No, the sensor dome behind the canopy is still opaque.
Agreed emile, to quote a Japanese saying “Do not speak unless it improves on silence” ;).
I too am perplexed by this slow uptake/transition to GaN, in the commercial sector GaN is nothing new and will achieve fairly favourable economies-of-scale by mid-decade. Is the plan to test the architecture & software with GaAs then have a relatively seemless shift to GaN?
For example, a quick google news and…
http://www.semiconductor-today.com/news_items/2011/JUNE/INTEGRA2_140611.html
Btw, I’m not a radar engineer (those who are, forgive my insolence).
I’m sure we’ll get some very nice close-up shots of the intake (NOT chinese photoshops)- namely taking DSI to the next level, it’s internal contours, inward angled engines. Also, once we get a photo confirming where the wheel goes, it will be possible to deduce that the arrangement is very similar to this:

You understand it couldn’t possibly be anything else, don’t you?
As regards ‘flat bottom’, Sukhoi clearly feels the attributes of a very low profile are more important. K’ can I go now?
The underside and rear especially looks very similar to the flanker’s portions, imho. And the overall placement of the engines and inlets kind of bulges out, exposed and underneath like the flanker too, but of course with the addition of the internal weapons bay in the pancake area.
All good if you like flankers I suppose, cheers.
Boeing FXX designers would’ve realised immediately what Sukhoi were up to regarding the intake/nacelle/engine placement (unlike some members here- whether for lack of understanding/knowledge, patisan reasons or other).
So why don’t you change the record and give credit where credit’s due?
The truth will out @ MAKS.
Also Irkut’s order books are full ’till at least 2014, there’s no spare capacity.

Beautiful.

Thanks mack8, so I guess the concensus that the device on the right is a Russian EO-DAS ‘analogue’, on of several mounted around the airframe.
Amazing how in some fields the Russkies have come on leaps and bounds, but they’ve yet to deploy a targeting pod…utterly incredulous.
The OLS appears new too.

Very interesting indeed. Maybe Arbalet is indeed working, since the aiframe is clearly a new one
They’ll need to present the latest kit available if they’re to stand a chance against the AH-64D (which will still be a tall order), any word on the Mi-28M?
…..yes you shall go to the ball…

…but not you.

Which of the two contenders will be least obsolescent by 2025?
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Decoding_Indias_MMRCA_Decision.pdf
…my two Euros says EF.
This is probably the Indian MoD & AF lobbying the Russians to join the AMCA fledgling ‘Consortium’. Seconding Griffon39, it will most likely be MiG because Sukhoi is too busy with the PAK-FA and their future UCAV (weren’t MiG consultants to the Taiwanese 5G fighter study?).
The engine issue will be interesting- Snecma/GTRE/Klimov?
Note there’s nothing official on this yet. Best wait for MAKS.
Possible new HMD development by ‘Zvezda’ (screenshots c/o members of paralay iboards):
“We don’t do ‘fly-overs’ “:

The first serial Su-35S (painted):

No, Mack8, 117A was the internal designation of AL-41F-1A, which upon completion of tests was designated 117S. 117A/AL-41F-1A was a “deep” evolution of the AL-31FP using AL-41F tech.
Note article date:
http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?sat=64
‘Type-30’ appears to be a further evolution of the 117, probably using MMPP Salyut’s 5G engine components. The 117 is a closer relative to the AL-41F whereas the 117S is closer to the AL-31FP DNA.
Chepkin considers both these (‘Type 30’ and 117) as true 5G engines in their own right.
http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-interview-of-al-41f-chief.html
Anyone with a greater grasp of crazy Russian designations with pre/suffixes, feel free to correct any errors!