People are already disappointed with the F-35 ?

I remember another airplane which was supposed to be a ‘jack-of-all-trades’, multi-role aircraft for both the Air Force and the Navy.
It was over-weight, over-budget and a lot of its systems didn’t work at first. It got so bad that the Navy cancelled their version and built a different plane ( but very similar ).
But eventually all its problems were straightened out, and ‘McNamara’s folly’ served admirably as one of the best tactical strike aircraft for about 30 yrs.
I only hope the F-35 turns out to be as capable as the GD F-111 became.

Still, it just did one fraction of what it was though for, also Su-24 and Tornado worked admirably well in the same exact role and they keep on doing it even now.
So,l in this case I would talk of a disappointment caused by absolutely unrealistic aspectatives in what technology can do.

^ Nice one. Looking at the topview, I doubt if the mixed air-wing is a good idea. Looks like Kuznetsov may not be having much more than what VKD and Vikrant will have as its deck group. Vikrant being highly optimized. If not for the island structure, VKD would have been able to accommodate a further 4-5 x MiG-29K on the deck.

So also the white dotted line would allow for a take off or it’s just for landing?

B-70 was not built and the SR-71 did not fly over Soviet Union. So where’s the disappointment in the Foxbat?

And above all MiG-25 was followed by Mig-31 in due time: there is nothing abnormal if a plane of 3 generation is followed by a fourth one.
Disappointing and /or overhiped is something that A) underperform at the point of not covering the role it was assigned, i.e. something like J-8 or B) it is so troubled/out of budget/wrongly conceived that its own production figures have ultimely to be sensibly cutten down. A relative one, like in the case of Typhoon, due to general budget cuts was not a fault of the plane itself.
So, in the case given, A-12 and B-70 are not disappointing, just non-existent, operatively talking, while SR-71 is not as covered it’s own mission (as it still able to perform reconoissance flight) but also Mig-25 and Mig-31 has done their own in forbidding it to come closer to a certain point and covering Sov/Rus territory against bombers.

We would better define what in “disappointing”: a failed design is obviously not just disappointing, just a plain dead one.
So, we would better consider those planes that worked even perfectly in technogical sense but that doesn’t match the aspectatives they were designed for.
Mig-29 certainly is fully in this category in the sense that it worked well in a absolute sense (most problem of initial version you refer to were solved almost immediately in the 1986 -S version) but was thought to be much more cheaper both in acquisition than in operating than the Su-27 and once it was ascertained it wasn’t so both Sov/Russian and almost everyone else went for Flankers.
Still, in this case it was about taking one alternative instead of another, F-22A case was much worse: you design a plane for offensive air superiority i.e. for operate in enemy air space, spend a lot of money for it, it ultimely work but it is both so costly and maintenance heavy on one side and so single pourposely built that you have to stop production at 187 and base them into your own territory, one ocean away from any possible enemy.
Add that you have not an alternative to it and that you are so obliged to keep your F-15 C until 2025/30 and the mess is complete.
Of my own country’s ones I’ll put AMX: it was designed according to an operative scenario that was absolutely out to date from the beginning and was designed to be cheap as dirt, with a underperforming engine and a basic avionic.
It was really a pity ,because after some corrections were made it turned out a good and above all, very useful plane but too few, too late.

Why do You think so ?

In any case , there would be such a difference? Probably almost the latest prototype wouldn’t be so different by the LRIP (or better said the state trial/pre serial planes, as we have ascertained that chinese use a soviet-like development path) ones.

I just read both your article and the journal Marcell :p it didnt mention anywhere that the system will have super image like resolution at long distance ( compared to legacy system). There may be some others articles that you didnt cited claim so , but i think it could be due to journalist misunderstanding or misinterpreted what the producers , inventors said (which not quite uncommon IMHO)

They talkedn the interwiew they have made,in italian.
there were a lot of articles about it, in my own language but I have not obviously posted them there

Maybe it’s a misunderstanding caused by the language barrier.
For image like resolution, I meant something like that you get also with a conventional radar in the SAR mode, not that you would have a colour picture like the one taken by a photo camera.
Given that they affirmed such a system can send thousands of emission in a tenth of second I don’t see anything so difficult to get in a normal engagement.
About range, you affirmed than a 3 db resolution increase meant a 50% more of it, let’s image a 10db one.

How do you convert photons to high frequency radio wave though ?

I dont think the “active” in AESA represent that radiowave is generated directly, in PESA radar radio still being generated directly and they dont use the word “active”

Technically, you already have very wide band transmitted such as LPDA, but they just have lower efficiency. Would photonics radar have same efficiency at all frequency? how about directivity?

How exactly do they do it?
From what i know SAR technology allow high resolution long distance too but it also have massive disadvantages such as long integration time, blurry moving target. I doubt that photonics radar can achieve everything without any drawbacks

I dont really see the point, so basically it like a radar operate in high PRF? or FMCW radar?

For first question : To generate their radar signal, Ghelfi and company used software to select two optical resonant frequencies (modes) in a mode-locked laser and fired it at a photodiode sensor. The electrical output from the sensor is an RF signal that can reach up to 40 GHz without upconversion; because the laser is mode-locked, there is very little noise. Return signals are altered in amplitude in a way that is easy to accurately digitize.
It is an excerpt from this article:http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/aviation/laser-makes-more-accurate-radar-system.
it can also explain how the frequency range is determined no more by hardware i.e. RW transmitter.

For all the rest, here the article in Nature:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7492/full/nature13078.html

Here a diagram: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7492/fig_tab/nature13078_F2.html

In ant ase there is not more a radiator and an emitter so all the fisical limitation associated to them you refer to are gone.
hence, no need to differentiate Photonic radar in active or passive one.
About emission frequency, let’s take as a comparison the Zaslon radar comprising two separate electronically controlled arrays, an X band radar with 1700 emitters and a L band transponder with 64 emitters brought together into a single antenna: a photonic radar doesn’t need to have them as it can tailor cut the emitter surface in the desired radio wave dimension until it reach the dimensional limits of the antenna, that in this case would act as it were just a single emitter.
Let’s think to