MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

The discussion about NATO and Russian aviation is nonsense. NATO has a significant advantage. This is over approximately 3,500 tactical aircraft. Russia, however, has around 700. That's five times more. In addition, Europe will have another 600 F-35s. Which gives a total of over 4,000 aircraft.

And how many of those aircraft can actually fly, and how many million SAMs do the Russians have to deal with each of those planes.

What is more important, the whole purpose of the MiG-35 is to boost available aircraft numbers so an enemy force with lots of planes will not be able to overwhelm Russian positions.

These HATO planes are manned planes which means to concentrate them into one place to try to break through solid air defences through sheer numbers means losing thousands of pilots and billions of dollars worth of aircraft.

Some here gloat that Russia has lost some aircraft in the current conflict but the current conflict is nothing like previous conflicts like Syria... which is indeed a lot more like the conflicts HATO is used to fighting than the current conflict or a future conflict with Russia.

In a conflict with Russia HATO bases can expect to come under serious attack, and not just once.

The confidence you have in HATO is not shared by your comrades in Ukraine or Georgia.

I wonder with all these HATO planes... are you including planes from Turkey?

When Iran launched ballistic missiles at US positions in Iraq the US didn't send in more patriots and Thaad... they withdrew the existing Patriot batteries to protect them from the shame of failure. How would that make those US soldiers feel... please take off your body armour because the makers feel that if too many of you die with it on that their share prices might go down...

This is what you are fighting for.

Obviously HATO is not weak and are violent and evil and will plan attacks on bridges that might kill hundreds of innocent civilians just to send a message, but all my respect is gone for those losers.

How many HATO aircraft do you think Kiev would need to win?

Honestly.

And how many of those aircraft can actually fly, and how many million SAMs do the Russians have to deal with each of those planes. wrote:

The Russian VKS is also not 100% operational. Why the assumption that most NATO machines do not fly, but all VKS planes are only waiting for combat operations. Even taking into account that a larger percentage of Russian fighters are operational, the proportions are significantly in NATO's favor.
There are not millions of SAM missiles.

NATO forces must also include over 200 Jas 39 Grippen, which can carry Meteor missiles.

It is a well known fact that the more someone talks shit and postures and pretends to be tough the weaker they are.

HATO is close to collapse and more than a few HATO countries are not really interested in open armed conflict with Russia.

If you don't believe me read the western propaganda news... how many HATO countries backed France up and promised troops on the ground in the Ukraine.

A few of the rabid nutter countries did of course but then they all likely have some troops there anyway... but no one wanted to escalate and threaten Russia at a time when Russia is in the process of crushing Kievs forces and rolling them back.

Israeli F-35s wont fly in Syrian airspace because they fear Syrian S-300 batteries and whatever Iranian systems they might have now... and I would guess the Israeli F-35s are the only ones that are fully funded and operational.

Do you honestly think HATO could beat Russia on the battlefield when their proxy Ukrainian force is getting smashed 10 to one.

Which particular western super weapon are they holding back that will reverse this?

French military officials equated sending French special forces to train Ukrainians to fight the Russians with sending cheerleaders to teach a sports team to play that particular sport (rugby, soccer, football... whatever...)

Basically they are saying the French are out of their depth and would probably learn what doesn't work from the Ukrainians.

The HATO playbook is getting torn up and needs to be completely rewritten... you have turned up to a chess game with Russia and the only pieces you brought are for checkers.

Plus you didn't answer my question....

How many planes would Kiev need to win?

How many F-22s could the US give them to assure victory... and the answer is they don't have enough.

They made 189 and several have been lost or written off. Many are not operational and Ukraine don't have the resources or facilities to keep them operational.

If you shipped them in the trains would be attacked or the places they would be assembled would be destroyed, if you fly them in do you fly them in armed because that would make the airfields they flew in from a part of the conflict so any remaining aircraft there could be destroyed as they might be Kievs planes too...

How many could fly in and disperse and land in places where they would not be attacked on the ground when they landed, or shot down in flight?

With S-400 missiles Russian aircraft probably wouldn't even need to be involved.... just an Su-35 with its wing mounted L band radar to locate them and some long range missiles launched... the F-22s would have no idea they are under attack... the pilots wouldn't know what hit them... and 10-15-20 F-22s shot down... how are other HATO pilots feeling about now?

Regarding a HATO attack on Russia... the instant that starts every HATO airbase becomes an immediate target, all HATO aircraft in HATO airspace become legitimate targets, HQs and comms centres and troop concentrations become legitimate targets... they have a lot of missiles even now and the reserve is still growing...

AD vehicles don't show up on radar warning receivers until they turn on their radar, but Russian systems at data linked so BUKs and TORs and Pantsirs can operate radar and radio silent receiving data about aircraft operating over head... and their missiles reach up rather high and their missiles can be launched using optical tracking so no radar or radio emissions are needed..

They can also defend themselves from enemy munitions too and TOR can defeat gliding bombs and dumb bombs too.

In fact TORs performance has been amazing... most of their systems have done very well, but TOR is outstanding...

Arrow wrote:The discussion about NATO and Russian aviation is nonsense. NATO has a significant advantage. This is over approximately 3,500 tactical aircraft. Russia, however, has around 700. That's five times more. In addition, Europe will have another 600 F-35s. Which gives a total of over 4,000 aircraft.

Numbers don't matter when you're running head first into a brick wall. If there is one thing about airpower that the SMO has taught us, its that the Russians are 1000x correct that an IADS is a significant force multiplier that severely nullifies the potency of airpower.

All NATO has is outdated concepts and stupid investments. Where are their UMPKs? Single-handedly the greatest revolution that made anything that can fly and toss a massive bomb useful against even advanced IADS networks. To do the same thing NATO needs to invest at least $1 trillion in the F-35 and there's no guarantee its stealth would hold up against increasingly sophisticated sensors...

ALAMO wrote:
The more I observe this war, the more my general opinion changes.

It is quite a funny observation, but de facto there is indeed no big difference between T-62 and T-14 ...

That's like saying there is no difference between a Porsche 911 and a Honda City because both will get you from point A to B. Technically true, but the former allows you to do stuff you can't do with the latter - like attracting hella nice p*ssy without the hard work of cultivating a personality.  

If anything I'd say the gulf in capabilities between the T-14 and the T-90M is a much wider chasm than those between the T-62M and the T-90M. The T-14 isn't just an improvement over the T-14 in the classical way - more lethal firepower, more survivable, and improved mobility, but its bringing together a generational leap in situational awareness and battle management that changes the way the game is played altogether.

Because with a T-90M and a T-62M you are only dealing with a tank and its heavy caliber gun, relatively straight forward to handle. A T-14 is also that, but it is also a portal to the sum total of the Russian tactical fire support assets. Every target it sees with its advanced sensors is automatically promoted to the overall battle net picture so you're not just fighting a tank, you're fighting everybody else too.

ALAMO wrote:
One just need to take a wider look to realize.

This war is a drone war already.
And a drone doesn't care much if you are fancy & shiny $10 mln T-14, or a rusty bin taken out of storage, refitted for $500k.
It is not a tank vs. tank battlefield anymore.
Take a look at the tactics.
They operate a single tank strong forces ...
Lot's of raids and lot's of epic performances we could witness, for both sides.

And the Russians are introducing advanced EW countermeasures on all levels and we've even seen some successful advances with their use here and there. I would rather wait before pronouncing the end to all wars because its increasingly looking like we'll settle in a new equilibrium instead where drones are yet another piece in the combined arms repertoire.

ALAMO wrote:
T62, with a solid brass cases ammo, can be a harder nut to crack rather than T-72B. It is harder to cook it off.

It is more a matter if you even have a tank or not.

Not true. The ammo is more exposed on the T-62 and the autoloader ammo on the T-72 is protected by steel shields anyway.

ALAMO wrote:
115mm HE round can demolish field fortification just the same way as 125mm ones.
115mm HEAT round can take out any armored vehicle less than the latest tanks provided in symbolic numbers.
115mm APDSFS round can do the same, and has a funny feature, you know?
It is a HUGE modernization potential.
A whole round of BM type is 988 mm long. A METER.
And you want to know the consequences? It was possible to use newly developed penetrators for it's upgrades. Depleted uranium penetrators arrived at the end of the 70s, and were just the same as 125mm 3BM29.
At the end of the 80s, they simply placed a Vant penetrator into it, making 3BM36 ...
And now, as they have reincarnated the project, what came along was a Svinets/3BM60 rod placed there...
And that is still not the end of the story - this gun can end up with tungsten/DU rods 950+ mm long. And you know what it means?
3BM3 of the 60s was able to penetrate the frontal armor of Leopard 2 ...

Not without a new gun to handle the massive pressure it can't.

lyle6 wrote:
Not without a new gun to handle the massive pressure it can't.

Tell that to the already presented version.
"You are not here in the room" is my suggestion
Vant was operational ammo being used with 62MV, this Svinets-2 combined with 115 mm brass case was already presented either.
The difference was a slightly lower speed, so the maximal firing range will be affected.

That's like saying there is no difference between a Porsche 911 and a Honda City because both will get you from point A to B. Technically true, but the former allows you to do stuff you can't do with the latter - like attracting hella nice p*ssy without the hard work of cultivating a personality.

You are missing the point... you can't afford to give everyone in the family Porsche 911s, and unless you are rich you probably couldn't afford the insurance let alone maintenance costs. Your wife and you yourself would be better off with a Honda for commuting to work every day... only a pretentious wanker would have a 911 as their everyday car... it is a weekend car or a car you go on road trips to the beach or the mountains... sometimes... other times you take an SUV so you can actually take a picnic as well as your partner...

If anything I'd say the gulf in capabilities between the T-14 and the T-90M is a much wider chasm than those between the T-62M and the T-90M. The T-14 isn't just an improvement over the T-14 in the classical way - more lethal firepower, more survivable, and improved mobility, but its bringing together a generational leap in situational awareness and battle management that changes the way the game is played altogether.

Even now the Russian Army probably isn't in a position to exploit all the potential features of the T-14... part of the situational awareness will come from operating with other platforms that are just as sophisticated like the Mi-28NM and the Ka-52M, and Su-35s and MiG-35s and Su-57s.

I would say the first T-14s will operate with T-15s and will need T-16s, but the rest of the Armata family will take time.

Which means things are going to get better and better...

Because with a T-90M and a T-62M you are only dealing with a tank and its heavy caliber gun, relatively straight forward to handle. A T-14 is also that, but it is also a portal to the sum total of the Russian tactical fire support assets. Every target it sees with its advanced sensors is automatically promoted to the overall battle net picture so you're not just fighting a tank, you're fighting everybody else too.

I don't know, but I would hope that net centric stuff will be added to older vehicles in upgrades... the way they are adding Su-57 stuff to Su-35 and Su-30 aircraft.

I would think the T-90AM probably already gets that stuff, but I agree, I would be surprised if the upgraded T-62Ms got it too because their jobs will be supporting infantry... a mobile gun platform... so getting drone views of the battlefield to attack the trenches in front of them is about as far as they need to go.

Not without a new gun to handle the massive pressure it can't.

What he is saying is that the long shell case of the 115mm round means it can hold the long penetrators designed for the 125mm rounds, which is very true.

The pressure will be much lower... mostly because the internal volume of the shell case is limited and you just put a very big dart into it so the volume left for the sabot and the propellent is limited.

Putting a bigger projectile in a smaller case means lower muzzle velocity and lower pressure because of the less powerful round size... but the penetrator is going to be bigger and heavier than the previously fired rounds so its muzzle velocity will be lower but it should retain velocity better and hit rather harder because it is heavier.

Of course the on paper energy will be much lower because speed is more important than mass in energy equations... but tell that pedestrian that the car that hit them was only doing 100km/h so you should be just fine.

And they need those planes to engage enemy fighters, attack enemy AD systems,....

Not to mention some countries have had a purge of white male pilots so they might actually struggle to get arses in those seats too.

GarryB wrote:
You are missing the point... you can't afford to give everyone in the family Porsche 911s, and unless you are rich you probably couldn't afford the insurance let alone maintenance costs.

Try to put a washing machine into 911

Belisarius wrote:Here is a small dose of reality from a USAF officer:

US Air Force notes it is not ready for great power war.

1991: 4000 fighters, average airframe age of 8 years, and pilots flying 18-20 hours/month

2024: 2000 fighters, average age of 28 years, and pilots flying 6-8 hours/month.

Heritage's new report calls USAF "very weak", mainly due to low readiness rate, shortage of pilots, and pilots not getting enough flight hours.

https://t.me/geromanat/18595

A funny memory.
Who else remembers that when in the shitty 90s Russian aviation pilot enjoyed a 80h a year in the air?
Which was widely commented as absolute humiliation, and a number that won't even allow to retain basics flight performance?
Well ... I do remember

But it is another thing!

Arkanghelsk wrote:
But we have Binkov level idiots here like Arrow taking a whole number of aircraft and acting like Russia will face this whole force in a vacuum

I was saying that for all time long, most of them can't even read the map properly.
US forces are being spread across the entire planet.
They can't relocate them from Korea and Japan.
They can't relocate them from the Middle East.
They can't relocate them from multiple bases placed in the middle of nowhere.

Russia can give a damn about all directions, as friends and allies are conveniently covering it.
I don't find it strange to imagine that the Chinese will take a watch at the back doors if asked.

That is the very first mistake driven by the western breed propaganda insults when people do forget that Russia has most of its borders perfectly safe.
Because are neighboring countries with relations established for ages.
They are all good neighbors.
I mean the serious countries, not some shitheads.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Then why not to keep making VW Beetle ?

They did.
In Mexico.
Only a few years ago when I checked
... and...?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
No the situation is NOT rosy. This is what Vova said: NATO has advantage in conventional weapons. That's why nukes are on standby.

There is a big gap between "rosy" and "shady" bro.
And that is a whole point.
Russkie are not as weak as it seems if looked at without more details.
And yes, they have nukes above all of that shit.

For reasons that we figured out later, the EAF canned the 24 MiG-35s and instead ordered 46 MiG-29M/M2. Between their original interest in the MiG-35 and subsequently ordering almost twice the number of MiG-29M/M2s, price was hardly a factor. This was a modernization of the air force and since the EAF had basically bought 24 state of the art Rafales with perhaps one of the better AESA radars in the RBE2, they're focus was to maintain that degree of technology and cost was not to be a deciding factor.

The MiG-29M uses the same airframe as the MiG-35, so if the AESA radar wasn't properly working yet then I would say it would make sense to buy the MiG-29 first and save a bit of money, or indeed spend the money and get almost twice as many... and then when the AESA radar has matured a bit and gotten cheaper you could upgrade half of your MiG-29Ms to MiG-35 level and by then you will know how the MiG-29M performs so you can decide to upgrade them all or just half.

There are a range of jobs you will be doing with your fighter aircraft and a MiG-29M carries much the same weapons over much the same distance and much the same speed as the MiG-35. The MiG-35 essentially has all upgraded most things so is a step up, but it is also more expensive... and after flying the MiG-29M around a bit Egypt will be able to work out if the upgrade is worth it and whether to upgrade them all or just half or none.

Both types are supposed to be the lower cost jack of all trades but not best at everything sort of role and you might find they are so cheap to operate you can buy rather more of them than you might buy of say Su-35s, because of the affordability.

Having extra aircraft means you get better coverage of your territory, an a decent new AESA when it is available will improve its sensor performance, but otherwise in terms of flight performance it is already very very good.

What ended up being the deciding fact is that Mikoya was unable to provide the Zhuk-AE, and not only in time, but obviously at all.

To be fair MiG don't make radar, and AESA radars are as much about production as they are technical design, so prototypes and hand made sets for half a dozen aircraft is not going to get much innovation and improvement in the design of the radar.

Serial production of 40-50 aircraft will mean proper serial production of the radars. The first 10-20 aircraft might have high dud rates with their AESA elements but as they produce AESA elements in the millions then the quality and performance will go up and the costs will go down.

The more platforms that use these types of radar the better it will be because their performance will be optimised and improved and the price per element and also the number of rejected elements will go down rather quickly.

The Russian AF didn't go for the MiG-29M, they went for the more expensive but also more capable MiG-35, which suggests they are not going to cheap out and buy the not so good.

I suspect that might also mean they might do the same with the radar and make it with the latest materials instead of materials used before to maximise the growth potential of the systems.

Without orders they are also mostly without funding so orders for the aircraft are again a very good thing.

Without orders then not much is going to change.

It's really too bad since that supports my theory that had they been able to provide that aircraft with a powerful AESA radar that would be on par with the likes of the Rafale's or latest F-16s or Super Hornets, the MiG-35 would've made a huge splash and done much better than the stagnation it has since faced.

Well the thing they claim is best about these western aircraft is their radar and of course the Meteor missile. Well the MiG-35 can carry the R-37M which outranges the Meteor, but they are making new generation missiles for their new stealthy fighters and I would put money on the fact that the cancelled ramjet powered R-77 that was supposed to be the Meteor equivalent but was cancelled for an upgraded solid rocket motor model... will likely be replaced with a scramjet powered R-77 missile type with three times the speed and likely several times more range.

The Meteor is made in the west by France, the UK, and Italy. France and Germany wanted to make an anti ship missile in the late 80s and early 1990s and the design and performance of which was worse than the already in service Kh-31. At the time the plan was a combined rocket ramjet propulsion for tactical aircraft with an 800kg missile that operates at mach 2 and has a range of about 70km, and it was going to be called ANS or something but it fell apart... they couldn't do it.

The Kh-31 of the time was 600kgs and operates at mach 3 and has a range of 120-150km in the early models and double that now... with the speed increased to mach 3.5.

Before that they had the SA-6 surface to air missiles which also used a combined rocket ramjet propulsion.

The point is that the Soviets and Russians have lots of experience with rocket ramjet missiles and should be able to create rocket scramjet missiles that fly three times faster to much greater ranges and able to fly above conventional air defences...

The replacement for the Kh-31 will be scramjet powered and will probably have an air to air model for use against AWACS and JSTARS and inflight refuelling aircraft and transports etc.

The bottom line is this whole deal is mired with frustration. Between the MiG-29M/M2/35 and the drama of the Su-35S, it's left a crappy taste in one's mouth and makes one think that any planned future acquisitions from Russia will be neutered before they get on their feet.

Yeah, there are never any problems with new western gear, only Russian stuff has teething problems...

AFAIK, the TVC was only an option in the MiG-35 and not standard, right?

I am talking about Russian AF birds so we don't know, but it is described as the MiG-35 standard... they might want to leave it off to reduce maintenance and operational costs, but I rather suspect if the SHTF they might install them to give their side an edge.

Not sure why that AESA radar has been such a pain in the ass for Phazotron to develop with MiG Corporation. I believe the AE was for exports and the ME or MA was for aircraft destined to the VVS/VKS. That was the plan since 2007! I think the aircraft's success would've been quite different had they been able to field the radar by 2010/13 or thereabouts.

As I have said... AESA technology is more about production than about design... it is when it is in serial production that the factories usually make changes and improvements and solutions are found to make it smaller and lighter and cheaper to make... but you need to get it into serial production first... otherwise they are just essentially hand made which makes them expensive.

You make it sound like they've actually built and successfully tested the AESA radar but we don't have any proof of that being the case, do we?

Not sure what else could have made the production of the 6 MiG-35s they put into service take so long.

They chose the MiG-35s for a reason... if they wanted cheap they could have bought MiG-29Ms.

They seemed to want to test the MiG-35 because they will now be in the process of having the new light 5th gen fighter being made into reality and actually test flown, so having MiG-35s in service will mean they will have a benchmark figure for operational costs and support needs to compare a new light 5th gen.

You don't know and I don't know and they don't know.

When you are having high and low fighters... ie expensive and the most capable for high and affordable and still as capable as possible, they have a lot of options.

The Su-57 would be the most capable because it has stealth plus most of the features of the Su-35, but what are the differences in operational costs between the two?

The same question for the MiG-35 and the new single engined 5th gen fighter... but how do their performances compare and what are the costs involved?

You might say high is Su-57 only and numbers will be a combination of MiG-35 and single engined light fighter with stealth.

Or maybe there simply is no way to make a plane stealth AND cheap enough to use in enormous numbers... maybe stealth is rendered useless so they have a mix of Su-57s and Su-35s for the high aircraft and MiG-35 for the light fighter and don't bother with a light 5th gen fighter because the stealth is not good enough or is too expensive to buy in useful numbers.

Or perhaps stealth is the key and they go with Su-57s and light single engined stealth numbers plane.

Then add in the mix of wingmen drones... the S-70 and the MiG drone.

This is a very expensive decision, but they probably realise that a light relatively cheap plane like the MiG-35 is going to be useful for a range of tasks even if it is not stealthy so making 100 wont break the bank and might actually be rather useful as MiG develops its new single land based light 5th gen fighter and its twin engined light carrier aircraft where the MiG-35 could get engines and equipment developed for the new aircraft fitted as upgrades to keep it useful.

But there isn't any Russian AESA radar currently in production for the standard 4th & 4th+++ gen aircraft, that I know of anyway.

No, because the 4 and 4++ gen aircraft they have are all Flanker based and use PESA radars which have some of the benefits of AESA but are much cheaper.

It would take a while and some work for the new AESA to get performance better than the PESA radar they are using now but even then they will be rather more expensive too.

With production volume the prices will go down of course... but new materials and even new concepts could render it all a waste of time and money.

Sure, the N036-1-01 seems to be ready to be part of the Su-57 production phase, but you're telling me that because Phazatron is a different co. from NIIP Tikhomirov that the latter wouldn't be willing to work with the former to develop an AESA radar for the MiG-29M/35?

I would hope they would work together to do a good job.

So of those 2000 US frames, maybe 1/3 can be committed to fighting Russia, while the rest need to maintain security against China and Iran

And I rather suspect now they have had the performance of Russian land attack cruise missiles proven to them I suspect the Americans will be keen to keep all their F-22s on home soil for protecting the homeland.

**** the EU is not just something Nuland says...

I think the reality is in favor of Russia much more than some want to acknowledge

And Russia is still producing so the situation is getting worse. One of the fastest ways for Russia to improve the current situation is to make MiG-35s because they offer rather good performance and reduced operatoinal costs and when working together with bigger Flanker types they can receive target information via the larger aircraft they operate with using their larger longer ranged radar and also wing mounted L band radar too.

A missile launched from a MiG-35 at the same altitude and flight speed as an Su-35 will reach the same targets at the same time... but the MiG will be doing it for less cost.

But we have Binkov level idiots here like Arrow taking a whole number of aircraft and acting like Russia will face this whole force in a vacuum

Exactly... France is not going to send all of its Rafales to the front line and leave French territory exposed to attack by subsonic cruise missiles.

+
Spain = 160 F18/Typhoons
Netherlands 50 F-35/F16
Greece: 220 FII/F-16/Rafale/Mirage-2000
Finland 55 F18
Poland: 60 F-16/FA-50
Turkey 240 F-16

Will Turkey put its head on the chopping block?

Will Spain send 160 fighters and Greece send 220 fighters to the front and leave their countries exposed to potential land attack cruise missile attack from Russian subs?

Will they send all their planes and tanks when Turkey does not?

Im not sure why do you assume Russian AF all ~500 fighters are in combat condition and how would you evaluate basic MiG-29 or Su-27 against Typhoon or Rafale?

There are very few basic MiG-29s and Su-27s in service in European Russia.

This is what Vova said: NATO has advantage in conventional weapons. That's why nukes are on standby.

Respecting an enemy is important, but western countries are eggshells that crack at the suggestion of sending in the troops... and lets be clear, they think their forces are winning and has Russia on the run, yet are still not happy to send troops.

Besides having more weapons makes no difference if you can't stop the other guys missiles that are going to fly in and break things, and when you respond you have to respond with your air power because that is how your military works and they are likely low on long range attack weapons anyway... and when you do you lose a large number of planes which is a problem because in addition to being your attack they are also your defence so losing aircraft means even more Russian missiles will get through next time and destroy even more stuff... Russia might not even need to resort to using nukes...

Then why not to keep making VW Beetle ? cheap in maintenance? yet it was replaced by more expensive ones? Su-75 is not 911 in aircraft market but rather ,odfern Kia/Hyundai C segment models and MiG-35 is old Opel Astra from 90s with airbags and cat.

You are missing the point, the MiG-35 has more advanced avionics than the F-22 does... most of its components are designed and made in the last 10 years.

As MiG-35 could possibly could be marketed on countries with smaller budget during peace time for Russian VVS had little value as we could see last 10 years only 6 was made. This 6 was imho to showcase for potential buyers in friendly countries.

The Russian military does not spend money to help export prospects. They will buy something they were not otherwise going to buy because someone else ordered some and so the setup and tooling costs were paid for them like with the MiG-29K, but they are not going to buy 6 MiG-35s to sell planes if they have no use for them.

So no MiG-35 has missed its train. Perhaps the new fighter from MiG can be born in better times.

The heavy Flankers are too expensive to operate in the numbers needed to give them good airspace coverage. The shorter range of the MiG-35 is not a problem in European Russia where there are lots of airfields and targets that need protecting over much shorter ranges.

Just look at it. Why would they go with a mig-35 which is a mig-29M when they can have this light fighter that has just tons of advantages over the mig-35. Internal weapon (refucing drag), stealth (reducing range of enemy detection and engagement zone), single engine (reducing cost), small (reducing operating cost).

And the model of the aircraft is also so much cheaper.

The problem is that other that being shown at airshows it hasn't flown yet and is no where near serial production level.

Conversely the MiG-35 is actually in low rate serial production so it is much easier to increase production and get some aircraft into service before all those single engined 5th gen light fighters have even flown for the first time.

For the same reason... why upgrade and replace the engines of the An-124 when they have plans for the Slon and the Il-106 with PD-35 engines.

Well if you cancel the DT-18M engines you will have to retire all the An-124s and you end up with no heavy transports till the PD-35 engines are ready and then you can start testing Slon and Il-106 once you have built the flying prototypes of course... likely a good 10 years with no heavy transports.

Export price of the mig-29M bough by Egypt was almost the same as export price of su-30MK2 bought by Vietnam, some 40 million dollars. An exported mig-35 with an aesa would thus have same price as export su-35 since both are a better version of the former. Domestic price should be close to su-35 domestic price too. Thus it's better to invest in this new and better plane.

The purchase price is not as important as the operational costs... the operational costs for the Su-35 would double its price over the life of the aircraft... the life costs of the MiG-35 will not double its costs.

Then why not to keep making VW Beetle ?

Because they are a piece of crap... the number of those things at the bottom of cliffs because they were driving down a steep curvy road and the driver decided to change speed in a turn and flipped the car...

Russia has parity with NATO, maybe the US could supply its 700 F16, but that wouldn't tip the scales It needs F35, F22, and F15 for Pacific theater wrote:

Russia has no parity with NATO in the air force. Unless for you the parity is 7 to 1 for NATO. Russia also needs to consider China's air force as a possible enemy.