Those arent even fully developed yet , let alone tested and integrated into a fleet whereas the Apg-79 has allready received an incremental upgrade and the apg-79 has a plethora of a2g modes so its too early to judge the performance .

RSK MIG is counting on aesa export with MIG-35 as its primary radar
it means they have certain level of confidence of delivering the product on time and offcourse some thing better for ruaf.

http://www.royfc.com/acft_news_old_aug1.html#04aug
In addition, MiG is working close with Fazotron-NIIR on the design of a new active phased array radar which will provide a primary firing channel ((OSNOVNOY STREL’BOVOY KANAL)) for the MiG-35. Close cooperation between Fazotron and RSK MiG began in May of this year. Not further translated.))

Source: 04.08.06, VPK , Correspondent: Il’ya Kedro

The cost of the JSF F-35 is often misuderstood . There are as usual two costs one which is recurring cost and the other is the non-recurring cost (often termed as developmental cost) . The recurring cost is something that for the first time in decades has been projected as A PRIMARY PROGRAM GOAL with the same emphasis as to range,payload , rcs etc etc . The reccurring cost of the F-35 was projected to be 37 million for the A varient , 46 million for the USMC/RN version and 48 million for the C varient. However these are all 2002 dollars which arent the same as 2009,2010,2011,2012 dollars which are the years through which the intial batches are going to begin comming in for IOC. Even with the standard 4-5% inflation (Defence inflation might be higher then the overall budget inflation adjustment) per annum the revised recurring cost comes to a lot more then the 40’sh million predicted for the cheapest varient..

Lockheed is not Toyota that it can simply sell more than what is already agreed for or outsource components from cheaper location like thailand/Philipines or use common components through vast array of other products. Cost increase comes through vast supply chain.(and offcourse continous pressure of profits through vendors).
just compare 10 years ago F-16C standard price to current F-16C standard price (the only difference is in glass cockpit and software) but price is almost double. and just compare price of F-16E to F-15T. both have almost similar price. (F-16e was ordered 5 years ago and 7 times greater in quantity). so it does not necessary means that single engine fighter is cheaper than twin engine fighter. and u cannot gurantee Stealth to customer for next 40 years of service. even next 10 years is in doubt. 10 years ago a advance fighter radar has 100KM range vs Fighter now top of the line radars have claims some where in 300 to 400KM. It is better to build more F-22 because it is cheaper and known. JSF will cost more in Fly awy by the time it enters even limited air to ground ability.

I used the M2 specs because nothing is known of the Mig-35 performance todate. The SH gets a range of about 2350Km on internal fuel however the F-15E can most likely do much more then that due to the fact that even a basic F-15C does that range even without the CFT’s .

any source of F-15C range on internal fuel? and F-15E is heavier than F-15C so how can it be more. 2350KM for SH is rather believable.

Looking at the SH it weighs in at around 13K kg empty ( dont know the empty weight of the Mig-29M/M2 however its normal takeoff weight is 17800Kg ) . THE SH has about 18% greater wingspan , 6.5% greater length almost equal hight , Carries about 32% more payload , And has a range that is about 15% greater on internal fuel as compared to the Mig-29M2. The weights include that of a standard AF version Mig-29 vs a carrier based F-18 E SH , The Mig-29K is about 800Kg more heavier then the M2 version at normal take off weight .

17800KG is normal take off weight and range of old MIG-29M on MIG website
MIG-29M is no longer on export website http://www.rusarm.ru. the heavier MIG-29K has 2000KM range on internal fuel so newer MIG-29M (MIG-35) should be more. and i tend to think that F-18E has more range on internal fuel than F-15E.

If you go buy pure performance the raptor which carries close to 900 pounds more fuel should do far better then the flankers range as it flies clean for its entire mission and has an aerodynamically effeceint and drag reduced performance however it also has much more powerful engines which produce lot more thrust (close to 37K in full AB) and are also optimized to provide greater thrust w/o AB’s.

. I think those fighter ranges are measured in clean configuration in non-afterburning thrust mode. so weopon load and afterburning thrust does not matter. No one put any worth on supercruise with external fuel tanks and weopons.

The F-15 and 16 primarily won because they offered more interms of A2g capability with the weapons allready integrated and these weapons were quite cheap ( cheapest PGM’s around) and they didnt win because they were better a2a fighters. I agree with you regarding supercruise capability however they do claim for the EF that it can go supersonic ( and beyond) without AB and with a standard a2a load . This cannot be neglected.

or because F-15/F-16 has more range with CFT, carries more weopons, has bigger noses relative to there sizes (unlike that smallish for Rafale and slot array for EF). they are certainly better fighter considering the range of radar they are offering which translate into better air to air situational awarness. more fuel gives them more combat persistance.

The rafale allready has its A2g capability and is about 2000Kg lower then the Mig-29M (not the -35) . The eurofighter weighs in at about 200-300Kg less then the Mig-29M . With the increase in A2g weapons clearence there isnt going to be any change in Weight per say as most of the aircrafts will carry a mountable pod for targetting purposes .

F-16 weight increases by 3 tons from F-16A to F-16E. Similar is the case for Su-30, F-15E vs there air to air counterparts. so how can EF/Rafale stays the same? Russian fighters were heavy since begining. there radar alone weighs 400 to 500KG. thats why there is weigh reduction possible int MIG-35/Su-35BM. u can even judge from ther Maximum take off weights and internal fuel that EF is not that light.

So the Mig-29 SMT or whatever was offered was priced at similar to the 80-90 million export tag of the SH ??

it was Su-30MKM vs F-18E not SMT.

Yeah sure!! Something totally magical . The newer Mig-29 will make alll wester or eastern BVR missiles useless as it can defeat them once they are launched at it by intercepting them . great capability to have in my opinion. In that sence all WVR missiles should also be intercepted and we are back to the age of good old Gun fighting whilest the Mig-29 can kill us at BVR . Now I know why the F-22 holds absolutely no chance against the modern Mig-29 or Su-32 . Although they cant see the raptor they can basically intercept all of its Aim-120C7’s and AIm-9’s and once it is without a weapon can go in for a WVR kill.

i havent seen any report that said F-22/B-2 or any Stealth is a threat to Ruaf. It means they can deal with it.

Russian tactical aircraft second to none – Air Force chief

MOSCOW. March 2 (Interfax-AVN) – Tactical aircraft in service with the Russian Air Force are superior to any foreign ones, Army General Vladimir Mikhailov, Russian Air Force Commander-in-Chief, has argued.

“Tactical aviation and its unique combat aircraft are the major Air Force component, facilitating regional deterrence.
Tactical aircraft include MiG-31, Su-27, and MiG-29 fighters, as well as Su-34, Su-24M, and Su-25 attack aircraft, each of which boasts features superior to any of the foreign rivals,” reads Mikhailov’s report circulated at his meeting with foreign military attaches in Moscow on Thursday.

The mig-29m/M2 use the RD-33 ser.3M engine according to the manufacterers website .

thats exactly what i wrote. Series 3 for MIG-29M and further modification of series 3 RD-33MK for MIG-35.

Range depends on a whole lot of things other then Ammount of fuel . The raptor carries so much internal fuel but gets you only about 620nm combat radius as compared to 700 for the flanker which carries less internal fuel for example .

again Raptor carries as much internal fuel as Flanker and the radius is closer. only difference is 80NM. but what do think if the fighter does not carry equal amount of Fuel?

The range depends upon SFC , aerodynamics , etc etc . More useful to range is combat radius as it shows how far from base can a jet go out , fight and come back rather then just flying straight , I think even most russian jet makers started marketing now with radius rather then range (Saw a su-30 brochure with radius on it) . We must also consider here that the Eurofighter and the rafale have atleast some kind of Supercruise with the Eurofighter being able to accelerate past supersonic without the need of afterburner according to the manufacterer with a a2a load only .

F-15T/K/F-16E were chosen over so called Supercrusie EF/Rafale. there is little credibility in there claim. u have to consider supercruise at what height and and at what fuel load? there is no point in supercruising at 50000feet when u already has exhausted ur limited fuel capacity.

About it being underpowerd i agree although not by much . The eurofigther on the other hand has a decent T2W (1.16) ratio . The Rafale mentions about 1850Km cruise range . Even it is with one centerline tank we can still assume it with a range of around 1500 to be on the safer side . The new Mig-29 does have an advantage of about 150-200nm when it comes to all out range and is more in line with the range of the Super-Hornet (2200Km+ with 1 tank) . However all the western fighters carry more ordinance then the Mig with the Rafale being able to haule some serious mud with its close to 8000Kg carriage capability .

we havent found empty weight of Tranche2/Tranche3 EF when it suppose to get all air to ground capability. All Western Air Superiority fighters have gain weight with air to ground capability. and they already have extensive use of composites so future weight reduction is almost nil unlike MIG-35/Su-35BM.

and whats the point of 8000KG external carriage capacity when most of weopon stations will be used for external fuel. It depends on load distribution.
unless u give the range and quantity of weopons range that each mission can carry for its intended purpose.

They are totally different challenges involved in these 2 different circumstanses. I still have very heavy doubt that if a fighter pilot sees a BVR weapon such as Aim-120C , Mica RF , R-77 or meteor comming its way would instead of going into defensive manuevrs etc would rather start to intercept it . These missiles only start to emmit at around 15 Km max so the time available is only few seconds (10-12 seconds) and the missile will most likely not be in the radars FOV when it is that close ( wont be comming towards it nose ) .

they must have some other way of finding the missile otherwise they wouldnt make these claims. It effects there credibility in arms export.

The engine would only need to offset around 45 million price difference per peice (if not more ) : )

there werent that much price difference at that time.

That is likely referring to the ability to fire R-73s backwards.

what difference does it make if it is fired forward. they could have easily said that it can destroy aircrafts in the back or any direction instead of saying destroying missiles

Less internal fuel capacity is irrelevant without a comparison of the SFC of the engines in question. And when did ALARM become pathetic?

so post figures of SFC without making assumptions. think about ALARM.

A subsonic PGM is a far easier target than a supersonic AAM flying at Mach 4+.

nope destroying things moving in straight line is far easier than something changing height. MIG-31 is claimed with Mach 6 intercept.

No it doesn’t, not necessarily. The R-33E is a downgraded export variant for selling with FOXHOUND. The better Russian weapon would be a standard R-33 or an improved R-33S. The KS-172? The comparable Russian weapon, the R-37, was cancelled. RVV-AE? That’s the export R-77. The Russians are developing the ramjet R-77, but it’s not in service yet, so there is no Russian R-77 equivalent currently in service.

u cannot down grade 25 year old stuff and still want to sell. U can only downgrade only the current versions. so it means that current version is upgrade of the original version. Any defence weopon is usually independently evaluted for years before anything is signed for export.

Or, you buy the aircraft which meets your performance requirements at the cheapest price. And without any potential political side effects.

there wasnt any price difference in that context. F-18 maintainance would have even saved them money compared to earlier AL-31 engines.

Where are they going to hang the Yakhont? That’s my point-if it’s on the centerline, that’s fine for a heavy AShM, but not really ideal for just one LRAAM.

so are again assuming that only ONE LRAAM for future MIG-35.