Woah...
AESA was never created to detect stealth so this article is moot. AESA emits a reduced radar signature while scanning across a wide range of frequencies.
Not to mention these people believe just because an F-117 went down thanks to a well-programmed SA-3, they can do the same to a more modern stealth platform. I’m sure it can be done but no one has really tried to shoot down an F-35 or F-22.
Props for loiter time.
A single AESA array on an AWACS style aircraft can’t see stealth craft, no. However, it’s been shown that if someone has two or preferably three or more radar systems that are datalinked, they *can*. Not well enough to get a missile lock but well enough to vector fighters to it.
Want to bet these have datalinks?
Also, it should be mentioned that in exercises when deprived of their AWACS support, the F-22 and F-35 actually have lost to older fighters.
“I’m sure it can be done but no one has really tried to shoot down an F-35 or F-22.”
The economics of stealth is questionable. We invest huge amounts of money in a plane, which at its inception has x capability to penetrate defenses. The plane’s technology will remain relatively static over its life. The detection systems, however, are relatively cheap and will benefit from Moore’s law as time goes on. They will be more and more networked and process faster and faster. I think, eventually, the platforms we have invested in so heavily will be next to useless. So what if it has the footprint of a sparrow if the system looking for it reports a sparrow doing Mach .8?
Frankly, I think we have bet too heavily on the wrong horse. I’d like to see more investment in autonomous drones. They are relatively disposable and relatively cheap.