What’s the diameter of RBE-2 ?

In Indonesia case, it had nothing to do with US sanctions. Indonesia could have loaned from Russias Banking system.
But they choose not to, instead they now don’T have to pay extra interest from payments loan.

additional problem is that we can’t appropriate it for something else. Remember our Kilo deal ? It would be Russian offering export credit for it. Thing is.. people in top brass want to do something else with it (say buying Flankers) Which of course not very welcome to the creditor.
—-

This is another budgetary problem.. when you want to buy something but not really appropriate necessary funds.

http://www.janes.com/article/77624/singapore-airshow-2018-indonesia-su-35-programme-at-risk-of-delays-over-commodity-dispute

Russians asked for rubber crumb. The counter trade basically accounts 400 M USD as the commodity from total 1.1B USD. This basically equals to 186000 metric tonne of rubber. We can fullfill it Problem is that the budget for buying that commodity from our farmer doesn’t exist or have yet to be exist. Our ministry of finance is known to be strict and have reprimanded MOD for sudden request for KFX funding.

Cancelling the flankers looks possible which i kinda regret as we basically will lose ample of capability that western offerings does not match (except F-35A but that years ahead) We will also stick with sub 40 dB power aperture product fighter radar except when KFX enter service (Then this may not be 40 dB) or somehow we could acquire F-15 with AESA which no less expensive than the Su-35’s.

O-o

Don’t see anything on F-14 made it to MiG-31’s. Zaslon has nothing in common to AWG-9 and so is R-33’s.

The 3rd country or Russia itself need to find alternative financing scheme for the deal to proceed. Our flanker “counter-trade” scheme is one means to circumvent the US sanctions. We cannot buy the flankers directly using usual means of financing. Some nations like India and Arab nations however probably unaffected.

Does it really “AESA seeker” ? Especially if it’s mm wave band. Does cross section image of the missiles available ? The fire control radar tho is indeed AESA. s far as i browse it’s a dual mode seeker but i found no real mention of it’s being an AESA.

Performance tho. This subject on weight and launch profile but it seems that it would do the same range at least as the AMRAAM-D.

How do you forget something like that? And how will the issue be fixed? Does this year’s budget include the payment?

Hopefully. The recent Korean president visit here likely also include rescheduling.

I didn’t know you are from Indonesia. can you tell me the logic behind Indonesia’s acquisitions?
they buy a small amount of a variety of aircraft. seems like ea logistical nightmare

It is actually start with simple terms “Don’t put all of your eggs in one basket” We have been experienced arms embargo from both “west and east” block So our planners see it fit to “spread the risk” by having multiple types. Unfortunately tho this is not really supported in terms of financial or willingness.
Western system like F-16 may enjoy better packages like having maintenance center here BUT Russian system may offer better performance, lower price and options to gain ability which western system does not provide (e.g supersonic anti ship missiles, true cross eye jammer in shape of Sorbitsya or SAP-518 and RVV-BD). The situation is made alot more severe by inter-service rivalry, unwillingness to actually integrate the Russian system into ours (Thus resulting with our flankers have to be heavy maintained outside our nation)

Phazotron better step their game up this time. I assume new MiG’s got larger fuel capacity and potentially more cooling to support higher powered AESA TRM.

For third generation, read fourth, since the Chinese came to the game late. Fighter implies a target between 1 and 5 m^2, which suggests a practical range between 130 and 200 meters. Other sources suggest the KLJ-7A is on par with the APG-81, which, if you accept it, also suggests unbelievable performance.

As to air-cooling vs water cooling, water cooling is about 24 times more effective at transferring heat energy. This implies that the energy output is neutered by up to 96%. I’d also point out that even American GaAs radars are all liquid-cooled; the vast majority of fighter radars employ liquid-cooling, not air-cooling, due to the high need for heat dissipation.

My point is more that the oddity is that you are getting outrageous range figures, alongside reports of air-cooling, which suggests GaN, which supposedly generates less heat and is more heat tolerant.

How do you know GaN will generate less heat compared to GAaS ? Remember that GaN would have much higher power output compared to GaAs module hence more heat. Using GaN for low peak power is basically a waste of potentials with no real benefit especially if one desire to use existing infrastructure.

Why you ruled out the possibility of GaAs module with low power being used ? I worked out my own calculations and found the module are like 2-3 Watts peak power based on air cooling. Hell you can even check it somewhere in this thread or see my post at F-16.net . You can even see the equation i used. Something which you never reveal in your supposed calculation.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=53650

My conclusion that it can do 191 Km range vs 5 sqm with 50% probability of detection. While interview with designer of the radar reveal 170 km range. My conclusion was either my calculation overpredict stuff OR the radar have less module count than 1000.

About the power estimation, the irbis-E has an effective power output of about 10 kW due to efficiency losses from the PESA design. Assuming the same aperture, you’d need about 55 kW to achieve the stated Chinese claims in their paper. Divided by 800 modules, you’d need a power output of 68 watts peak power per module to achieve the 450 km range vs 0 dBsm.

Are you really use the radar range equation for this ? And again, why you discount the fact that Irbis and Bars is in fact Hybrid. They don’t work the way “traditional” PESA like Zaslon or AN/APQ-164. They have their receiver in the antenna. Their noise factor on receive is thereby same as the AESA’s.