So its not yet known if TVC is planned in Mig 35,it will be a mistake not to implement it as it will make the Mig 35 much more maneuverable and Mig 29 OVT 3d TVC greatly increases manuverability and Su 35 has TVC so why whould Mig 35 not use TVC because it will make it slightly more expensive? That’s a stupid excuse.

So is it fully confirmed that Mig will be developing a new heavy fighter interceptor to replace the Mig 31 and first prototype to be built by 2020 or sooner? Whats the PAK-?? or T-?? development name?

How many Mig 29K are planned to be manufactured for Russian Navy this year?

Earlier it was reported that VVS is going back from the bluish grey monotone paint scheme to the previous lighter blue camo as on Su 35 01-04 and other variations but latest production units from all plants are still coming out in the bluish grey monotone paint scheme so the reverse to previous camo was a rumor?
Also when will the new planned pre 1943 style all red star going to be implemented?

F 22 is far from impervious to S 300 variants wich were in Soviet service since the late 70’s and be the time F22 was introduced S 400 entered service. Or were they hoping to only encounter Sa 2? If war came in Europe F22 whould not have lasted very long maybe 1-2 days before the massive numerical advantage in Soviet Airforce numbers whould overwhelmed US/Nato and huge numbers superiority of Soviet tactical aviation of Su24,Mig 27,Su 22 and maybe if need Strategic aviation Tu 22M,Tu 160,Tu 95 whould of attacked and destroyed the airfields from which F22 operated and most of the F22 as well. Given the F22 terrible servicibilty record of 100 maintenance hour for every flight hour,most whould of been destryoed on the ground.;)

F-22’s Cold War design mission was to dominate the skies over East Germany and Poland by shooting down Soviet interceptors equipped with look down/shoot down radar, clearing a path for NATO bombers flying nap-of-earth. Stealth, high speed and high altitude made it impervious to SAMs. This is a polar opposite of a “defensive air defense fighter”. Its mission was offensive counter air.

Actually its the Rafale and Typhoon and Gripen are a generation behind the Su 35 in aerodinamic design and Su 35 is aerodynamically superior in many respects,for one it does not have those drag causing canards, the Rafale and Typhoon are little more than 2 engined Ye 8 without horizontal stabilizers,Gripen also like Ye 8 with side intakes thats about all for its aerodinamic inovation. Ye 8 first flew in 1962 by the way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_Ye-8 The eurocanards are very old fashioned their airframe designs are of the 1960 design phylosophy,Su 35 design is more modern which is a combined wing-body lyfting body design which is also what the Pakfa is. Gripen is a light fighter and is a little Mig 21 sized toy with 1 F18 engine compared to the Su 35 and you say its aerodinamically superior why because its much smaller and less capable lol what rubbish.
I also highly doubt that figure for the Rafale.
If you think that the Typhoon or Rafale can fly rings around Su 35 which has thrust vectoring you must be either truly deluisional or have never seen a video of Su 35 demonstrating its supermanuverability. I suggest you look up some vidoes of Su 35 in action.

The leaked Swiss evaluation had Typhoon recorded at M1.4 without afterburner. No doubt this is under near-optimal circumstances as we can assume the Su-35 figure is.

I’m not aware of any hard numbers for Rafale, but given the report here of Mach 0.9 at 50% throttle and full ordinance load I think we can assume that it has at least limited supercruise capability in less demanding configs.

For all that Su-35 is an impressive aircraft the basic airframe design is still a generation behind Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen and this is reflected across all kinematic characteristics. If you like I’ll grant that Rafale probably isn’t any faster on military power than Su-35 and likely has inferior top speed and similar acceleration characteristics — accomplishing by design elegance what Su-35 does with raw horsepower. In the case of Typhoon, though, I’d put good money on it flying rings around Su-35 — and anything else bar F-22/T-50.

They are deployed in numbers only because they are fighters introduced earlier with older systems. There are currently 7 production Su 35 but 12 more are to be built this year and by the end of the year Su 35 should pretty much be operational and Su 35 is not a paper tiger as all its systems have been developed and functioning. And also Rafale and Typhoon were never prooven in any real air to air combat and never operated against a force with a working air defence network,Lybia air defence is a joke its mostly derilict and not working.

First of all the Su 35 does NOT use a baseline AL 31 engine in case you didn’t know,Su 35 uses a highly modernized and vastly improved AL 31 called 117S which has better acceleration,FADEC, and each engine produces 31,900 lbf in afterburner and 19,400lbf dry thrust thats more power in dry thrust than what the Rafale produces with its 17,000 lb engine in afterburner even if the Rafale overides its engines to 19,000lb. The highly modernized 117S can also be overriden to give %10 more thrust so cut the BS,not to mention overriding engines to give more thrust than what is standard operation is stupid as it severelly decreases engine reliability and service life and no one does that. The Rafale and Typhoon little Mig 29 sized engines don’t even remotelly come close to generating 31,900 lbf of thrust no matter how you overide them you don’t seem to get that?

I also forgot to mention that Su 35 has thrust vectoring and Rafael and Typoon obviously don’t. Rafael and Typoon manuverability in sustained turn rate is comparable to baseline Su 27 and less manuverable in instantenious turn rate to basic Su 27. Su 35 with thrust vectoring and 8,700 lbf more thrust than baseline Su 27 is much much more manuverable than the baseline Su 27 or the Rafael or the Typhoon. There are many videos of Su 35 901 displaying its supermanuverability the Rafale and Typhoon don’t even remotelly come close to the manuverability of the Su 35.

Be careful how you compare things, the Su-35 is largely a paper tiger at this point while the Eurocanards you downplay are both deployed in numbers and used in the real world.

EJ 200 and M-88 are rated at their public specifications, which can be exceeded in wartime. The Rafale can essentially hot rod the motors at least 10% more than the published specs by using overrides. I don’t think Typhoon allows the pilot to do so. But it has always been the case that both engines were measured conservatively.

The Al-31 is a well understood engine by intelligence experts. You don’t override the baseline Al-31 settings and for all it’s ruggedness in maneuvers it requires much more hands on maintenance. It also breaks when it is abused.

Rafale and Typhoon catalog might show it carry the same weight but it will be to a much shorter distance,also remember that Su 35 thrust output of its 2 engines is 63,800 lbf is almost twice of Rafale which is 34,000lbf for its 2 engines so the much higher thrust of the Su 35 propelling a much larger fighter the effect of the same amount of external ordinace both air to air or air to ground whould have a much more negative impact on the the Rafale or Tyhoon performance in speed,climb,acceleration,manuverability and range and thats a huge advantage for the Su 35.
Su 35 much more powerful engines and larger size allow a much larger and more powerful radar,ECM,jammers to be fitted and powered. Rafale and Typhoon much weaker engines do not have the power to operate a radar of the size and power like on the Su 35 or Pakfa.
I also forgot to mention Su 35 is also good deal faster than the Rafale and Typhoon. Su 35 is said to be capable of supercruise at Mach 1.3, can the Rafale supercruise at all,with its weak engines it whould be hard to belive?
Su 35 can carry the Kh31 just as the Su 33 so it might be able to carry the Brahmos-Russian designation Onyx as well.

Not so. Both Rafale And EF can carry the same total weight of weapons as the Su-35S, even though these figures are more teoretical than practical.

And i even thing the Rafale can carry a big club(NC?) on its center hardpoint.

Of cource the question is what usefull range each jet get with the same amount of ordinance..

Not sure about the inner wing Hardpoints on Su-35S though. Can it mount Brahmos there?