At the moment I can only find $72 million per plane from Hindustan times – while Mi-17V5 are 21 million a piece.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Russia-bags-defence-deals-worth-4-5-billion-with-India/Article1-980190.aspx

But I have seen 97 million quoted. I wonder where MSphere got his 100 million USD quote?

Fact is, Russian made commercial aircraft are nowadays (An-148, Tu-204SM) barely 15-20 percent cheaper than their western equivalent – why should their military aircraft be any cheaper?

Military aircraft and its components are produced in much greater quantity than Civillian planes. so they likely to be considerable cheaper than anything built in EU for fighters.

Not sure what all this talk about Flankers, Fulcrums, etc. is about. If Rafale deal actually fell apart the program would shift to Typhoon as the other aircraft selected by IAF with comprehensive costings and proposals.

Typhoon/F-18E will have same problem as Rafale. Your looking at atleast a decade before HAL or other can manufacture them at price greater than OEM.
see HAL Sukhoi cost in begining were greater than Irkut. I am not sure they have become cheaper. It is not any easy contract to fullfill. I show you Saudi example of EF. very slow implementation.

I think your first statement is a lot more complex than that. Two points, rafale’s ordinance is much closer together, su-35 being more isolated. Surely widely spaced ordinance promotes larger rcs returns than more compact designs?

Second, look how much all the missiles stick out from the leading edges of the su-35 vs rafale’s delta wing hiding most, plus rafale’s mica storage is far more conformal than any of the ata stations on the su-35. Size is always not the rule in rcs return. Well designed ordinance positioning contributes to rcs reduction, the extent to which rafale employs this I am unsure but certainly mica is positioned well. where as the su-35 still retains the same weapon positioning as su-27 series.

Finally none of these jets has a low rcs with a decent load, whether su-35 with a million missiles or rafale carrying 3 2000l tanks. But IN MY OPINION a rafale with 6 mica has a lower rcs section than a su-35 with six missiles.

see this pix. Su-35 can carry 4 R-77SD there. The missile that outranges Mica by 30km. and this without considering platform difference.

I am not sure how pragmatic that would be..Since procurement cost is only one aspect, the fleet has to be operated and some of these fighters can be operated from 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of the super flankers..

Only Gripen can be operated at 1/2 to 1/3 cost of new Flanker.
EF/F-18E/Rafale are very expensive to operate. and even more expensive to built.

see the price dispute of EF sale in Saudi. Now these are 2006 prices. without AESA/Meteor.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/testing-times-for-uk-saudi-relations
The visit could not prevent a dispute between the British defence contractor BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia over the £6bn arms deal for 72 Typhoon Eurofighter jets, 24 of which have been delivered so far.

Differences over price and whether the next delivery would be of the latest version of the fighter derailed plans for the second batch, which was to be handed over in December. The dispute is unresolved, but Mr Wheeldon said it would be wrong to see this as a result of any political turbulence in the relationship

it dont have low RCS to the level of NSM , stealth is affected mostly by shaping , you can basically see that , and tri-mode seeker = harder to foil by chaff , flare or ecm …etc

they didnot say Kh-38 has low rcs but it will not even reflect on radar screen. so it already VLO.

1- we dont know whether su-35 will have higher cruise speed than rafale or not and by how much ? , also it only 2km higher optimum so not that much different in altitude
2- meteor have much longer range than R-77SD in the same launch condition ,even
Andraxxus admit that ramjet missiles will likely same range with normal missiles having twice the weight

2km is alot of difference when you combined it with higher speed. Rafale with Meteor will be limited to Mach 1.6 at most. Su-35 will go all the way past Mach 2. 4 Meteor will add considerable drag to Rafale platform. so it will have less fuel to use afterburner.
Meteor does not have much longer range that is only your opinion not independent fact.

this wing L band radar on su-35 have very very low power , and processing ability compared to what on the AWACs
btw you can find about the standard on google

If i could find 1sqm standard. i wont not ask you. from where you get this idea of low processing?

we are talking about 5 missiles + pylon , and btw the KH-31 in your pic in carry in the wing station not wing tip like you said in previous post

[/quote]
That wingtip pod is the size of RVV-BD. why would RVV-BD put more drag than this pod.

the new R-74 have shorter range than mica too:)
BTW i dont think russian have anything equal to brimstone , jagm , SDB , SDB II , Spear , NSM , ..etc
however they do have superior supersonic anti ship missiles

There is no point increasing range of wvr missile. it is when you finish your primary bvr weopons. you use it as last resort. kh-38 family covers all your list.