Considering the condition of Bundeswehr Germany is well advised not buy any complex advanced equipment. it neither has the money nor technical people to operate in optimum quantity in effective way. It is only two years way before Russia make it half baked industrialized country make it useless for Nato and EU.
Just like what happen to Turkey and Iraki kurds.

The “sanction” piece is a bit overblown on here. While AECA and ITAR can prevent sales (and resales), one look U.S. equipment operated by sanctioned regimes makes the argument moot.
Iran is still operating F-14’s some 39 years after the revolution (there have been peaks and valleys in numbers operational aircraft, but given the USN experience with the F-14, Iran’s ability to keep them flying is nothing short of impressive). Venezuela still operates their F-16’s (despite threats to sell them), there are simply too many operators to prevent them from obtaining spares. Egypt doesn’t seem too worried about their fleet of F-16’s or M1A1 (though they are clearly diversifying due to poor relations and the shutting off of of the aid spigot).

Most of the time (as in the case of Israel), the U.S. and others will shut off resupply for the duration of the conflict. All this is to say that Saab wasn’t worried about installing US engines and U.S. fly by wire tech on their Gripen. In fact, even when BAE was sued over improper notification and payments for export licences for the Gripen to Czechs and Hungary, the US didn’t block the actual leases.

There is a simple work around, if your going to use weapons with US content be sure to stockpile spares and munitions. Sadly, even most NATO nations have a paltry war reserve (even during the Cold War few kept more than a 30-15 day supply of munitions, based on hopelessly optimistic expenditure predictions)

F-14 is primitive aircraft compared to Gripen. but than in the era F-14 introduced manpower was either cheap or countries don’t care how much manpower it takes to maintain it. now most countries have aging population or too expensive to do this kind of work. absolute minimum manpower is allocated to maintain.

They are spending $125m on R&D and looking at post 2020 timeframe. The Cheapest integration of Meteor with Gripen cost $70m and that like 5 years ago. Israel cost structure is more like lab experiment.

So 287 million dollars per bird? Sounds about right what it should be, with restarting after a long hiatus, with bunch of new tech and systems, for a small batch. With salary differences, similar plane contracted in US would have cost 500+ million per bird.

$500m?. think more like $3b at minimum. This is already too big for US manufacturing.This Tu-160 price will go down later once PAKDA starts with uniform systems. The newer IL96-400M at $120m. This is one third of price of Boeing 777 at a very slow production rate initially . and B777 is designed by global engineers with global parts.

Phazotron better step their game up this time. I assume new MiG’s got larger fuel capacity and potentially more cooling to support higher powered AESA TRM.

where is radar mentioned in this statement?

http://uacrussia.ru/en/investors/prezidentu-rossii-prodemonstrirovan-novyy-istrebitel-mig-35
Yury Slyusar reported to the President of Russian Federation that the new MiG-35 fighter was designed specially to perform combat activities in areas of high intensity conflicts, in high density air defences. Strong performance is achieved due to new defence suite, new opto-location station and reduced radar cross section signature.

Also see Su-35. It all about netcentric and covert attacks on emitters. nothing of importance to radar.

http://uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/military/su-35/
The high combat effectiveness of the Su-35 airplane is achieved through its:
– Ability to operate independently, in a group of airplanes or as part of a battle group controlled from an aerial, ground-based or ship-based command center;
– Single integrated information-management system providing intellectual support to the pilot, which maintains communication and coordination between the crew and avionics equipment;
– Covert attacks on radio-emitting aerial targets at mid- and long-range;
– Attacks on ground and sea-surface targets with guided high-precision missiles without entering air defense zones;
– High target-tracking stability;
– Simultaneous air-to-air and air-to surface operations.

Irbis is now decade old technology. I am sure It will have more range now.

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/Su-35/
The Research Institute has been developing Irbis since 2004. By now, the engineering prototypes of the system have passed the required bench trials. The first of them has been installed on the Su-30MK2 flying laboratory and is undergoing flight tests. The first flight of the flying laboratory with Irbis onboard occurred in early 2007 at Gromov Flight Test Institute. During the flight, the laboratory proved the superior performance of the new radar in the air-to-surface operating mode

I am not sure why some one worked out on radar technology. when it is practically understood that almost ever Su-35/Su-30SM/Su-34 carries big pods on wings.
it is the defensive suite that is number one criteria for strong performance in high intensity combat.

http://uacrussia.ru/en/investors/prezidentu-rossii-prodemonstrirovan-novyy-istrebitel-mig-35
Yury Slyusar reported to the President of Russian Federation that the new MiG-35 fighter was designed specially to perform combat activities in areas of high intensity conflicts, in high density air defences. Strong performance is achieved due to new defence suite, new opto-location station and reduced radar cross section signature