Well MiG-23MLD has combat radius of about 600km? An early series MiG-29 (9-12) isn’t really much better. Internal fuel loads are almost identical (3319kg for MiG-23), fuel consumption probably roughly in same ballpark (R-35 has somewhat less thrust than MiG-29’s two engines, but it’s a turbojet). Dunno about drag, ’29 maybe less draggy even if you figure in effect of wing sweep?

Reason MiG-29 had short range is that no more was required. They were to be operated by almost exact same profiles as MiG-21/23 (ground controlled intercept, slashing missile attack, return to base, repeat if necessary). Even designers thought that very unambitious.

111 metres is about 3000 tons displacement, no? If they want proper endurance and seakeeping, capabilities are going to be modest. OTOH maybe they don’t need latest gee-whiz if it’s going to just hunt pirates off Somalia.

What happened to Types 27 to 30?

Today MiG-35 no doubt has more range than original MiG-29A, but same could be said for F-16;
-A modern F-16 blk50+ or 60 has 4585 kg fuel with CFT, plus 4609kg with 3xEFTs (2x600gals+300gal), totaling at 9194kg. A MiG-35 will have ~5200 kg internal fuel, plus 3492kg (2x1150l + 1x2000l) totaling at 8692kg. Due to CFT and new 600gal tanks, fuel capacity improvement on F-16 is actually way greater than the MiG-29/35…
-So a blk50 F-16 will definately have more range, plus it will be able to carry pretty meaningful payloads with 3xEFT; F-16 can carry 2xAShm or 2xARM like MiG-35, but also it can carry 6x anti-tank missiles, or GPS guided munitions, 4x Laser guided 500lb munitions 2x2000lb munitions or variety of cruise missiles.

However, don’t the later F-16 variants have degraded range performance due to extra weight and more powerful engines? One often reads about F-16A’s spectacular range performance, but later models apparently necessite CFT’s to match that.

An interesting quote.. 92 RD-33MK engines are valued at 8.675 billion Russian Rubles which is some $136.2 million..
Why weren’t any spare engines ordered, BTW?

Probably they were, but weren’t part of the factory order, which only concerns aircraft built?

So they flew several 4 vs 4’s and in one of them Flankers lost 0-4.

A split F-35A/B fleet appears to be an RAF proposal, presumably so they’d have some F-35s which they could guarantee wouldn’t have to have anything to do with those horrible navy people. The RAF has a very long history of trying very hard to (1) control all UK military aircraft & (2) keep them all on land, regardless of military effectiveness.

Say hello to air forces everywhere… 🙂
Why would RAF want F-35B? It has less performance for more money. Sure they had Harriers before but I understood that those were pretty much forced on RAF.

yall going ape **** over the 300 of 800 word article on Janes.
What else does it say? anyone have access to the rest?

I, and most others on the board, personally felt India should’ve NOT bought the carrier and build their own and operate Rafales and LCAs off them.

Naval LCA is 5 years away at minimum, and it really looks like about same for Rafale…

Also, MiG-29K is roughly half the cost of Rafale.

I think the much greater capability of the Su-24s on-board suit won over the cheaper single engine attack birds.

Sure with conventional bombs (esp. when you figure in all-weather capability) but for PGM’s, MiG-27K and Su-17 would have worked fine for kind of operations like in 2nd Chechnya and Syria, while costing probably like half of what Su-24. Even in early ’90s it was obvious that PGM’s are the future. Also for tactical recon, in fact wasn’t that the last role Su-17 had in RuAF?
Also those ships were new, newest just couple of years old when USSR collapsed. Poland’s still using theirs…

edit. Finnish Air Force apparently briefly considered acquiring ex-GDR Su-22’s in early ’90s, to replace MiG-21 in recon role. Those a/c would have been almost new, for cost of scrap metal.
However, Hornet acquisition ate up literally every penny.