I tend to fall more into the I’ll believe it when I see it crowd. Newer doesn’t automatically = better. The APG-79 is several generations more advanced than what the Russians are working with, and gets upgrades too.

The NIIP AESA will be far more advanced than the APG-77.

Granted, there’s a 20 year difference.

What’s far more advanced in the APG-79?

And this would be based upon what information?

Obviously nothing concrete and published, just like anything else discussed here.

Unless the APG-79 has had a new processor installed since its creation, it’ll be no better if not worse in terms of processing power. If anything, I would bet they’d be right on par on overall performance. Power wise, with a similar T/R count there’s no reason to believe it won’t have APG-79 power.

If NIIP and Phazatron cooperate at all, it might even have some of the new modes that are unique to the T-50’s AESA which is said to have modes that the APG-77 doesn’t even possess.

Some time ago, another contributor posted that Vympel’s chief designer had told him that the RVV-AE-PD was only an experimental project. Since then, the word around the missile community is that the beast has been abandoned.

Since the AIM-120C-8 with its dual-pulse motor could not fully meet the Meteor requirement, there seems little chance that the AIM-120D is going to exceed it, since it seems to use a single-pulse motor. There has been no word of any significant breakthrough in solid-propellant performance that promises to change that situation.

There’s some “new-gen” weapons being developed for the PAK-FA that we can expect to surface 2012 – 2014.