M2K does not have three times life. both M2K and MIG-29 will practically retire at same time. with weopons/ upgrade of M2K costing 3 times.
MIG-29UPG does not have have less capability. it has IRST for silent attack and much longer range RVV-SD.
there is no evidence of Meteor with M2K upgrades.

There are 4 engine bombers.
This is not minor statistical difference between 1 and 2 engines one you look over 40 year life cycle cost. plus excess power allow twin engine fighter to release weopons from further height and speed. give it big advantage. I highly doubt bomb and fuel tank loaded single engine fighter can even cross Mach 1. while some twin fighters can go all the way to Mach 2 for weopon release. Kh-31XX is released upto Mach 1.5 speeds.
single engine is only good if price is cheap like F-16A or JAS39A.

Elsewhere there are reports of heavy ground battles with tanks fighting on both sides. I think it is pretty clear Putin is getting a lot more fight from the Ukrainians than he expected.

He was not only expecting more fighting but more economic burden of essentially 40 years of economic neglect in Ukraine. that’s why he did not want to invade at first place.

http://www.dw.de/strife-over-south-stream/a-17703641
A prominent Bulgarian political analyst, who asked not to be named, told DW that “the EU has no money to support Ukraine in the gas dispute with Russia.”

iPhone and UCAV has huge difference in manufacturing quality. Ukraine helicopters are practically outdated with poor training. Iraq is flat ground. the lower and faster you go the better. what you see in Iraq is failure of UCAV policy. this is the result of not using heavy armor and heavy choppers for decade than pick pricks of UAV.

there is no evidence of operational savings with UCAV when consider operational structure needed and low payload capacity. Maintaince and Pilots of transport and attack helicopter pilots can be shared.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator-uav/
Predator follows a conventional launch sequence from a semi-prepared surface under direct line-of-sight control. The take-off and landing length is typically 2,000ft. The mission can be controlled through line-of-site data links or through Ku-band satellite links to produce continuous video

A typical nonsense claim. To reach the maximum range a Su-27SM has to be operated like an airliner. Stick to subsonic speed at optimum cruise height and no AB for climb or accelleration to go there and all external loads released ~half way out. For advertisement purpose some corner values are published, but no more than a single one can be reached in the same mission in general. Alone going into the transonic speed range for a brief moment comes along with a range penalty. The PAK-FA or F-22A in mind to do a supercruise is limited to a few minutes to have some endurance at least.

so. any other fighter will have more limitations. Flanker is best among supersonic range. and you can hardly consider it few minutes. T-50 supersonic range is 1500km.

You have to be kidding me. Even with the same fuel load, the Su-27 has a loaded weight of 24,260 kg, which would give a T/W of 1.031. But with that fuel load the Su-27’s range won’t match the F-15’s, since the AL-31’s specific fuel consumption is higher than even the F100-PW-229, which is thirstier than the -100 and -220.

Also, I’m pretty sure the Su-27SM is heavier than the Su-27S. Hell, I think even the F-15C with AESA is heavier than the ones with mechanical radars.

Su-27SK has 3530km range with 6 AIM-120 load out on 9400kg internal fuel. Show me any other aircraft in the world that is as efficient with same load out?. Either SU-27SK is lighter than your suggested weight or AL-31 is more efficient.

from where you get Su-27SM heavier than Su-27S?.
there is display board from 2005. There are 10 weopon stations in picture. I am sure now avionics are even more lighter compared to 2005. fundamentally Flanker is very light weight platform for its size.
http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/mos2005_day02.html

The same thing could be done with the Tejas as well. At a fifth of the cost.

you know Tejas real cost that claiming fifth. it occupies very expensive real estate that is not producing anything. that is called lost opportunity cost. there are a lot of fixed overhead cost.
count this claim time from decembeer 2012. deadline is 2015 at max for first 20 Tejas.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/12/rs-1500-crore-more-for-light-combat.html.
ADA is defending HAL, with Subramanyam insisting that HAL would build the first 20 Tejas within 2½ to 3 years. By then the fighter would have obtained final operational clearance (FOC) in its flight-testing programme and production can begin of the next 20 Tejas (which must be built to FOC standards