“Early risk reduction sensor pod”? Are they going to give everything in the F-35 a name like that?

If then, the engine will be called the “Cold air suction device to add fuel and heat so you can go forward”, the rudders are the “Point where you go-plates”, and i’m sure people interested in phrases like an ‘early risk reduction pod’ will also prefer the name dashboard for what geeks call a cockpit.

Very interesting question, I’73. And a difficult one to answer for sure. I personally like to use the term ‘indigenous’ when an aircraft (i assume we are talking about aircraft here obviously) is both designed and produced in country X. While IMHO a fairly large part of the systems of the aircraft can be from abroad, i do think the whole integration of these systems should be part of the indigenous design/development process.

To illustrate my line of thought with a few examples:

LCA/Tejas:
Designed in India, to be produced in India with a significant amount of Indian systems, even without the Kaveri. Definately indigenous.
ALH/Dhruv:
Airframe design, aerodynamics and rotor system designed with so much consultancy from MBB/Eurocopter that it effectively is a BK117, with a new French engine. Not indigenous.
F-2:
Lockheed-assisted redesign of the F-16 for Japan, with a lot of Japanese avionics. Not indigenous.
J-8II:
Distant evolution of the MiG-21’s layout with no airframe commonality whatsoever. Indigenous.
Mitsubishi T-2 / F-1:
Locally designed airframe based on the general layout of the SEPECAT Jaguar trainer by a design team led by one of the chief designers of that very same Jaguar. Not indigenous.
HAL Kiran:
Design by German engineer and his team for India. Not indigenous.

This list is obviously debatable. There are some aircraft which i don’t know how to label anyway, like the FC-1 as i don’t know what Grumman’s input to it was during the Super-7 project.

Actually, i wouldn’t be surprised if the PRC sold those bignosed J-7s.They have hardly got a decent fleet of them to be of any significance to the PLAAF (two or three regiments), but there are enough to be a significant number for most smaller airforces.

As for the upgrade programs: i have no doubt the MiG-21-2000 or MiG-21-93 projects could be used with those J-7III/IVs. The problems would lie more in organising such a deal (first negotiate with the PRC for the airframes, then with the Russians or Israelis for the upgrade) than anything else.

Blackcat, whatever you are trying to say, do so in more-or-less proper English. I don’t care if you make mistakes or whatever, i just want you to show the minimal courtesy by writing in words and sentences rather than txt msg stfs. K?

Consider this your last warning, or a moderator starts chopping away.

“Proper performance” at an airshow rather than static display and fly-bys? You mean supercruising along the display centreline, and firing some weapons or something?

It has appeared at airshows already, just not at commercial tradeshows like MAKS, Le Bourget or Farnborough. I don’t expect it to be at Le Bourget anytime soon, but Farnborough or even Fairford this weekend (for those who prefer not to go to Chkalovsk) are not all that impossible.

Slightly related news, and possibly even affected by this sad loss:

the Russian airbase of Chkalovsk in the Kaliningrad region should have an open day next saturday (July 17th). Apart from a regiment of AV-MF Su-24s and a Tu-22M-3 rework plant, the Kaliningrad region’s Su-27 regiment now also should be based there.

Considering it’s an early production or even pre-series MiG-31 (it is from the pre-refuelling probe days and has telemetry markings which you don’t find on operational machines), these pods are pretty likely to be either the command or the ECM-parts of the collective Sorbitsya-system you mentioned yourself. I’d guess it’s the command part, considering the non-phased array antenna you get on the jammer pods themselves while the bump on the side of the detail shot suggests regulair antenna underneath.

Just guessing though.