Stop responding to JSR, he is a troll with no argument or knowledge. Keep going and his only argument would be “domestic version is different” and “Russian are very technology advanced”

To this points, i start to think he is a bit autistic.

Yes, you can.. By adding a lithium frame, more composites

Lithium frame isnt used due to crack

replacing the old avionics by much lighter modular systems

This is questionable , all others aircraft from F-15 , F-16, Su-27 to Su-35 increased in weight due to extra avionic. Unlikely that Mig-35 will somehow get lighter avionic. Anyway, if lolek figures are correct then Mig-35 weight increased by between 700-1500 kg from Mig-29 9.12

deleting overwing louvres and intake blocker mechanism

Could reduce weight here , but if if what lolek said is true then it also get a stronger structure , that increase weight alot

BTW, fuel does not count in the empty weight figure

No , but bigger fuel tank are generally heavier , even if slightly

It isn’t.. The external dimensions are pretty much identical

Well, from lolek figures , the wing area is bigger by 4 m2 compared to mig-29 9.12 at least on paper. Since no Mig-35 has been bought yet , nothing very certain about their specification

Of course, 50% more fuel adds corresponding loaded weight but that’s not the point, is it?

Iam talking about empty weight

It is interesting that despite such long discussion on the MiG-35 nobody provided actual numbers. In general using the name MiG-35 is a bit misleading, as currently all “3rd generation” Fulcrums (1st generation – 9.12 and 9.13, 2nd – 9.15 and 9.31, 3rd – 9.41 and 9.47) share practically the same airframe, what is evident looking at their designation: MiG 29K/MiG 29KUB/MiG-29M/MiG-35 are respectively 9.41/9.47/9.41S/9.41S (yes, the same designation for both Mig-29M and MiG-35). There was a time, when land based variants were designated 9.61 but basing on the recent article of P. Butowski it was changed. It should be remembered that the first MiG-35 demonstrator was not representative for current production standard as it was a refurbished airframe of MiG-29M “154” built back in 1990. The later demonstrators (numbers 961 and 967) were based on the production MiG-29K/KUB (4th airframe from the 2nd production batch and earlier “947” airframe respectively). The unified platform retains most of the dimensions of old MiG-29: total length 17.32m (9.12:17.32m), wingspan 11.99m (increase from 11.36 of 9.12), wing area 42 m2 (increase from 38 m2). The weight (again by P. Butowski) is 10900 kg empty for 9.12, 12400 kg for 9.41 and 11.600 kg for land based 9.41S. Concerning the internal fuel capacity the values are 4300l for 9.12 and 5830l for the new airframe (36% increase). The main source of the increased capacity are tanks introduced in the place of deleted auxiliary air intakes, I can’t find the exact value right now, but it’s in excess of 1000l. The increase of range however, is not as big as one may expect, as the most common number for internal fuel range is 1850 km (about 25-28% in comparison to 9.12), a bit lower than 2000km given for the 9.15 (which had practically the same fuel capacity as 9.41: 5740-5810l). Probably one of this numbers is slightly off or the decrease is a result of increased drag of enlarged canopy. As for the aerodynamics the improvement of 9.41 over 9.12 should be similar to that of 9.15: slightly improved AoA (9.15 was intended to have 30 degree limit in actual frontal use), benefits of FBW and other small improvements. Bigger improvement was probably in the g-load, as 9.15 was cleared for 9G in whole envelope (no 7G limit of 9.12 above 0.85M), what I guess was retained in 9.41. I would not take influence of TVC into account, as I don’t think that any of the operators would actually go for this solution. It is evident that RuAF is not exactly in love with the prospect of Mig-35 and even if ordered, it probably won’t differ much from the exported MiG-29M (due to costs).

So if i got this right ,compared to mig-29 9.12 , weight of Mig-35 increased by 700 kg for land version , 1500 kg for carrier version ( seem very low actually , where did you get those number from ?)and wing area increased by 4 m2 ?

Very informative post non the less, how many Mig-35 was bought though ?

you are embrassing yourself with such simplistic statements

I dont think so , every single things i said i have charts or calculation to back myself up. On the other hand, you have provided nothing others than your own assumption

Does Su-35 range increase by 20% over Su-27SM when its fuel capacity increase by 20%?

Irrelevance, different design , different aerodynamic

yup all fuel can be loaded there

Yes , all extra fuel will be loaded there. It basically a Mig-29 SMT with even bigger spine for fuel

block 60 does not carry more fuel than F-16A once you remove the CFTs.

Just like Mig-35 will not carry more fuel if its spine is removed

its is the load capacity of individual stations including multiple racks. Each of the 5 wet stations of MIG-35 easily carries atleast 1500kg. it is redesigned from the ground up

Irrelevance regarding aerodynamic quality. Pylon can be strengthen , and no , it is not redesign from ground up. More weight with same wing area will reduce your max altitude and ITR

they surely know what they are talking about. infact no MIG35 has flown with TVC yet. and all the data from tests of MIG-29K and MIG29M is going into the super-duper plane called MIG35. the heavier MIG-29K is Mach 2 class fighter.

Irrelevance , TVC been tested on Mig-29 airframe before. And once again , you have not provide any data to show that Mig-35 has better ITR or altitude than Mig-29

MIG-35 carries more fuel than MIG-29A so it has more range. such simplistic statement. didnt I said before person of limited technical understanding.

It is not simplistic statement. It a simple fact period.

MIG-35 does have same wing area?.. another simplistic statement. where do you think all the internal volume for fuel and external load on 5 wet stations coming from

Do you see the size different between Mig-35’s spine compared to Mig-29 ? , fuel is loaded there.

The same way F-16 block 60 can carry alot more fuel than F-16A without a tiny bit increase in wing area

Regarding wing station , Mig-35 wing has been strenghthen so 1 extra pair of AAM could be mounted near wing tip

you don’t need manual or graphs for some thing obvious.
Great aircraft performance is its core capability.

vague sentences with little to no information regarding actual capabilities
And the alleged supermaneuverable could simply mean post stall maneuver which came from TVC. Nothing about ITR or altitude really.

I have no means to challange this by equations. But we have andraax charts where it clearly shows the Mach figures with given altitude.
What is very clear in those is that the mach numbers increase from 1000m – 5000m – 10000m etc

So the point that loss of air density(Engine performance) is equal to drag(index1.44) is pure ********.

cruising at 5000m gives you a better acceleration vs cruising at 1000m. And that does not compute with the autor’s figures.
We need eighter F-35 charts at 1000m or Flanker at 5000m to get this right.

I dont know which chart of Andraxxuss you are talking about , this chart from F-15E flight manual shown that acceleration rate reduce with altitude even though maximum speed improved

MiG-35 is not heavier, they both are 11t class fighters (empty weight).

That according to Wikipedia
However, you cannot get more structure strength, more avionics (and cooling too in case of AESA radar) , 1.5 time more fuel, strengthen pylons, extra missiles warning system. And still have the same weight.

With one significant difference, the MiG-35 has not increased in size during that process.. It’s pretty much the same size as the baseline MiG-29..

There are many conflicting information about this, from what i understand Mig-35 get bigger slightly

If i was wrong and Mig-35 does not get bigger, it only get heavier then the changes in aerodynamic would be similar to the change from F-16A to F-16E or F-15C to F-15E. More lift loading and same CL, so again i dont see how it should be able to fly higher or perform ITR better than Mig-29A