You dont need to multiply anything – just look at USA. Russia would behave very alike.

Russia far more economically independent from rest of the world than any country and military is not tied up.
thats why as soon as Military power is established. All treaties/agreements will be renegotiated in russia favor. First Georgia now Ukraine and than next?

Crimean residents start campaign against Russian fleet pullout

KYIV. May 5 (Interfax-AVN) – A campaign for the indefinite stay of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol has begun in the Crimea.

So you think Russia will bomb OPEC countries? You DO realize they have allies don’t you?

Russia also have opec alllies that will do its work in opec but i think it will go beyond that.
Again Russia is not Soviet Union that it will back down in any case where its national interest. have u seen its recent business dealing with EU/India/China/japan. Multiply that behaviour by 100 for future.

They should grow even better with strategic partnership , I also see many big manuf. investing in russia and setting up shops in russia using the traditional intelectual base and combining with high tech technology to produce high quality composite resin at lower cost . Russia is uniquely placed for this going forward !!

Russia composite materials (nonmetallic) for aviation dates back 1960s. even the Buran shuttle used 10 tons of materials.
http://www.technologiya.ru/tech/misc/main.html
http://www.technologiya.ru/tech/composite/index.html

What does that have to do with the question asked ?

contractors asking for composites?

composites.

Fifth generation combat aircraft will be made mainly of composites

MOSCOW. May 4 (Interfax-AVN) – Advanced materials are being widely used in the development of advanced combat aircraft, General Director of the Obninsk-based Tekhnologia research and production enterprise Vladimir Vikulin told Interfax.

“The current R&D to increase the application of composites in the advanced frontline aircraft [fifth generation aircraft] may facilitate an increase in the application of composites to 50% or more of the total surface of the aircraft in the future,” he said.

He said his enterprise is working on technologies of producing the fuselage and wing panels from composites for the new Russian fighter designed by the Sukhoi holding.

He said that the application of composites can reduce the weight of an aircraft 20-30%. “In the future more than two thirds of the wings, fuselage and tail section of the aircraft will be made of composites,” he said.

That is what is claimed (Retrofit to Block 50/52’s not less) . But then again you wont beleive the US manuf. words as they are all bluffing.

they are just pushing for upgrade that does not add anything of value except for them collecting money without any additional cost.

The US Air Force Block 50 F-16C will receive the advanced Sniper XR targeting/navigation pod replacing older systems currently in the US inventory, as well as software updates for integration of smart munitions such as AGM-154, JDAM bombs, and AGM-158. The US Air Force expects the F-16CJ to remain in service until 2025.

why u dont put the sales figure for each years. and ur assuming that all upgrades willb completed within One or two years which is not possible.

http://www.deagel.com/Strike-and-Fighter-Aircraft/F-16C-Block-50_a000540013.aspx
Falcon STAR, F-16 Structure Augmentation Roadmap, program will see US Air Force F-16 fleet receiving parts kits to strengthen their structure. This measure will enable the F-16 aircraft to attain its projected 8,000-hours of service life through 2025 for the US Air Force, when the entire fleet should be dismantled. Falcon STAR program is valued at $1 billion. The parts kits involved in this program number 79,000. Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is where modification work is taking place. Starting in 2006, F-16s for European countries will undergo Falcon STAR modification. All in all, more than 2,000 F-16s belonging to the United States, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Israel, Greece, Singapore, Thailand and Bahrain will be modified through 2014.
Lockheed-Martin delivered the last F-16 aircraft produced for the US Air Force at Lockheed-Martin Aero Plant in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 18, 2005. Since 1978 the US Air Force received 2,231 F-16s of which 1,300 were in the USAF inventory as of 2005. The last F-16 aircraft is scheduled for retirement in 2025.

And that is the only reason for ITS EXISTANCE , if LMA , NG only wanted AESA for further sales they had the Apg-80 which they could offer , however they know that beyond 2009 their wont really be many F-16’s produced so not much money is to be made from now on new VIPER sales so they are cornering the UPGRADE market , Logically if you sell 800 of these Block 50’s between 1993 – 2005 you would expect some to come back to you for UPGRADE when they reach roughly 50-60% of their life .

so ur now expecting 50% to be upgraded with AESA radar. it aint gonna happen. It didnot happen with F-15C which has far more life and upgrade will actually makes a difference in performance.

Major upgrades for all F-16 versions are being incorporated to keep the fleet modern and fully supportable over the aircraft’s long service life. As all F-16 blocks, recent production blocks of the F-16 such as Block 50, 52 and 60 are also designed, from the ground up, with enough growth potential in weight growth, cabling, data connectivity and capacity, electrical power, and physical space, to enable growth throughout a life span of 40 years and beyond. Utilization of standard interfaces such as 1760, 1553 and the new FiberChannel five channels, Gigabit rate databus, enable rapid interfacing and data sharing throughout the aircraft systems. In addition to the production programs, Lockheed Martin has incorporated a “roadmap of convergence” for F-16 upgrades and production aircraft, consisting of an integrated plan that will result in maximum commonality throughout the fleet.

i am still waiting for cost of upgrade and time line? Just look Turkish upgrade program. it is damn slow and costly.

It would be 256 km if we use the detection formula .

It is not irrelevant . You said NOSE MOUNTED SENSOR is better at performance , so where is the EVIDENCE . If you beleive in it surely you will have seen some EVIDENCE OF DEGRADATION IN SENSOR PERFORMANCE IF IT GOES FROM NOSE MOUNTED TO POD MOUNTED.

Which one will be more effective at looking over the top targets like UAVs.?

What the heck does that have to do with IRST ? And what about F-16 being able to fit AESA radar in similar sized nose ? Is that an illusion that has been created and fabrication of FACTs and total distortion ??

u only can put AESA on newer F-16s which is not the case with MIG-29 as it has bigger nose. It limits the AESA upgrade market and since performance gap is not that much for smaller radar. no one is going to take that proposal serously.
there is no point in increasing the range of passive missiles when passive sensors are not at those ranges.

The near future could see Russian fighters equipped to deliver passive attacks from medium range. When development of the R-27P (pasivnaya) variant of the Vympel R-27 air-to-air missile was first reported, it was assumed that the weapon’s primary target would be airborne early-warning aircraft. It now seems likely that the weapon is intended for use against fighters indiscreet enough to run their radars for long periods. In its basic form, the R-27 has a maximum range of 40-60km, but the energeticheskaya models with extended-length rocket motors have been credited with ranges of 150km or more.

Look at Block 50/52 f-16’s . The others will probably see only a LIFE Extension . Their are over 800 Block 50/52’s that have been built and the first one for USAF was 1991-1992 (IIRC) , so the middle ones that were delivered in mid-late 90’s should be upgraded sometimes in the 2012-2015 timeframe just like a MLU type setup . The scope of Upgrades (wether they get AESA , newer targeting suite , weapons or simply a life extension) will depend upon F-35 and how much success the USAF is having in feilding it .

u cannot put MLU examples and apply to USAF. USAF F-16s are generally more used than the rest of the world and it takes more time to upgrade an aircraft than simply build new one. thats why u dont see that many upgrade proposal and certainly not deep one like AESA with marginal improvement.
Still i am waiting for that $3b separat AESA development cost of F-16? since u already droped 3 times range improvement over latest slotarray radar.

So that is your EVIDENCE ? because russians can fit their desired IRST aboard the nose it makes it MORE SUPERIOR TO POD MOUNTED IRST ? So no evidence other then such rubbish ? No sceintific reason as to why the DETECTION RANGES AND PERFORMANCE of the IRST / FLIR would all of a sudden DETERIORATE when mounted in the belly as opposed to the NOSE ? It is funny because i bet that YOU YOURSELF WOULD ASK FOR MORE EVIDENCE IF SUCH STUPID EXPLAINATION WAS GIVEN TO YOU .

this thing is irrelevant as Pod mounted is almost necessary for ground strike as aircraft is multirole they went though expensive french solution.

I am not saying POD mounted is superior however it will most likely add more DRAG hence the NOSE is probably the best AERODYNAMICALLY place to put an IRST , however I SEE NO SCEINTIFIC ARGUMENT as to why the POD MOUNTED IRST/FLIR=IFTS would face ANY (even minute) DEGRADATION in performance (IR-IMAGERY PERFORMANCE THAT IS) if it is mounted in the belly . OFCOURSE THE AIRCRAFT WOULD BECOME MORE DRAGGY AS OPPOSED TO A PURE NOSE MOUNTED IRST but NO SCEINTIFIC EVIDENCE IS THEIR TO SUPPORT THAT SENSOR PERFORMANCE WOULD BE DEGRADED . The F-35 has a bigger nose yet its EOTS (IRST+FLIR) is mounted on the undersurface of the nose .

bigger nose is reqiured for AESA radar.

I would like to correct this to the APG-79 (compared to the baseline APG-73) . My bad a mistake on my part … If you read my posts in the previous thread i provide evidence of -79 vs -73 comparison , i was thinking something else when i wrote that for the -80 vs -68 . I stand corrected .

thats good that you corrected this. look at this statement from Year 2001. the same slot array radar performance is improved by 50% so it is not hard to believe 50% more improvement by now they called it M3. Similar performance gains for western manufacturers. So there is no point of introducing small AESA untill this point.

DATE:21/08/01
SOURCE:Flight International
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2001/08/21/134946/chinas-su-30mkks-will-have-multi-mode-radar.html
Today’s Zhuk-M and -MS radars are significantly different from those developed in the mid- to late 1980s, being equipped with modern processing hardware and improved analogue antennas. This boosts performance by 50%, says the manufacturer.
Phazotron is working on more advanced variants, including the Zhuk-MF equipped with a phased-array antenna. During MAKS 2001 the company unveiled a new active array for this radar. Kanashenkov says an active antenna could become available within a few years of funding being provided because the company is already working on critical technologies.

PROBABLY NOT DECADES , but close to 6-8 years @ which time USAF would be clear of the production ramp of F-35 , its cost etc , then they can decide which F-16’s they want to upgrade , for how long to keep them and wether 200-300 F-16’s would be upgraded extensivly so that they could buy less of EXPENSIVE F-35 (if costs go overboard as they tend to) and keep the much newer F-16’s flying for a longer time with more extensive upgrades .

and SABR isnt for aircraft upgrades going on today as i have been trying to tell you for 2 days now , it is for block 50/52’s for the future . NG realizes that F-16 production line will most likely end in 2009-2010 timeframe after which only the UPGRADE market will remain for them and they are positioning themselves for that inevetiable future .

In 6 to 8 years Most of USAF F-16s will be more than 20 to 25 years old and it will take couple of years to implement AESA decision. so by that time avg F-16 will be closer to 30 year old. So no point in putting AESA on it.

NO . NO . NO . NO . READ WHAT I SAID AGAIN , i said those THAT CHOSE THE F-16 , were not offered AESA in it except the UAE . Those that passed on the F-16’s might have had AESA offered to them . When the F-16 goes up against F-15 , EF , Rafale , SU-30 , Mig-35 etc etc they dont only look at RADAR but look at a whole lot of other things .

I AM MERELY TALKING ABOUT THOSE NATIONS THAT PICKED THE F-16 ,WERE NOT OFFERED AESA EXCEPT UAE WHO WERE OFFERED BUT HAD TO SPEND NEARLY 3 BILLION IN DEVELOPING THEIR VERSION OF THE AIRCRAFT . 3 billion is not a small ammount of money , not many nations can afford to spend that much to design a custom varient for themselves.

from where is that $3b figure comes from? there is other very large scale F-16 operator for them funding AESA will be alot easier as they dont have to spend money on on introducing F-16 like UAE.