What nonsense? I am putting things into the right perspective. If you say something, then say the complete information, just just the cropped out part that suits you. It’s OK to say that F-16E is more advanced than 29SMT but without mentioning that it costs more than twice as much and that it only exists because of rich vendors from UAE who paid all this expensive theater the information is misleading.

I didn’t compare anything else than the time frames when those airframes were available. I personally stick with the given facts, rather than creating what if scenarios as they have no relevance in the real world, especially not if we talk about the past which has gone.

A much more interesting debate would be what Americans could have done with Russian budget, if you ask me.

If labour costs would have been similar to that of Russia maybe, but as said I’m not really interested in the what ifs at all.

Yes, I know that. The 961 and 967 are exactly like you described. The only question remains whether they represent the future series version or Russians just stick to what is available now.

There were a couple of articles released over the years in issues of AFM, AI or CA etc. You can also take a look at the manufacturers site, which should shed some light for you on the topic:
http://migavia.ru/eng/military_e/index_mil_e.html

Why speculating if the facts are in front of us 😉

It’s about precise control and workload. The MiG-29 is certainly not “hard” to fly as such, but more challenging to fly than the F-16 for example. An experienced Fulcrum jockey should have no trouble to fly the aircraft to its limits and make use of its performance potential. A beginner might have a harder time and in total the MiG-29 requires more active flying which requires attention and subsequently substracts from the pilots situational awareness. It might not be relevant in all situations and its impact is possibly relative small, but it adds up with other weaknesses such as the less capable radar, the more difficult control of the systems due absence of real HOTAS controls and limited data presentation due the dated cockpit layout. It’s not like the MiG-29 is so difficult to handle that it is hopefully outperformed. In dogfight situations this more difficult handling may have a smaller impact as the pilot has to permanently control the aircraft anyway. In formation flying, aerial refueling and other situations it’s certainly more recognisable.

In short words:
More active steering+aero limits awareness & monitoring = more difficult to handle

@Haavarla,
if the Su-34 is dependent from external supplies for engine start it is somewhat unlikely that it features an APU at all in its current form.

@Vanir,
this is from an article about the F-15 family I have saved on my HD.

The aircraft has an all-metal semi-monocoque fuselage of 58 feet 3 inch in length. The fuselage is of conventional semi-monocoque construction, and has a central pod and lateral twin-boom configuration. The F-15 airframe contains 25.8 percent titanium by weight, most of it concentrated around the engines and in the inboard sections of the wings. The three main wing spars and the bulkheads connecting them and the frames of the engine pods are of titanium. Aft of the forward main wing spar, the fuselage skin is also of titanium. The cantilever booms outboard of each engine which carry the twin fins and horizontal stabilators are made of titanium, as are the stabilator attachments and the spars of the fins. There is a titanium firewall between the two engines to prevent a fire in one engine from spreading to the other.
The heart of the aircraft structure is a set of four carry-through frames which run across the central fuselage, each with holes cut into them to allow the engine air intake ducts to pass through. At each end, they form the main attachment points for the wings, the three aft frames being attached to the three wing spars, and the forward point attaching to a leading-edge member. Machined titanium frames in the rear fuselage maintain structural integrity and provide the main mountings for the engine installation….
…The tail unit of the F-15A is an all-metal structure consisting of twin fins and rudders made of boron composite skin over honeycomb material.

This document http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-069%28II%29///MP-069%28II%29-%28SM1%29-01.pdf claims 2% composites only for the F-15E, 49% aluminium, 32% titanium and 17% of other materials.

It would, just not in the form as we know it today, but much closer to MiG-29M2 (with Zhuk-ME or maybe MFE PESA). Malaysia was a possible territory once but they opted for the MKM instead.

The MiG-35 is not based on MiG-29K/KUB, that’s completely wrong. It is based on MiG-29M2.. The first MiG-35 prototype was directly rebuilt from MiG-29M2 MRCA (154) which was nothing else than a rebuilt MiG-29M prototype from early 90s. The lineage is clear and there are no K/KUB involved there.

Carrierborne variants have separate lineage, although the first MiG-29Ks (single-seaters) shared the lightweight lithium airframe concept with deleted overwing louvres with the MiG-29M and later MiG-29K/KUB inherited the twin-canopy solution from MiG-29M2. So they look very similar, but they are different aircraft.

Austrians received several offers, the last one was for MiG-29SMT-IIs. They even tested the prototype (917) in Zeltweg, some pics were posted on airliners.com.. IIRC, the offer for bulk aircraft was around $15mil a piece which sounds pretty unbelievable to me. Even with the well-known Fulcrum issues regarding shorter service life, it was a good bang for the buck, I’d say.

While it is true that the first MiG-35 demonstrator was converted from the MiG-29M2, which was based on the 4th MiG-29M prototype (Bo.No. 154) it was just a demonstrator for the avionics. A new built aircraft was simply not available at that time and the MiG-29M2 was a logical choice for a first demonstrator.
Yet RAC MiG decided in 2002 to develop a unified family of single and twin engined land- and carrier based aircraft. This came after the evaluation of the MiG-29M2 showed that its new canopy wouldn’t affect the performance of the aircraft. As Indian was supposed to order the K it was ultimately decided to base the entire family on the KUB.
The M was to be based on the K, but India requested a different avionics fit with more advanced sensors such as an AESA radar this led to the MiG-35.
If you take a look in the recent RuAF news thread you’ll see that recent MiG-35 prototypes (961 & 967) are converted from previous MiG-29K/KUB.

There wouldn’t have been a MiG-35 in the form as it is now, so what’s the argument about another M based Fulcrum being possible earlier, while it would have nothing to do with the MiG-35 in its current form now?

Btw. The MiG-29M/M2 was offered for more than 30 mln $ to Austria.

@Vanir,
the RuAF has put the ex Algerian MiG-29SMT/UBT into service and the IN just received its first MiG-29K/KUB a few weeks ago. They might not be mature yet, but they are certainly operational and subsequently no technology demonstrators.

With regards to the content of titan and composites, the Su-27 uses titan and steel but not to such a large extend. Teens don’t use a great content of composites either F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s make use of not more than single digit percentage of composites often less than 5%. The Super Hornet is an exception with 19% of composites. The sources about the PAK FA are varying here titan is said to make up 20% only, while composites are said to be used for 70% of the surface.

I don’t discuss here whether the MiG-29 is as good for export customers as western export fighters, but many of the major weaknesses have been eliminated on the newer variants such as the MiG-29K which is in service right now and so far the most developed and advanced variant in service.

@MSphere,
the MiG-35 couldn’t have been in service years ago. The defining features of the MiG-35 are all avionics related and this aircraft is based on the MiG-29K/KUB designed for the IN, but with various avionics options. The same is true for the MiG-29M which was offered with most of the stuff fitted to the MiG-29SMT2 or K. There was an offer in late 2002 from the Russians to Austria for the MiG-29M which was rejected and which was much based on the old MiG-29M airframe.

I think both sides put forward some valid arguments. Good posts from Vanir and djcross. Technology evolves and much tasks are in fact performed by the computers now. They aren’t perfect, but they become better and better and the workload reduction is evident. In late generation combat aircraft a single crew member can act more efficient than ever before, but there are still tasks/missions where a second crew member is desirable.