How does the Raven ES-05 compare to other fighter AESA radars like AN/APG-81 or Captor-E?
Executive summary
The Raven ES-05 is a distinctive roll-repositionable AESA built around a Wide Field of Regard (WFoR) that trades raw aperture size for mechanical steering and mission-tailored survivability advantages, while the AN/APG-81 emphasizes deep system integration, electronic-attack capability and sensor fusion for the F‑35, and the Captor‑E pursues a large-aperture, gimballed-AESA approach with high TRM counts and strong EW/multi-tasking ambitions [1] [2] [3]. Each design reflects different platform constraints, tactics and industrial priorities rather than a single “best” radar [4] [2].
1. Design philosophy: small, nimble WFoR vs large aperture vs sensor-fusion centerpiece
The Raven ES-05 was developed to give the Gripen E a roll‑repositionable AESA offering roughly ±100° field of regard so the aircraft can continue sensor support after turning away from threats or during missile launches — a tactical choice favoring situational awareness and survivability on a small fighter airframe [1] [4]. By contrast, Leonardo’s Captor‑E family adopts a gimballed, larger-diameter AESA approach that aims for a very wide field of regard exceeding 180° by combining a physically large array with a robust repositioner and many transmit/receive modules (TRMs), a design driven by Typhoon’s larger radome and airframe space [3] [5]. Northrop Grumman’s AN/APG‑81 is positioned differently: as an AESA optimized as the sensor-fusion core of the F‑35, integrating radar, electronic‑attack and networked sensing rather than relying on mechanical steering for off‑boresight coverage [2] [6].
2. Performance tradeoffs: aperture/T‑R count, off‑boresight gain and scanning
AESAs are fundamentally constrained by aperture size and TRM count; fixed arrays lose sensitivity at extreme off‑boresight angles, which is why both Raven and Captor‑E adopt repositioners to preserve performance off centerline [4] [3]. Public reporting and forum debate note Raven’s antenna is smaller than some competitors and therefore likely carries fewer TRMs, which could mean lower raw detection range or slower search rates in a given sector compared with larger arrays, though mechanical steering partly offsets that by pointing the beam where needed [7] [4]. Captor‑E’s design—large array, many TRMs and liquid cooling in some descriptions—aims explicitly to sustain multitasking (tracking plus EW) across a very wide field [3] [5]. APG‑81’s strengths are portrayed as long‑range detection, sophisticated waveform and modes and an ability to operate as an EW aperture through its multi‑function array, leveraging integration with F‑35 sensors to multiply tactical effect even if it does not use a roll pivot [6] [2].
3. Electronic attack, multi‑function use and integration
Manufacturers and reporting emphasize that modern AESAs are multifunctional: APG‑81 is repeatedly marketed as a radar that can also provide powerful, precision jamming and act as a node in an integrated sensor suite, which is central to the F‑35’s distributed‑sensing concept [6] [2]. Captor‑E variants and the ECRS Mk2 likewise emphasize high‑power MFA and GaN/GaAs TRMs to enable simultaneous tracking and electronic‑attack roles across a very wide field of regard [3] [5]. Raven’s public material highlights reliable TRM technology and lifecycle cost benefits and ties the WFoR to missile employment tactics; Leonardo and Saab frame the mechanical repositioner as an enabler of continued missile guidance and survivability rather than solely a raw range improvement [1] [4].
4. What the sources disagree on and the limits of public reporting
Open reporting and enthusiast forums debate whether Raven’s mechanical roll actually compensates fully for fewer TRMs and how its target‑finding speed compares to larger arrays — a point where public, non‑classified data is thin and analysts draw different conclusions based on aperture size and mission tradeoffs [7] [4]. Manufacturer claims for APG‑81 and Captor‑E stress capabilities in electronic attack and sensor fusion [2] [5], but those claims must be read as vendor positioning; independent, detailed performance metrics are limited in public sources [2] [6]. Some outlets even attribute Raven variants to platforms beyond Gripen (for example a claim linking ES‑05 to the Chinese J‑20), a statement present in one report but not corroborated elsewhere in this reporting set and therefore unresolved by available open sources [8].
5. Bottom line: fit-for-purpose, not one‑size‑fits‑all
Raven ES‑05 is a clever, platform‑driven solution giving the Gripen E a wide, mechanically assisted off‑boresight capability with lifecycle and tactical benefits appropriate to a small, agile fighter [1] [4]. Captor‑E is the large‑aperture European alternative focused on maximum TRM count, wide field of regard and simultaneous EW/track capability for a heavier airframe [3] [5]. APG‑81 emphasizes integrated sensor fusion and multifunction electronic warfare as part of a stealthy, networked F‑35 system rather than pursuing mechanical repositioning [2] [6]. Choices among them reflect platform size, doctrine and industrial strategy more than a simple “which radar is better” metric.