Despite the fact that the Russian economy is growing, money for their military is still limited. They can’t afford to upgrade all of their aircraft and to afford too many new designs.

Current strike aircraft like the Su-24 & Su-25 are upgraded to bridge the time until enough Su-34 will be available.

The fighter fleet is upgraded to a limited degree especially Su-27 being upgraded to Su-27SM and the MiG-31 being upgraded to the MiG-31BM standard. MiG-29SMT upgrade effort has been canceled as far as I know. Basically the RuAF plans to replace its MiG-29 and Su-27 fleet with the PAK FA, but as it will take quite some time until enough aircraft of this type are introduced, the RuAF plans to acquire some new built Su-27SM2 (customised version of the Su-35 tailored to the RuAF’s needs).

Only 6 Su-30s were built (excluding export variants & pre-production aircraft) all being the baseline models with air defence capabilities only. The upgrade program to bring them on the Su-30KN standard with multi-role capabilities, together with some Su-27UB was rejected in preference of the Su-27SM upgrade.

In total 15 Su-27M (old Su-35) were built. There were 6 prototypes and pre-production aircraft each and 3 production aircraft. 5 of them were evaluated by the 237th Regiment in Akthubinsk and finally handed over to the Russian Knights in 2003. The remaining airworthy airframes are used by Knaapo for testing purposes for example the pre-production examples no. 708 & 710 were used to test the FCS and engines of the new Su-35 aka Su-35BM. Sukhoi sealed any further development and marketing efforts of the Su-27M in 2003 and its export designation Su-35 become available again and is now used for Knaapo’s last ultimativ Flanker derivate (T-10BM).

Thanks for the pictures. Can someone explain the AMIs serials philosophi?

When did it go to France (Le Bourget?) and especially Belgium?

Yes LeBourget. Of course Belgium (TLP);) .

U havent provide why MIG-35 case is different than Su-35/MIG-29K just because there was a plastic model at airshow which has nothing to do with avionics and testing procedures..

WWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTT????????????????
I haven’t provided why the case of the MiG-35 is different? What are I’m talking about all the time? Honestly I have repeated my self a couple of times now and now I must read such an utter bullsh!t from you. It is really unbelieveable how blind and ignorant people can be.

whats the difference beteen FGA29 & FGA35 and why both exist.

You should start to inform your self… I just say Zhuk-MAE & Zhuk-AE you know…

Although not directly related to PAK-FA but what Sukhoi has mastered for commercial aviation. I am not sure how much is composite usage in F-22.
I havent seen anywhere US industrial worker for Aviation trained in EU. All Saturn/Knapo/Irkut/Salyut are doing that.

Just 24% of the F-22s airframe are made of composites. The rest is titanium (40%), aluminium (16%) and other materials which aren’t specified but the F-22 is said to feature some kind of ceramic materials as well.

First MIG-29K flown January 2007. It is called Pre-Production Aircraft. it has Zhuk-M3 radar along with all the other changes not shown or exported before. so do u think what this MIG-29K represents?

As you say this is a pre-production aircraft. This MiG-29K compares very closly to the current Su-35 which is often called flying prototype, but is in fact a pre-production aircraft. The same can not be said for the current MiG-35 which is just a testbed for the avionics intended to equip a final MiG-35. A real prototype reassembling the configuration unveilled by RAC MiG on MAKS is under construction right now and should be first flown by late 2008/early 2009, of course only if no delays occur.

and that Zhuk-M3 was not flown before on any aircraft? because there is no direct statement stating Zhuk-M3 has been flown before or RD-33MK? So if u cannot find statement about those so how u can find statement about AESA test flights?

You are comparing apples with oranges. See my statement above. You seem not to understand that there is ever a first time. I assume the Zhuk-MAE was for the first time installed onboard the MiG-35 as the radar itself wasn’t ready before. Back in 2005 Phazatron presented its Zhuk-A radar though only a mock-up. For sure they had built a working prototype, but it is known that this prototype was way to heavy to fit into the MiG-29. Therefore they had to stick with another solution to test an AESA radar onboard the MiG-29. Zhuk-MAE was the logical choice retaining most of the Zhuk-MEs components and just replacing the mechanical antenna with an AESA. This was also a cheap and low risk solution. The Zhuk-MAEs purpose was mainly to demonstrate that the AESA antenna works in the MiG-29 environment, especially cooling etc. Phazatron will now develope a final Zhuk-A/AE which will be lighter than the first prototype originally built, but heavier than the Zhuk-MAE due a larger antenna… It remains to see when and on which aircraft this final Zhuk-AE will be tested.

so does MIG-35.

Just because an aircraft is presented on an airshow for marketing purposes, doesn’t mean it was built for such a presentation only. Common were is your so called logic?

I have clearly shown u testing procedures of both Sukhoi/MIG. why would they call it MIG-35 if it is experimental like OVT?

As mentioned 1000 times before the aircraft is supposed to be a first prototype though it only acts as a testbed for the final MiG-35s avionics which will be the most important difference over the MiG-29K. Previously it was planned to designate the MiG-29M-OVT as MiG-35 and use it as first prototype, but this has been abonedoned as TVC is not a definitive feature of the MiG-35, but an option available.

Add Greece, Swiss, Norway and the Netherlands were the aircraft was presented on invitation of the hosting airforces/nations for open days and airshows.

On the course to Singapore the aircraft stoped in Cyprus, Abu Dhabi and Ceylon.

15 track/6 engage is not a big deal

To big for NIIP back at that time as this performance was never achieved with the N-011. During the tests the radar couldn’t track/engage more than 13/4 targets instead of the projected 15/6. But don’t nitpick on that as it is just an example to show that the performance specifications disclosed to the public are not necessarily demonstrated in reality by the same time!

I have clearly indicated that Russian dont bring fully functional fighter unless it is tested on another platform. They clearly said exprimental with OVT but not with MIG-35. so no second guessing.

What is a fully functional fighter? Production ready aircraft? If so the MiG-35 isn’t such an aircraft in its current form. The aircraft is an avionics testbed not more not less and the redesignation is very likely for marketing purposes or due the fact that the sensor suite of the new MiG-35 will be the most important difference in comparison with the MiG-29M/K and the aircraft is the prototype for these new sensors. Zhuk-MAE is not a final product but an interim testing device to demonstrate the AESA in the MiG-29 environment.

& Su-35 at MAK-2007 was for what purpose?

Presentation and marketing… And what?

I rely more on logic not just open source information.

So do I, but you can’t apply logic without a base. But it’s in the end irrelevant as it hasn’t to do with the matter at all…