@glitter
Thanks for the reply. The question is, however, what were the respective goals and where were they met or not?

Wrt the cost overrun I just asked due to the statement made by Too_Cool. There are many claims made, while rarely properly argued and proven.

@TMor
Thanks for the reply.

Is it already known whether France will slash its Rafale commitment to 225 AC or is the decision still pending?
And if so are there any confirmed numbers of the respective models?

Be careful with the conclusion, because I have the feeling you’re heading in the wrong direction.
For me, the real issue is simply if the goal of the program is clearly established.
Let’s see:
Rafale: yes
Gripen: yes
Typhoon: No
F-35: no
Problems that plagued the A-400M devellopement can come in mind as well.

What do you mean with “goal established”? That the aircraft meets the requirements as laid out in the specifications?

Btw. people keep claiming that the Rafale programme cost has grown by 4% only and I understand that this has been stated by Mr. Edelstenne (IIRC). But how does this claim match the with real numbers? In 2006 it was stated that total programme costs would be 33 bln € incl. R&D plus production of 294 aircraft. The estimate has grown by about 10 bln € ever since, how is this explained? I understand that VAT may have increased a bit, but numbers have been altered as well, production run is further stretched out and there is of course inflation. Are the figures adjusted for inflation, is that known and does the latest estimates take upgrades into account that go beyond the definitive F3 standard? These might be possible explainations for the cost growth, but are they valid?

TVC is optionally offered for those customers who require it. To answer the original wuestion the MiG-35 is first and foremost a MiG-29M with a new sensor suite. It is noteworthy that RAC MiG decided to built an all new familiy of land based and carrierborne single and twin seaters. The effort was pushed by India’s interest in the MiG-29K and after the tests with the MiG-29M2 demonstrator (converted from the 4th MiG-29M prototype) proved that the reshaped canopy of the two seater didn’t affect the aircraft’s aerodynamics. In 2002 it was subsequently decided that the navalised twin seater would form the baseline variant from which all other variants should be derived. It seems that some of the originally planned changes for the M variants (smaller flaps) have been abondoned like later proposed changes for the MiG-35 (10 pylons, new vertical stabs) for simplicity and greater commonality between the variants.

Around 2015 if export customers require it, latter if not. The RBE2AA is already in full rate production.

Interesting that there appears to be no refueling probe on that aircraft. Flaps and wi g folding mechanism appear to be retai ed from the K variant as well.

As said, without adjusting sqn strength or ordering additional aircraft the plan can’t be implemented as envisaged (14 for OCU and 18 per operational sqn). Previously I thought that 112 Escuadron was already operational, but it isn’t.

Don’t worry ASM integration is slatted for later export configurations and as history has shown the pace of integration of weapons on the Typhoon is unfortunately not overly quick, especially if there is no customer requirement plus associated commitment.