Not sure what kind of maintenance 'headaches' are you talking about here. Flightline maintenance takes priority, meaning in designing components, ease of remove/replace takes priority. This is known as 'organizational' level. People at this level are neither trained nor expected to delve into the innards of any component. They are to simply troubleshoot any issue down to the sub-system level, pull out the part, and install a replacement. It could be a hydraulic actuator or a flight control computer. They not supposed to dissect the actuator or the computer to find out what went wrong inside that caused problems outside.
It sounds simplistic but actually at the aircraft or organizational level, maintainers do more than just R and R. The greater the integration of sub-systems to produce an aircraft that removes as much as possible the chores of flying from the pilot, the more difficult it is to troubleshoot problems as often sub-systems demands the same data and/or produces the same data for other sub-systems to use. So when a problem does occur as evidenced by a warning light or an anomalous flying condition/response, the trick is to isolate which data that is faulty.
It is at the component repair level -- off flightline -- is where the AESA system will be taken apart and automatic test stations will perform the necessary checks prior to disassembly by the technician. Then if necessary, the part may be sent back to the manufacturer.
Any supposed 'disadvantages' the AESA concept have are far far outweighed by the operational and tactical advantages, especially in the military arena. On the civilian side, in high traffic situations like an airport or even ground car traffic monitoring system, multiple beams and rapid deployments of those beams enhances awareness of every target within radar view and gives the operator increases response time for any traffic conflictions, ground or air. Civil engineers designing a more efficient traffic deconfliction system, fancy phrasing for stop/go lights and roads, will benefit from having the flexibility of an AESA system at their disposal. They can better monitor the rate of vehicle flow and even the sizes of vehicles at any given time of day.
In air combat, having seen the AESA performed under real world condition, I dare say that any PESA-ed fighter might as well signed its own death warrant if it goes up against an AESA-ed opponent.
PESA is done for. It does have its usefulness in certain situations but that is like saying the horse drawn wagon does have its usefulness. If I could get back to aviation today, I would not work on any PESA related project. Pfffttt....
Sounds like a lot of BS from you .
In air combat, having seen the AESA performed under real world condition, I dare say that any PESA-ed fighter might as well signed its own death warrant if it goes up against an AESA-ed opponent.
That remains to be seen... especially ,with australian defence analysts saying that Su-35BM is superior to F-35. In 15-30 years ,PESA will be obsolete and my sources have AESA still have many issues to work out . Did you read my entire posts.
