I didn’t want to get into this kind of discussion but anyway…

Really? MTOW and airframe lifespan is the MAIN factors that affect the empty weight. 7300 kg increase in mtow will require extra strengthening on the airframe, making it heavier. Ask it this way; Why MiG-29M cannot carry the additional 7300 kg but MiG-35 can?

7.3ton of increase MTOW is for increase internal fuel and greater external load. It has nothing to do with empty weight of fighter. about 100kg reduction in engine weight. add to that 15% composite and titanium airframe with light weight avionics. the aircraft could be lighter than original one.

A claim both wrong in data and the proposition: MiG-29K carries about 4540 kg internal plus 2470 kg fuel on 3 external tanks (1x1500l + 2x1150l) to reach 2000 km range. 7010kg fuel for 2000 km range is not that impressive at all.

where is that 4.5ton fuel figure come from. infact I have seen MIG-29K tested with 5 ETs. and no way it can have so short range of 2000km with 3ETs. MIG-29M has 3200km range with 3ETs.

Are you comparing MiG-29M with MiG-29K or with MiG-29 9.12? Because i believe I’ve said MiG-29M is heavier than MiG-29 9.12 and MiG-35 will be heavier than MiG-29M. And then there is a funny fact that there are two 9.12s (9.12A and 9.12S with internal jammer), Two MiG-29Ms (M and M2), two MiG-29Ks (original K developed in 90s and the current one developed from MiG-29M2). Current MiG-35, MiG-29KUB and MiG-29K are mostly the same aircraft, developed from MiG-29M2 with larger wings longer airframe life etc etc. To think it will have similar clean weight of original MiG-29 is simply laughable.

heavier than this and that without any data to back up. MIG-29K is new unified platform from which all other MIGs are derived. it is not not just wings but much larger cockpit and nose.

So you have the numbers for an aircraft that was never fully developed? You have the exact data that even MiG engineers don’t have?

If we compare F-16 blk30 and 50, there is 6% increase in empty weight. At sea level, sustained turn rate drops by 5-6% on average, despite 2,5% more powerful engine. MiG-29M has 9% greater engine thrust at the cost of 23% greater empty weight. If you think negative stability will make up for such increase in empty weight, you are mistaken. By the way, original MiG-29M does not have larger wing area, its same as MiG-29A. Even if it did, it woudn’t automatically translate to higher maneuverability that is a silly assumption too. Read what I wrote in #36. Or dont bother, I will simply say If MiG-29 was supposed to have higher OVERALL maneuverability (not even talking about ALL flight regimes) with larger wings, MiG engineers would have designed it so in the first place.

what these other aircrafts have any relevance with MIG-29. MIG-29OVT climbs and acceleration is not inhibited by heavier TVC engines despite they not have RD-33MK upgrade.

Sustained turns are not made at high AOAs. difference should be negligable. However as aircraft slows down at high altitude, percetage increase in the AOA due to weight increase also increases. Thats why F-15C has shallower STR curve than F-15A, despite more powerful engines. They both have same 8,5 deg/s maximum STR at around M0,9, but F-15 has more steep approach to the 8,5 deg/s mark, having slightly higher STR at slower speeds. As aircraft goes supersonic, overcoming the drag force becomes more problematic, and F-15C has superior STR at that point.

I disagree. A range upgrade needs room for fuel. Avionics upgrade needs room for the equipment themselves plus greater power needs. A larger aircraft can provide these more easily than smaller ones.

Take MiG-29 and Su-27, with each upgrade, MiG-29 get uglier, and SMT or UPG are total abominations with the bumps made for making “room” inside airframe. Su-27 variant tested canards etc, and Su-35S is looks exactly same as the Su-27S. Same comparison can be made for F-16A->F-16 blk60 and F-15A->F-15E upgrades.

Also smaller aircraft lose more performance with weight increases Blk30 F-16 had 23 deg/s STR. blk50 has 21,5. F-15E still has same maneuverability as F-15C, which has same maneuverability of F-15A, yet each variant has higher top speed. On the russian side, I don’t think MiG-35 will ever have the maneuverability of 9.12 MiG-29, but I believe Su-35 will have comperable maneuverability to Su-27S, despite all the equipment upgrades.

why you are including MIG-35 as it did not gain any weight and engines are enormously powerfull with new fbw. MIG-29 9.12 cannot compete with it.

I think Ukraine still has a competent aviation industry, but it lacks money. Upgrading & extending the lives of current types (in reduced numbers) is probably the cheapest & therefore best option for now, with or without Russian co-operation.

There is nearly zero competence otherwise private investment and industrial supply chain would have been established to supply globally.
very poor quality in best of times let alone now.
http://www.janes.com/article/31977/iraqi-btr-4-shipment-heads-back-to-ukraine
http://en.apa.az/xeber_azerbaijan_refuses_btr-3_and_btr-4_armor_199546.html

Actually I understand that the request for $35 billion is over two years and just $6 billion would be sufficient to service the debt in 2014.

$35b only assuming country has normal functioning tax system. with no prospect of private investment in presence of internal divide and constant threat of invasion. the final bill can become infinite.

Well luckily there is no misery in Norway — the Norwegian AF is very happy about having a budget large enough to alllow them to buy the number of F-35 that they want (48, + 4 training a/c).

Perhaps the issue is not just with the cost of the F-35 but also the shrinking defence budgets in some countries?

majority of Norway F-35 is coming in post 2020 period. so even they cannot afford early big order.

Or it can have something to do with the fact that is is huge in comparison to others?

If we compare size to the Rafale we get
Length: 15.27 vs 21.9m
Wingspan: 10.8 m vs 15.3 m

And it also just happens to carry the largest radar but only 12 pylons (Gripen has 11, Rafale 13). And thanks to its size it also has a lot of fuel (cockpit area takes up less area, same for avionics exept radar so more internal space for fuel). Similarily a Tu22M has even greater range, even larger radar (if they wanted it) and a larger payload. But you are right. If the custimer asks, will I have a better overall capability and a larger mission flexibility with 10 Su35S instead of 10 Rafale/Gripen/Whatever then the answer likely is yes.

It is only 33% larger than Rafale but carries more than twice internal fuel and twice the engine power. with added flexibility of TVC engine. but biggest plus is large wing tip electronic pods that does not impact aerodynamics that much. you can always use multiple racks for bomb truck mission.
it is not built with shoe string budget. infact it represents the excess of power, TVC weight penalty and large internal fuel which give indication that the idea behind it is not of money saving.

It’s one J-20. The second one is a duplicate of the first one they put in front of a J-15 to demonstrate size. This is a picture of China’s CFTE (Chinese Flight Test Establishment) at Yanliang, where they do most of their aerodynamic testing for designs.

Here’s the original

[ATTACH=CONFIG]225755[/ATTACH]

so the original photo was from 2012. when this aircraft was barely making factory trials. as I said you can put as many aircraft in such blurry image with small size objects. for all practical purpose J-20 is huge when I showed you its image relative to J-10.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]225754[/ATTACH]

Your argument is with this satellite pic. Not me.

this blurry pics with less credibility. there is no way J-20 is shorter than Flanker.

And who told you forecasting short term outlook is easier than long term outlook. And the ‘inflation created growth’ doesn’t work the way you think it does.

short term much easier than long term. that’s for sure but the are even wrong on short term

There you go again, engaging your mouth before you engage your brain (not that you do a lot of the latter). The current year’s capital budget was about $14.5 billion. Assuming no growth for sake of argument, and disregarding inflation, over seven years that equals $101.5 billion. Which means you get the usual dose of contempt for the garbage you spew out.

it is just figure thrown around. answer is simple India will not sign $100b worth of new equipment contracts until 2020.