There is no sarcasm in the T-X world. Boeing-Saab cut it off to reduce program costs by 0.004%.

What is this “MiG-29 vs F-16 operating costs” about in this thread? Operating costs of those 1980’s era MiGs tell us nothing about equivalent costs of MiG-29M, which is essentially a new plane, much less Su-30 which is completely different aircraft.

There is someone there advocating not to build Su-34 and keep Fencer instead?
Seems me no one going that far, as being happy for them still kicking butts doesn’t count like so in my eyes.
Complexity and cost have to be related to the alternative it would have when it was introduced and now.
Certainly it is a complex and costly airplane if compared to the Su-17 but it is not in any way worst than F-111 and Tornado on this regard.

But that is exactly the point, F-111 was retired because maintaining those big complicated planes ate quarter of USAF tacair budget.

FAF fighter pilot training transitioned to 3-plane model in the ’70s, Saab Safir->Fouga Magister-> MiG-21/Draken. Since Fouga was basically a sailplane powered by two hairdryers, last transition was pretty ‘hot’. “Fouga airspeed indicator scale ended before MiG-21’s began”.

Single engine combat aircraft were retired to save money during Yeltsin government. And yes, it did leave a gap in capabilities, which was noticed already in Chechnya.

Of course they had to cut types, but I’ve always understood that it wasn’t a coincidence that all single-engined types were removed. I understand loss of tactical recon Su-17’s was particularly big loss.

Su-17 has same engine as Su-24; I am fairly sure that cutting Su-24 fleet and retaining some Fitters would have been if anything cheaper. Polish AF apparently figured that removing Su-22’s would have costed more than retaining them…

http://www.interfax.by/news/belarus/1219761

Belarus plans to buy Su-30SM this year.

Political scuttlebutt says that relationships between Belarus and Russia are in all-time low. Are these deals really going forward?

Like in MiG-29K, fuselage and canopy is same for single- and two-seaters, and single seaters simply have larger fuel tank in lieu of second seat.

i saw a few nations keeping the ole mig-21 and ditch their mig-29,
the only possible reason for this phenomena is operational cost

Few did, but those air forces were financially bankrupt and could only maintain handful of QRA aircraft. When that is all you are going to do, MiG-21 is more cost-effective than, well, almost anything.