well I uploaded a bunch of photos, it shows the IRST, MAWs, the wide angled holographic HUD, the cockpit and the FBW. In case you are wondering about the HUD on the cockpit photo, that’s the old cockpit. We are not importing any engines for J-11B. Get it? That 180 engine imported was for replacements on our current fleet of imported flankers.

so just one aircraft with new HUD? and see the simiilarity and diference

China imported a couple of sets of irst, that’s it. J-11B is using domestic version or copy (depending on who you ask). We’ve seen J-11B in an active regiment already (if you ever goto flanker thread on SDF/CDF, you’d see them)

As for 10 years from now, who still cares about flankers? It should be all about 5th generation plane.

can you show me J-11B with new wide angle gree HUD pictures. Alteast that seems upgrade. the rest is just all talk. ur still importing engines and IRST.

What people continously ignore is the fact that the quoted range figure of Irbis is just in very best conditions and a special long range search mode where the radar will just slowly scan a limited slice of the sky. That’s not what you actually want if you have to keep SA. I have even some doubts that this range figure has been proven in praxis. And LINK16 for the Su-35 as proposed by the manufacturer is highly unlikely. Why should the west give away its datalink technologies to the Russians? This is clearly intended to be an option for export customers, I just doubt it will happen.
The F-22 has at least JTIDS which is LINK11 if I’m not wrong. MIDS/LINK16 was abandoned, but other options are examined.

Irbis range will be much more than 400KM as no less than 350 to 400km is guaranteed. It can guide 4 semi-active AAMs at ranges greater than 300KM.

About the missiles like R-37M or KS-172S-1 I’m still waiting for sources which show that these missiles are actually in production or fielded anywhere. The Russians sheered the old KS-172 back in the early 90s too, but it nvber materialised.

Two MIG-31BM are operational with BVR more than 200KM. as more Su-35 types are built missile tests will starts. Ruaf will likely gave it same BVR capability as MIG-31BM.

So they spent all of 3 billion USD of UAE development money only on the AESA and nothing else?

There was $2B on R&D and R&D cost in US are very high so i dont think there is much there.

So if it is not 5th gen calibre it is for free?

the difference between Block 50 and Block 60 is not big thats why no one is ordering it.

Not true , the upgrade Apg-77 (V1) Radar which has more software modes , hardware changes as opposed to the standard Apg-77 is cheaper then the original less capable radar of early 2000 timeframe . The reason for this is that NG now has tons of expereince behind it and AESA tech has matured nicely over the years , their is greater automation of production , Huge back orders and market for T-R modules means tht more research is being fed on them by industry and service resulting in CHEAPER COST , LIGHTER and SMALLER SIZE. The Apg-81 has made this even one step further with huge investments in automation for production , R and D to produce lightest possible T-R modules (and smallest) and to better the MTBF for PROFITABILITY reasons if nothing else . NG expects to produce over 3000 Apg-81’s if not more over the lifetime .

When you spent tons of money on product development to make it cheaper it does not mean that entire life cycle cost is cheaper. I have shown Boeing 737-200 is alot cheaper than Boeing 737-800. 3000 APG-81 is too high it is not 1970s that there will be 3000 5th generation fighters as one radar is enough over life cycle of product.

How do you know? Are you a prophet of some kind ? Can you do your own research or you prefer constantly ranting without much homework ?? There is clear indication that Apg-77 in its latest form is better and cheaper then the original Apg-77 which is totally against your logic that it should be more expensive as those were “Cheaper times” . The Apg-81 has a different industrial process as production numbers are expected to run into the thousands and not into less then 200 that the -77 has had so expect greater economy of scale , moreoever with maturing technology high tech becomes cheaper as the core technology and materials are refined and efforts are made to cut cost aswell as the initial models (first 2-3 AESA programs) getting bulk of the Major R and D spending so subsequent programs benefit from that.

That industrial process and R&D itself cost money to make end product cheaper. It is not commerical product that you produce in millions like Cellular phones.

http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/ANAPG-77_a001562001.aspx

The -81 is the youngest of the 4th gen AESA version at NG and envolves a huge production set up which has never been seen before , Efforts have been going on for years to make T-R modules cheaper , smaller and more effective , same goes for risk reduction with other compoennts , Affordability is the key program Requirment for the F-35 so Apg-81 will almost certainly be cheaper to produce due to standerdization aswell as economies of scale

And the price of years of efforts.

You have to look at overall eff. of a Block 60 with full internal fuel plus CFT’s (the block 60 CFT’s are larger and carry more fuel then Block 50 IIRC so i would say that it can maybe take 5000lb of fuel in those CFT?? making total around 12K-13K) and then look at external weapons specially the 2 X 2000LB LGB and Air defence missiles . Then come up with a DRAG coff and see which is better aerodynamic condition the F-35 with no tanks , no CFT’s and no external weapons or a bulky chubby F-16 with CFTs , weapons (bulky A2G ordinance) not to mention a targeting pod . From right at the top of my head the FF of the F-35A with full internal fuel and a load of 2 2K LGB’s and 2 AIm-120’s is around 36%

The point is Block 60 is expensive in cheaper times so how can JSF cheaper in expensive times or there will be no cost involved in R&D and product development. which one is cheaper Boeing 787 or 15 year old Boeing 777 with same capacity? The point is to make Boeing 787 more fuel efficient you have to spent the money upfront and make the end product more expensive.

You mean Star that the Russians will willingly SELL weapons and transfer technology to the nations in the region.

As we’ve seen already with Venezuela the Russian weapons, in the quantities that are affordable to those nations, do not do a lot to change the strategic balance. A couple of squadrons of Flankers, two or three Kilo’s or a couple of S-300 batteries are not going to change the equation to any sugnificant extent.

Now, if the Argentines were suddenly able to occupy the islands, take MPA intact, base a couple of squadrons each of fully-trained-up Bears, Flankers and MiG-29alphabetti-spaghetti’s supported by at least 5 A-50’s and a detachment of Il-78’s and an interlocking comprehensive IADS driving a multizonal doube-digit SAM environment. Then we are talking about a force mix that would give us significant pause for thought.

Seeings as there is no South American country that possess such a force mix for its own national defence I think the chances of us finding something that consitutes a materialisation of Stars “Russia will gladly help with weopons and technology the entire region” unlikely in the extreme!

Prices of natural resources are increasing and both Brazila and Venzuela has discovered alot more and when they make that alliance i am sure in next 5 to 10 years there will be huge purchases of arms. as they lay claim to greater area on the sea. Falkland end result will be no different than Hong Kong. UK cannot standupt to collective will of South America. ur both short of resources and money.
couple of kilos/Amrus with latest clubs backed by superior radar of Flankers and Russian satellite power can achieve alot more deterance than why you seem to think.
Russians are trading weopons and technology where ever there is natural resources.

Aesa was not the only thing that LMA spent development dollars on for the E/f

so what else besides AESA? there was $400m contract for 88 engines with GE but it is just uprated thrust from heavier engines nothing of 5th generation calibre. things were way cheaper at those times even if it was AESA.

AESA radars are likely to be cheaper now then they were back in Block 60 days considering that the technology is more mature , their is huge infrastructure set up for more then 2000 Apg-77.Alg-81,Apg-79 sets that are set to see production .

You dont have any evidence of overall cheapness.

First of all , i was reffering to LIFE CYCLE cost and not procurment cost ie cost of maintaince , basing , running , repairing , forward deploying etc etc etc . Procurment cost over the entire program will still (should) be pretty competitive to current Block 60 production costs unless their is a huge cut in numbers .

Life cycle cost are included when u consider acq and fuel costs. Which life cycle cost are cheaper Boeing 737-200 or 737-800?

Ammount of fuel carried doesnt matter here at all because with 18K of internal fuel the F-35 will also travel farther so it really makes not much difference . The F-35 with an internal Load would be cleaner (No CFT’s and external A2G load) and would be less draggy then a Block 50/52 F-16 with CFT’s , Plus 2 x 2000 Lb bombs + 2 x Aim-120 plus Targetting pod etc so the F-35 in that configuration will definately have more range by a long shot .

When the airframe is heavier by 50% it negates fuel efficiency. F-16 with CFT will be pretty close.
It does not matter whethere ur carrying 1 ton or 5 ton. F-16 is good for light roles from 1 to 4 tons weopons. For heavier weopons F-15 is better and effective choice.

F-16E is one off example , specific technology made for specific customer and only made for 80 or so examples. F-15SG is F-15E but with AESA which was allready funded by USAF development program in the early 2000’s and other stuff has been funded from other programs .

F-16E share alot with late model F-16 but only AESA with air to ground modes is development and those were very cheap times but still F-16 today is as expensive as F-15.

F-35 is a much bigger program , and plus procurment cost are not the consideration but overall life cycle cost , MTBM , Logisitical footprint , spares etc etc . You pay for what you get and F-35 is much superior in technology to F-16E and is bigger with different features so procurment cost would be greater however their is huge demand and procurment numbers if remain high should subsidize key development technology

When you make bigger heavy fighter. It not only needs more raw material, energy, labor to built but extra fuel. So this wrong assumption that it can be cheaper than F-16.