Your confused. Basically, taking off on an air to air mission with just missiles and fuel, the F-35A is 9g capable (just like most other fighters), the difference being that the F-35 carries a hell of a lot more fuel. Conversely, on an attack mission, the aircraft is g limited (like other DFCS, the g demand system will limit pitch, roll, etc. based on load), until free of bombs.

a lot of fuel does not mean much when airframe is draggeir and heavier. it will lose lots of fuel in takeoff and acceleration. It does not have TVC to do those high g turns.

You might mean the old 9.31 but that is a goner. AFAIK, they have dropped the MiG-29M2 airframe for MiG-35 (9.61 and 9.67) due to commonality reasons and the future MiG-35s shall be basically MiG-29K/KUBs (9.41 and 9.47) without tailhook and naval landing gear.

I think you did not understood what I wrote. the only thing announced regarding MIG-35 performance is 19km altitude and Mach 2.25. this give it decisive advantage over other medium size fighters for weopon release.

We know that MIG-35 is larger size with larger canopy. if it can achieve such performance it means its materals of construction are improved to deal with drag of larger airframe.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-08-31/mig-35-prospects-are-still-good-says-makerThe new solutions on radio-electronics and weapons bring the MiG-35 closer to fifth generation.”

At MAKS’2015, the KRET corporation unveiled a new version of the AESA radar developed by its member company Phazotron-NIIR for the MiG-35. Dubbed FGA35, the unit features more modern solid-state transmitter modules than those used on experimental AESA carried by a prototype aircraft mission in frame of the Indian MMRCA tender.

Further, the MiG-35 has emerged as a primary platform for fire-trials of the Grom guided munitions from Tactical Missile Corporation (Russian acronym TRV), that were unveiled at MAKS’2015. A missile designated E1 and a glide bomb designated E2 were shown. TRV CEO Boris Obnosov told reporters that examples of the Grom have already been submitted to the Russian MoD for trials.

wow that’s interesting… please could you name an Arab country that would finance building a Russian carrier ? Syria ?

this just one item among many. the money is coming from complex economic system.

http://gulfnews.com/business/economy/russia-to-lend-egypt-25b-to-build-nuclear-power-plant-1.1831176
Russia to lend Egypt $25b to build nuclear power plant
Egypt will pay an interest rate of 3% annually, according to the country’s official gazette

for the same reason Russia does not want to act too tough with EU as this can devalue arab investments in EU.

Su-35 is built with greater titanium. It is least impacted by internal and external loads.

A 100k tonne carrier would come in at around $10bn, an ssbn is usually between 2-4bn

Have you looked at British trident and US tried renewal costs. Aircraft carrier is far cheaper especially if primary weapons like aircraft and airdefence C&C can be shared with airforce.

how do aircraft manufacturers rank in terms of after sales support? (politics aside)

high tier:
Saab (lots of good feedback from european operators)
Lockmart
Boink
Mil

mid tier:
Dassault (would move this higher but it seems their tendency to gauge customers after sales makes many reluctant to consider it at times)
IAPO (India had a few problems but it eventually got resolved)

garbage tier:
MiG/Kimov (lots of complaints and unservicability , but not sure if this is because of rosobonexport or because much of this was in the 90s)
Hongdu (lots of poor quality spares)

MIG/Klimov are the best they are supporting naval fulcrums and single engine JF-17 and experimental FC-31. On top of developing MIG-35 and MIG upgrades. It’s too risky for large airforce to depend on single factory and single engine production site.

If I had a job with lockheed. I would request an F-35B land right on the parliament lawn.

1. Why is the 700+ CR such a stretch? You do realize that the Absolute true radius is likely classified right?

2. External tanks haven’t even been tested the CR can only get better.

3. Using the 100nm jsm would extend the planes strike range even further.

The Lockheed Martin law suit will be EPIC.
*grabs popcorn*

they joined a fighter project in 1997 and for 10 years the most favorable government/high oil prices and still couldnot finish the deal. what kind of suppliers will want to be in this business of F-35 especially in Canada when return on investment practically negative.
It is not limited to Canada. Look at Israel/Japan/Turkey. All of them have 300 combat aircraft airforces each and they can barely afford 30 F-35 in next 10 years. I can estimate that with inflation prices of F-35 in post 2020 period will be a lot higher. its the way whole project is setup to become expensive.