@Sintra
Paint me quite skeptic there.
If in just three years they have changed so radically idea that means that they are gooses lost in the fog.
So, i’m more inclined to believe that those are just proof of concepts

@ haavarla
It seems me that he was asking about the higher lenght not the smaller.
In every case each of such bnd is better at a certain phase of the engagement process: metric band is the lest affected by the stealth feature but it is not precise, so it will gave you an early warning but just a general idea where the plane really are. L/S band is still capable to get a good range and an overall good precision in the same time, while the X band is the one for targeting but would not get nothing operating alone..
So first one discover the menace , the second one refine the search and the third one does the killing.

@ Y-20 Bacon.

Question is..
will it be as capable as the mig-35?

It look like the MiG in some angles but it has a completely, much more conventional configuration.
No blended wing/body, no engine pods, just the “sting” between the two engines is not sufficient to claim any possible similarity.

Also because it would be a very good thing for Russia to sell more engines while they also produce them for MiG-35.

Think the problem is more about maintenance contracts.
Still, I repeat, no any hinth of this in the press here, both national than local.

For what I know there is not any programs like Cuda, aiming at a miniature size A2A missile specifically designed for internal carrying, neither in Russia, nor in China but even in W.Europe.

Issue it is not about an internal weapon carryng in general but about a specific weapon and the IMHO completely flawed preliminary assumtions leading to its own development.

@ hopsalot
Getting a procedure of infraction from European central bank for buying weapons instead of lowering our deficit imbalance?
Thank you for your valuable contribution.

The discussion there seems me finally of a good overall lvl, just don’t exceed in defending the respective positions so not to turn it back in a fight, please.

I’m not great on technical matters so i’ll will just made some general puntualizations.

– there is surely an issue in integrating existing weaponries, thought for external carry and so maximizing low drag over compactness on 5gen fighters weapon bays, F-35 is not the only one having that problem.
Solution can be different, some, like foldable fins, can be made available quite fast while designing ad hoc weapons, although optimal would surely take a huge amount of time.
Some weapon that can alleviate the problem, like the SDB already exist, and the recent exercises have found an elegant operative solution for the time being, so we can take our time.

– about the new GaN and Photonic radars, for what I heard more than the range or the raw emitting power their main utility against 5gen lies in the increase of resolution, shifting decisively down the point where the radar’s return signal get clouded by the environmental noise for a given emission power.

-same for missiles, actually about all of them have midcourse guidance system, so if an plane or AD radar can get a sufficient precise position of an adversary, and with the above said system you bet they will, they can just guide its own ARH missile close enough for its own sensor to work.

This obviously doesn’t mean that we have to thrash stealth as a whole, just that the idea of spending lot of money and about all time to made a more compact but with limited range A2A missile with tha expectancy that future combat 5gen planes would happen at a much closer range than actual ones, seems me flawed from thee beginning.