Nah, that report is on the page about the F-15EX (pages 320-323), while the report about the specific capabilities of the EPAWSS is on pages 316-319).
Source
Against the levelof threat tested, the F-15EX isoperationally effective in all itsair superiority roles, includingdefensive and offensive counter-airagainst surrogate fifth-generationadversary aircraft, as well as basicair-to-ground capability against thetested threats. The F-15EX wasable to detect and track all threatsat advantageous ranges, useonboard and off-board systems toidentify them, and deliver weaponswhile surviving.
That's a 4th gen aircraft pretending to be an enemy 5th gen.
As part of offensive anddefensive counter-air missions,various fourth- and fifth-generationAir Force and Navy aircraft actedas threat surrogates against theEPAWSS-equipped F-15s.
Here, they mention both types acting as surrogates, which I'm fine with, 'cause it was an EW test.
If the F-15EX showed extraordinary capabilities against the F-35, then it's the F-35 that's in trouble globally. The F-15EX is quite generic today.
The USAF is not expecting the F-15EX to fight J-20s. They are planning on deploying 36 to Japan for its tactical payload, the ability to carry certain types of very heavy bombs and missiles that the F-22 and F-35 cannot, like the GBU-72 and HACM. The advanced EW suite is meant to keep it alive.
The comparison is highly irrelevant. The Irbis-E is a PESA radar, its technological leap is very far from the AESA radar, while the difference between GaAs & GaN is not too significant. The comparison factor is often just a matter of cost efficiency or weight of the radar, as in the case of the PhantomStrike, which was designed to provide SABR capabilities with less weight and cost, or the APG-79(v)4 radar, which is only for legacy Hornet, not the Super Hornet.
Again, the goal is to achieve the "same" capability as the Super Hornet radar, but with less weight and cost.
You don't seem to know much about radars, so here goes. The Irbis-E has 2 transmitters and 4 receiver channels. While its only drawback is using phase shifters for beam steering, its baseline performance is superior to any AESA radar which has just 2 receiver channels. It means the Irbis-E has more multi-function capabilities than a standard AESA radar, ie, the APG-60, APG-63v3, and APG-77v1, which have just 2 receivers. The Americans later developed the SABR and RACR with options for 4 and an upgrade to 6 receivers. This was introduced on APG-63v3 along with the APG-79's backend to create the F-15EX's APG-82. So all they did is add 2 additional receivers and the SH's signal processor to the APG-63v3. That's all it is. In most functions, it's very similar to the Irbis-E 'cause it has the same amount of receivers. The AESA has some extra software features that make it better, plus it's newer compared to at 15-year-old radar, but in terms of raw performance, both are similar.
With each receiver, you get to perform a function. So with one you could do track while scan. With a second one you could lock-on. With a third, you can suppress side lobes. With the fourth you can track ground targets. With a fifth you can perform CW. With a sixth, EW. And so on. But this is an analog system. So both analog AESA and PESA can do almost the same things.
The S-400 radar system is PESA. Each radar has multiple transmitters and receivers, to the point where a single piddly little fighter cannot defeat it. You need specialized EA aircraft like the Growler with NGJ or the the F-35's radar even if against a limited X band. Or just stealth. And an S-400 site has many radars doing multiple things at the same time. That's why PESA is still competitive. The difficulty of getting through with EW alone is why the US worked so hard on stealth.
With a digital antenna, you get to have any number of receivers as you want. You could have a few dozen, where each LRU or plank can have its own receiver, so you could have 12 or 24 or whatever. Or you could have 1 receiver for each TRM, which is a step below the ultimate form of a digital antenna, so 1000 TRMs with 1000 receivers. The ultimate one is an antenna that can simultaneously transmit and receive, called a STAR antenna. I don't think we are there yet, at least as a flying specimen. This is called a digital radar. Uttam and the new RBE2 AESA are examples. So now both GaAs and GaN radars are being designed with digital antennas.
As for GaAs and GaN, the difference is heaven and earth. GaAs' thermal conductivity, size, operating temperature, sensitivity, and bandwidth are extremely low compared to GaN. Forget conductivity, size, sensitivity, or temp, due to the bandwidth difference alone GaN makes GaAs completely obsolete. For example, GaN can work at 100-200% of its center frequency, which means if your antenna can do 8-12 GHz, it can form a signal across that entire bandwidth (ultra-wideband). GaAs can only do 25-50% (wideband). Below 25% is narrowband, most radars are here. So if you use a single GaAs antenna to detect a UWB signal, it will lose pretty much all of the data. It won't even be able to copy the entire signal. GaN makes everything below it obsolete.
So the ultimate one will be GaN-on-diamond with STAR antenna design before the radar undergoes its next physical evolution after mechanical scan.
To sum it up, PESA is competitive with analog AESA. Digital AESA is the next level. GaN-on-diamond is the place to be.
Now how advanced do you think the F-15EX's analog GaAs radar will be compared to a GaN-on-diamond digital array on the F-35, Rafale F5, J-20B etc?
I don't think this is propaganda, because only this report says so, there is no propaganda movement, for example, to get this information to appear in other news media.
Based on your newfound knowledge, what do you think about such a claim?
Comparing the power of a fighter jet mission computer to a console is completely irrelevant. Computing on a fighter jet is much more complex, and frankly, the 75 gigaflops figure for the F-35 is not a confirmed number. But what is clear is that, at least in 2018, the ADCP II has been confirmed to outperform all the fighters in the world, including Rafale, EFT, F-35, etc.
The PS5 uses all that power for graphics, while the F-35 uses it for both. The difference is you posted a number for both F-15EX and F-35, but the F-35 has gone up by a significant number. The PS5 example was to illustrate the fact that you can take computing to any point you want, based on the need. And the F-35 needs multiple times more processing than the F-15EX.
Nah, the internal fuel of the F-15EX is 6.1 tons, that's twice as much as the Gripen E and LCA MK2 (3.4 tons).
Yeah, but that fuel is carrying how much weight and powering how many engines?
There's something called fuel fraction. It's calculated by dividing the weight of the fuel by the sum of the weight of the aircraft and fuel.
LCA Mk2 weighs 7.8T, fuel 3.4T, so FF is 0.3.
F-15EX weighs 16T, carries 6T of fuel, so FF is 0.27.
Similarly AMCA is 0.35 (probably gone up after a redesign). And the F-35A's is 0.38. F-22 is at 0.29.
Now LCA Mk1 is at 0.27. Mig-29S is at 0.24. So this is where the F-15EX is at. And with two high-thrust engines, its range with just internal fuel is tactically useless. That's why it has to carry CFTs and external tanks to be useful. Its real payload is actually quite small 'cause it's carrying 15.5T of fuel just to be as useful as an LCA Mk2. That's why its only useful ability is its large centerline payload where it can sling a heavy weapon.
Su-35's FF is 0.38. Su-57's is probably well above 0.4. The F-15EX can't fight these jets. And MKI MLU will be leagues ahead.
