform/freqeuncy and power to match the emitter to be encountered. For stealth the AESA refelects incoming signals less good than a MSA, though I'm not aware how this is exactly achieved. Advanced systems such as the APG-79 or APG-81 have antennas with a slight look up angle. This reduces the RCS as there is no direct 90° angle when looking at it from the front.

 

[Scorpion82]

If the Rafale has decoupled pits, thats great and I was not aware of that. Sorting all the info I read on Rafale is hard. But thanks for the update. If you know a link that references it I'd also be interested in studying it. I'll do some looking of my own though and If I find out anything I'll post it here.

I try to find a link or something like that about this capability. But most information are "stored" in my head and its not that easy for me to assosiate them with links, not to speak about information which aren't gathered from the internet. If you find the time try to read the fox3 publications they contain a lot of interesting information.

Also, when we discussed real time targeting of JDAMs or AASMs. Were you suggesting something akin to this...

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q4/nr_031021m.html

...I'd like to know. The reason why is that I dont doubt the Rafale/AASM combo being able to go after point targets handed off to it during a mission. But outside of that, typically Satellite guided munitions require "pre-planned" targets which is a little different. Do you understand what I'm trying to explain?

I know what you mean. The solution behind this is to 1.) being able to re-programme the weapon's target coordinates and 2.) to gather position data accurate enough to perform an attack. I recently read about AdA Rafales which took part in the TLP excercise in Spain. These aircraft from the Opeval unit EC5/330 has simulated attacked a SAM site with AASM using the data of the aircraft's EWS (namly the Spectra). Such a capability is developed for the Typhoon as well, it is designated "precision targeting" (PT). But this capability is probably not be available before block 15 which will be delivered around 2012. I could give you a link, but it's in german. If you want I can give it to you. The alternative is that I directly give you a summary of the text in english.

Scorpion

 

[DarthAmerica]

That is not necessarily true. LPI by virtue of its weak signals, actually makes it more vulnerable to ECM. Strong signals, not weak ones, are what you need to burn through ECM.

RCS? No. The materials used on T/R modules, mainly Gallenium Arsenide, is not radar absorbant. It will reflect radar just like anything else. And its not the function of the array itself to reduce RCS or anything.

Weak signal? No. In fact they are strong enough to have weapons effects in some cases. Its spacial/temporal power management, bandwidth and low side lobes. With regard to RCS, AESA antenna are definitely an advantage over a large metal dish antenna that is designed to capture and xmit RF signals.


DA

 

[crobato]

Weak signal? No. In fact they are strong enough to have weapons effects in some cases. Its spacial/temporal power management, bandwidth and low side lobes. With regard to RCS, AESA antenna are definitely an advantage over a large metal dish antenna that is designed to capture and xmit RF signals.


DA

Paradox. If LPI is strong enough to have weapons effects, then it would more than trigger RWRs.

Why don't you give me some technical explanations how an AESA array can have a lower RCS than a metal antenna? By the way, RAM uses ferrite compounds, and ferrite is what is used in metal antennas. Here is another clue for you---in favor of the metal antenna. RCS is a matter of deflecting radar reflections away from the broadcast source to prevent the source from receiving it. AESAs and PESAs are generally set on a fixed, or sometimes slightly movable mount. Guess what, having your array facing forward is the worst possible way to reduce RCS. But slotted arrays are almost set in angles. Have you ever seen a slotted array in action? They can be set in any angle to prevent the reflections from going forward.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Paradox. If LPI is strong enough to have weapons effects, then it would more than trigger RWRs.

Why don't you give me some technical explanations how an AESA array can have a lower RCS than a metal antenna? By the way, RAM uses ferrite compounds, and ferrite is what is used in metal antennas. Here is another clue for you---in favor of the metal antenna. RCS is a matter of deflecting radar reflections away from the broadcast source to prevent the source from receiving it. AESAs and PESAs are generally set on a fixed, or sometimes slightly movable mount. Guess what, having your array facing forward is the worst possible way to reduce RCS. But slotted arrays are almost set in angles. Have you ever seen a slotted array in action? They can be set in any angle to prevent the reflections from going forward.

If you notice in my quote I said, "Some Cases".



DA

 

[crobato]

Crobato AESA offers some capabilities that increase ECM resistance. For example the AESA radar can create a null on the radiation pattern in the direction of a jammer, "thus" gating it out. AESA additionally offers a significant higher scanning speed and the processors used (they are necessary for the AESA radar operation) further improve the CM resistance.
Most current radoms are optimized to accept the own emissions only, but you have to take into account that advanced radars use different frequencies. Todays jammers will generate similar jamming signals which are optimized in waveform/freqeuncy and power to match the emitter to be encountered. For stealth the AESA refelects incoming signals less good than a MSA, though I'm not aware how this is exactly achieved. Advanced systems such as the APG-79 or APG-81 have antennas with a slight look up angle. This reduces the RCS as there is no direct 90° angle when looking at it from the front.

Yes, but radomes can catch and absorb radar that is also reflected out of the array. Being frequency selective, they work in both directions. Materials used on AESA are hardly what you call radar absorbent either. As a matter of fact, they need to use a metal frame to not only support the TR modules, but also in order to dissipate heat. The thermal emissions of AESA can actually make the radar more visible to an IRST, and heat is a generous byproduct of phase shifting.

While ESAs have a slight angle to the arrays, slotted arrays can enjoy much greater angles, so they can reflect radar away from the source. If you look at missle seekers, focal planes are often tilted, so the missiles can reduce RCS.

ECM and jammers are usually ahead of the curve over conventional radar designs. The Soviets were using phase arrays on their ECM pods long before they Russians were using them as fighter radars. Likewise, you can expect ECM to be using PESAs and AESAs as well.

 

[knightz33]

Current F-16 Versions Are World's Most Advanced Multi-Role Fighters? in Military Avia

OK, if we disregard the Su-30 MKI and the F-18 super hornet, then we can say that the latest F-16 is the best

Yup, i agree....that includes the f-15, f-22 and the Rafale too!!!