Probably some parts for the SU-30s as well since they probably share a good degree of commonality. I would think spare engines are included, probably for 3 million a piece (I’m guessing as this is one HK rag said that was the price of the AL-31FN engine for the J-10).

Do note that overhauls provide scheduled opportunities for upgrades.

PAF FC-1s will likely not have the same avionics as PLAAF FC-1s (and PLANAF FC-1s, if that comes through, will have it different from the other two as well). They will all be different planes indeed in that sense. The fourth prototype though, will still have the Chinese systems.

That was the idea. But both the Harriers and the AH-64s are no longer in the latest Taiwan acquistion plans.

That and the mapscreen of San Francisco bay area is another clue it’s no Chinese cockpit.

Very observant.

Maybe its the mapscreen of San Francisco Chinatown hehe.

From the Lomac forums, chart of F-22’s coolness compared to other aircraft

But you have to realize this. The technological cycle for electronics is much faster than airframe development. And for that reason, so is SAM development. SAMs and radars have become a lot smarter at a rate faster than VLO platform development. Count how many evolutionary developments SAMs have undergone since the F-22 was in development.

When the stealth revolution started, people were trying to beat I-J (also known as X) band radar. Now, you have metric wave radar, tracking radar developments on the C-H bands, K band radar, optoelectrical systems, increasingly sophisticated RWR, UCAVs, IR and maybe even passive missiles, then combine them in a network.

The problem is a platform centric approach vs. a component centric one. A new radar system can be developmed much faster than any platform. In fact, during the platform’s single life cycle, component generations have undergone multiple cycles. Block 60 vs. Block 15 F-16 is a good example of that. Better yet, components will plug and play and enhanced the lethality of existing platforms. It’s funny in that sense, as the radar in the Block 60 has more advanced components than the F-22. The F-22 is actully in need to have its electronics redone, since much of it were laid down in the Pentium generation. The problem of a platform centric approach is that the components you tied down to that platform tends to age with that platform, although you can apply incremental updates or patchwork.

How long is the expected platform cycle of an F-22 and F-35 suppose to last? The F-35 is projected for 40 years, and the F-22 is expected to last similarly. The F-16 has already lasted thirty. You can guess how many technological development cycles components could have undergone in that same time. Remember that Moore’s Law works every 18 months.

Platforms at best, have become nothing but become delivery vehicles. If you want delivery vehicles, smart UCAVS do it faster, safer, cheaper, *stealthier*, and will have shorter, faster development cycles. Smart cruise missiles, with the aid of satellite and navigation satellites can literally strike anything anywhere in the globe without manual intervention, while smarter SAMs can put up a defense network that can become both impregnable and undetectable by manned platforms. As defense “smarts” increases, the only counter would be increasing offense “smarts”, and the technology race starts going, leaving platforms further behind.

We are in the beginnings of a major paradigm shift, and often I begin to view platform centric warfare as white elephants, like battleships in WWII.