MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #3

GunshipDemocracy wrote:so actually MiG 35 is NOT operational but only in testing?  taking into account dated avionics...

Not true. It has all new avionics and sensors.

But they do have a wing design - have you not seen the static on display!? It came with wings attached. That wing design is the exact design that they have used on the Su-57.

A different aircraft with a different design and layout and control surface arrangement that is going to need all new flight control software to fly and operate the aircraft.

No horizontal tail surfaces, no levicons, no body lift with two engines widely separated...

It might use some off the shelf parts but it is a different plane whose flight control system would have to be completely redesigned,

Even the "new" modified wing is still the same design with a bit added at the tail end.

On the prototype, but what will the flying prototype look like?

Have you heard of TsAGI? It's a huge facility where they do wind tunnel testing. Here they can determine the exact flight parameters of a particular design long before they start building an actual prototype. So I don't think the Su-75 will have any problems getting airborne.

Yes, they even use supercomputers to test all sorts of computer models... and yet they still make full sized prototypes and flight test them anyway... almost like such ground testing with scale models might not be good enough to go straight to serial production and exports.

They are in the process of replacing those dated aircraft (the F-16) with the F-35 that is apparently a 5th gen stealth fighter. Whether the F-35 is useless or not doesn't matter. What matters is, is that the Russians stay ahead of the game - esp since they have fewer numbers atm.

When everyone is using dated aircraft designs then putting a dated design into service to fill a need while a newer replacement aircraft is prepared for service is not a bad thing. Boosting aircraft numbers in the Russian airforce would be a good thing... except unlike for the west whose heavy 5th gen fighter is no longer in production and is not going back into production and its 6 th replacement has been canceled and the light 5th gen fighters the west produces (F-35) which has lots of problems and is horribly expensive, plus all the paper planes so many countries are working on that might fly or might get cancelled too.

The equivalent of Russias position would be if the F-22 was a massively successful aircraft that is in production and the F-22M is on the verge of entering serial production too, while the prototype for F-35s are approaching flight testing and are looking very good but are not ready yet, but the F-15 and F-16 are in a position to be serially produced to take the pressure off the more sophisticated but also more risky new stealthy fighters.

Would you still object to F-16s being produced as a gap filler... F-16s are dated aircraft, but with modern fillings and well trained pilots they can also be rather useful aircraft too.... certainly better than the nothing that is the alternative for right now.

But they do. Maybe not tomorrow, but it will be ready in a few years from now. It makes no sense to invest in a Mig design that is not only dated, but cost nearly 50 million US$ a piece.

That is the export price, and also rather important because if the Russian AF funds serial production of the MiG-35 then there is a chance that Egypt and Algeria and Iran and quite a few other countries that don't need Flankers but don't want F-16s might want to buy a few too.

Double the price of a Su-75 at 25-30 million!

25-30 million would be the export price the Su-75 for the Russian AF would be cheaper than that too.

The price does not matter... the price could be 50c per airframe... they haven't finalised a flight tested design yet so anything they do make now would be junk if it has to be completely changed to match the serial service model.

Why would you invest in it if you can get a brand new 5th gen fighter for half the price?

Because it is a numbers aircraft and despite what Sukhoi promise a non stealthy fighter is going to be cheaper to maintain than a stealthy fighter.

I'm sure the new Defense Minister with his financial background would be able to come to the same conclusion.

I would say the opposite, you get better value for money operating MiG-35s with Su-35s than you do operating Su-35s alone, and a new 5th gen light stealth fighter is not going to have cheaper operational costs.

Exactly my point above! The Mig is not cheap at all, but the Su-75 is. AND that's the export price. Just imagine how cheap the Su-75 will be for the Russians!

The MiG-35 is the cheap numbers aircraft, but keep talking about the export price to pretend it is not. The new minister wont be fooled.

The math is simple. It's like two Ferrari's for the price of one Skoda. The Skoda design is dated but it can still get you from A to B. But heck I'll reluctantly have to take the two Ferrari's since they are on special!

What a terrible example... I don't know a lot about cars but Ferraris are well known for being unreliable and expensive to service and maintain and are also expensive to buy which is the opposite of what the MiG-35 is.

A large order for the Russia AF and the MiG-35 will be costing much less than its export price... which is a fraction of the export price of F-16s and F-18s.

Well it is ONE basket - The United Aircraft Corporation.

The purpose of UAC was to streamline the design bureaus by keeping the engineers and designers and technical people while having a single management and financial and other bureaucratic layer above doing all the money stuff.

Rather clever actually... much better than the US model where each of the companies ate each other and became monopolies.

Despite the "super secret models" that MiG displayed, they have been unable to produce anything NEW in over two decades. If they don't come up with something soon - they will disappear.

In comparison to Sukhoi who is spanking the Flanker design over and over... the Su-57 as nice as it is is just another Flanker... when are they going to make something new?

Su-27SM, Su-30, Su-34, Su-35, Su-25SM3... all the money they have made with real RuAF contracts and amazing export sales and they keep flogging that dated Su-27 horse they stole from MiG.

They are barely holding on with the basic trainer design.

Or you could be optimistic and say they have had very few Russian orders the last 40 years yet they are still making new fighter designs including a mach 4+ interceptor design to replace the worlds best interceptor, and they are working on two light 5th gen fighter designs including a carrier capable version and a 5th gen wing man drone design, as well as a new single engined LIFT.

But pessemist you says the glass is half empty.

A structural engineer would say you have about 30% more glass than you actually need...

Honestly I would love to see the Mikoyan OKB survive, but you can't be on the government's pay role and not do anything useful for decades.

Your opinion is irrelevant, they are making a replacement for the MiG-31 and keeping existing MiG-31s operating, and are now making single engined light jet training aircraft... why do you think they would disappear?

They have survived this long only on the MiG-31 domestically, and MiG-29s for export, and now they have a new interceptor project to replace the MIG-31, and a LIFT job to do, plus of course recently they had MiG-29Ks for Russia and India... there was talk of essentially making the MiG-35 carrier capable so it could be used on land and at sea without modification...

Then it's even worse! then you need to build assembly lines, streamline processes and train people if you can find them... please tell me what exact difference is between Su-75 production and MiG-35 in terms of resources and time? i don't see much.

The MiG-35 line can be set up now in the factories that made 6 already... or do you think that was a special line that only makes airplanes on the weekends and makes chocolate lollies all week and that is why it took so long to make 6 planes?

The important difference is that you can't set up Su-75 production because they don't have a serial design to make yet... and wont do for at the very least 5 and more likely 10 years.

But it's not important, important is that MoD doesn't seem to see any necessity for MiG-35....

If they don't need a light numbers fighter then why bother with the Su-75?

Why not just make 2,000 Su-57s?

For last almost 2 decades MiG-35 is the best fighter didnt you know? neither did MoD

Your ignorance is amazing, the MiG-35 design as produced now is less than 10 years old.

Or can I say the Su-75 is the best fighter never because it is an idea and not an aircraft yet.

An aircraft is something that travels through the air. The Su-75 has not achieved that... it might be 5 tons over weight.

Would you take engineers from the MiG-31/41 lines to build a low output rate MiG-35?

They need people to build the MiG-35... the design is finalised and in serial production. Apart from a bit of problem solving and error resolution they should just need to crank them out as fast as they can make the radars and avionics.

with whooping 6 pieces! So if Su-75 will have 6 porotypes there will be a hards choice for you right?

No GD. The MIG-35 has passed all its tests and is in service... there is an immense difference between a design prototype and in this case non flying prototypes and an aircraft in serial production.

The serial Su-75 might look nothing like the prototypes we see today... they can't say what the final serial model will look like because the testing will find issues and faults and problems and those things will need to be resolved with changes and modifications. It might be that the new engine is too expensive and not powerful enough for the new light fighter so they might go for one of the new versions of the R 79M engine the Yak-141 used... some of the later models were uprated to 22 tons thrust in AB.

They don't know because they haven't flight tested yet.

of course F-22 is dated yet still better than MiG-35 in every aspect.

You are not getting this. We are talking about light numbers aircraft to fill gaps in airspace... the F-22 is the opposite of a good idea because it is horrendously expensive and it is out of production anyway so it is less of an option than a plane that has never flown like the Su-75.

F-35 is made 120/per year? is better too.

At 170 million dollars per airframe it would be worse than trying to boost the Russian fighter numbers by making Su-57s... you would get four Su-57s for each F-35 you didn't buy.... and the Su-57s work.

And new 6 gen NGAD / FA/XX is way beyond MiG-35 it's like you opt in 1940 to increase production of I-153 against Me-109. Not go for Yak-1

So your examples of planes better than the MiG-35 include aircraft 5 to 10 times more expensive to buy and 10-100 times more expensive to operate, the first is out of production, the second is in mass production, but is also not even fully operational yet with serious problems yet to be resolved, and now you cap it off by taking about the recently cancelled Gonads American super 6th gen fighter... they plane they switched to when it was clear the F-35 was a dog and would cost the US taxpayer more than the space programme and the programmed to develop nuclear weapons combined without any guarantee of succeeding and resulting in a decent aircraft better than what China and Russia ALREADY HAVE IN PRODUCTION.

No, but you can be sure that before any MiG-35 would be made in numbers, 6th generation is already there. As for the light fighter, exactly - that's why the Su-75 is the answer.

You clearly missed the memo... 6th gen has been and gone... they are past 30th gen now and climbing.

so actually MiG 35 is NOT operational but only in testing? taking into account dated avionics...

It is the same process every new aircraft goes through... the Su-75 hasn't even flown yet... it hasn't even started the process... this is a private venture... this is not funded by the Russian military.

But of course they are, the difference is they are mass produced atm, there are facilities, contractos, workers and engineers to make them.

And they are too expensive to make and operate to produce useful numbers of them so a lighter cheaper type is needed to fill out the gaps.

number of engineers and workers is finite and pretty small. Production lines are undermanned and empty. Processes are not in place. But if thsi is no problem for you it's ok but seems it is for the Russian MoD

The MiG-35 and Su-75 are in totally different stages of development and require very different workers... the Su-75 is ten years from mass serial production.

Assuming it actually reaches that stage.

to again how many with thrust vector were made? 60 for naval aviation and 6 for MiG-35 in last 2 decades? im sure they could make 400 in years. Or maybe not?

The difference between the vectored thrust engines on the MiG-29OVT and the normal engines on the MiG-29S or used in various Chinese and Pakistani fighter aircraft is the thrust vectoring engine nozzle. They don't have different engines as such, they just have different nozzles.

Like anything else they can set up for mass production and fit them as they become ready. For many aircraft in some regions they might decide such flight performance is not necessary and they don't have them fitted to reduce maintenance and support costs.

I would assume yes, they are. This mean they are empty and none is there. Nothing is made there for the last 5 years.

They took their time to make the 6 aircraft for the Russian AF... they might have used those production lines to make the 14 odd MiG-29M they made for Algeria and the 50 odd aircraft they made for Egypt, not to mention any MiG-29UGts they might have worked on for India.

If somebody has experience, then why is Sukhoi desperately hiring new unskilled people if there's an abundance of skilled technical staff?

People with experience might not have experience using Sukhois production methods or tools or robots or other systems so they might prefer cheaper unskilled labour they can train up to their standards on their equipment with their designs.

If you're talking about MiG then it is much worse than you think. None for the naval Mig-29K and none for the Mig-35. There is only one Mig-29 fitted with TV's and that is the Mig-29OVT development aircraft. TVC is however optional for the Mig-35 but no takers so far.

It is unknown what the MiG-35s in Russian service are fitted with but comments about increased maintenance and support requirements made TVC less desirable in its current design. Of course mass production and increased use will lead to fixes and improvements in materials and support procedures.

The figures I referred to are official export price tags. In 2011 the Mig-35 was priced at 45 million. Its a tad bit more expensive now. Recently I saw it priced at 48.6 million. By now it should be very close to 50.

There is your problem... the Russian military don't pay export prices.

I do not want to push absolutely for Mig35, but saying that the su-75 would cost less is ridiculous.

It is funny that those suggesting the MiG-35 is a waste of time and money ignore the fact that the Su-75 will actually have competition when it is ready for serial production and may not beat that competition domestically.

If you have other figures - please feel free to share them.

Official first flight date from Sukhoi for the Su-75 is 2026-2027.

As far as the Su-75, it will not be in serial production before 2030.

That depends on the foreign partners in the project who are funding it... Sukhoi might want to hand more of the financial burden to them so it can focus on getting the Su-57M into serial production and as the 2030s approach Sukhoi will also be seriously working on a carrier compatible Su-57K too so all those engineers they have might not have time for a single engined fighter for export if the export customers don't want to fund it....

Much ado about nothing. Walls of text and bloviating but the ones that should, actually, order the plane don't do it.
If it was so great, we wouldn't have no orders after 5 years of actual use. And chances are getting smaller with each passing day.
Maybe it is better that admins close this thread for now, until something materially changes (MoD actually orders a plane!?).

As for the rest of you guys - please wake me up when the Mig-35 starts rolling off the production line in significant numbers.

Good you admit you are not awake.

Given that they are all 4th generation aircrafts, why on earth should Russia sell their mig-35 abroad on the cheap?

Most of Sukhois power comes from export sales which have much bigger profit margins compared with domestic sales which are restricted to something like 3%-5%.

We know also that Sukhoi was looking for foreign partners to finish development .

It is an export oriented product that would need paying foreign customers, which is going to slow things down too unless Sukhoi invests a lot of its own money into it... quite a risk really.

Quite right again but at least I made the effort to use actual export figures to work from.

Export prices are not really relevant. You don't think export prices reflect how much a Rafale actually costs to make do you?

That's the only figures we can work with - as an indication.

They are about as useful as figures showing outside temperatures in Kelvin.

As I've said the margins (to scale) should be the similar for Russian service as we are talking about a single vs twin engine fighter.

Again... a bullshit assumption. Those new engines have digital management systems and self diagnostics... going from a twin engined fighter to a single engined fighter would reduce support costs by 50% ONLY if the engine support was already 50% of the support costs, because then only having one engine would mean the support costs would go down to 25%. The problem is that stealth materials and stealth coatings are probably 80% of the maintenance costs and that does not change for a smaller single engined fighter.

By your logic the MiG-35 should cost the same to operate and maintain because it has the same number of engines as the Su-35... but we know that doesn't make sense because the whole point of a light fighter is not to have another smaller fighter that is just as capable as the bigger fighter that also costs the same to buy and to operate. You might as well make more heavy fighters in that case.

If it was so great, we wouldn't have no orders after 5 years of actual use. And chances are getting smaller with each passing day.

That would only be sensible if the conflict in the Ukraine hadn't happened and they realised that numbers matter too.

If the conflict in the Ukraine had not happened I am sure they would have happily let the MiG-35 take much longer to be matured to a decent reliable level with any problems sorted out and aspects or features improved and just waited for a light 5th gen fighter and put that into low rate production of about 36 or 48 aircraft and then tested those in service to see if they actually achieved the promised numbers in terms of performance, cost, and readiness and if they did then just mass produce that light 5th fighter and not worry about the MiG-35.

But the situation is that having a small number of heavy fighter leaves gaps and is expensive having heavy fighters running around looking for drones and cruise missiles or even launching long range AAMs at enemy aircraft detected by AWACS or other platforms. They would then be able to use their heavier aircraft for duties where their long range or large radars are better suited and make more sense.

The alternative is that the light fighter role will be taken by older types like the Su-27SM3 or something which is not saving any money in terms of operational costs...

Interesting comment from Voevoda's channel. Since, the guy is an active  pilot of K-52, his comments carry more weight than any journalistic crap:

https://t.me/c/1693803928/926815

Unfortunately, the era of the 29s is ending completely.  SMT (mod. 16) are going to the cadets.
SMT (mod. 07) are going to scrap.
K/KUB are still around.
The 35th died without being born.

Not accessible. What is he saying ?

It says under the link. Older SMT, obr. 2007 planes are written off and newer version obr. 2016 are going to be used by cadets.
MiG-29 is done. Including the MiG-35 which he calls stillborn.
Only K version used by Kuznetsov and for aircraft carrier training will stay for the time being.

Russia lost a lot of Su-25 Frogfoot aircraft. They continue to lose them. I think the only viable replacement in the short term to provide relatively inexpensive air support is the MiG-35. I already said this before.

We heard the MiG-35 was being evaluated in Ukraine. It might still get ordered eventually. So we will see what happens.

The Sokol plant continues to deliver upgraded MiG-31 aircraft. They did that a couple months ago.

lancelot wrote:Russia lost a lot of Su-25 Frogfoot aircraft. They continue to lose them. I think the only viable replacement in the short term to provide relatively inexpensive air support is the MiG-35. I already said this before.

Nope, only drones, unless the Russian Ministry of Defense fails to learn from past mistakes.

GarryB wrote:

As for the rest of you guys - please wake me up when the Mig-35 starts rolling off the production line in significant numbers.

Good you admit you are not awake.

so how many was made last month? year?

GB wrote:

We know also that Sukhoi was looking for foreign partners to finish development .

It is an export oriented product that would need paying foreign customers, which is going to slow things down too unless Sukhoi invests a lot of its own money into it... quite a risk really.

Then UAC cannot assess the risks without this forum.        Alternatively, they know what they're doing and are making the right decisions.

GB wrote:

If it was so great, we wouldn't have no orders after 5 years of actual use. And chances are getting smaller with each passing day.

That would only be sensible if the conflict in the Ukraine hadn't happened and they realised that numbers matter too.

If the conflict in the Ukraine had not happened I am sure they would have happily let the MiG-35 take much longer to be matured to a decent reliable level

So what do we have here? It's expensive to manufacture - since large-scale production investments are similar to setting up a new production line. We have a 50-year-old airframe that keeps being called 'promising' (so far making promises without delivering tangible results, I must say), and a bright future in the world of drones and 5th/6th generation fighters. I'm sure it's going to be okay.

Except those kinds of combat drones do not exist. Maybe they will have them like after the war is over.
The drones could also get jammed.

The MiG-35 can probably lob FAB-500 bombs with UMPK if it is adapted to do it.

Its land attack OLS-K optoelectronics sensor can also detect and lase targets at distances of 20 km. i.e. outside MANPADS range. It has the most advanced and modern sensor of such kind on any Russian aircraft at this moment.

lancelot wrote:Except those kinds of combat drones do not exist. Maybe they will have them like after the war is over.
The drones could also get jammed.

The MiG-35 can probably lob FAB-500 bombs with UMPK if it is adapted to do it.

Its land attack OLS-K optoelectronics sensor can also detect and lase targets at distances of 20 km. i.e. outside MANPADS range. It has the most advanced and modern sensor of such kind on any Russian aircraft at this moment.

The MiG-35 essentially doesn't exist in operational service. As for the Su-25, it didn't carry FAB-500 l or larger bombs at all. Wasn't it primarily armed with unguided rockets? The Su-25 also suffered significant losses in the SVO.

By the time any serious MiG-35 production could begin, autonomous drones may already be widespread. Meanwhile, the Su-34 is in full production and can effectively deliver FAB series bombs. Why complicate logistics and increase costs with an outdated platform?

The Su-25 fires unguided rockets because it has little else it can use at standoff distance. Except for the Vikhr anti-tank missile. Using unguided gravity bombs is basically suicide.
It is also out of production with the main factory somewhere in Georgia.

The MiG-35 can use modern kinds of standoff weapons. It also has better sensors so it can more easily operate outside the range of infantry carried anti-air weapons. It does not need to operate at close distances. I mean you could also fire rockets with it but what in heavens for.

The MiG-35 actually has a production line and passed all trials. So they could start producing it right away if they wanted to. This is not the case for the drones.

so how many was made last month? year?

I have no idea, but he said he is asleep, so there is no point listening to him...

Then UAC cannot assess the risks without this forum.

They do, but the answer they come up with means nothing if there are no customers prepared to buy the products.

Alternatively, they know what they're doing and are making the right decisions.

To make the right decisions they would need to be able to predict the future perfectly... right now their main customer... the Russian AF, has experience in a war in Ukraine and Syria, and their wants and needs might not be what the UAC anticipated them to be.

A light modern fighter able to fill the numbers role and provide short range strike capacity in lieu of CAS is certainly a possibility they could not have anticipated... or in fact they have in the form of the Su-75 and a MiG equivalent, but there is nothing they can serial produce in the next 5 years other than the MiG-35.

So what do we have here? It's expensive to manufacture - since large-scale production investments are similar to setting up a new production line.

A modern assembly line of an aircraft they could put a tail hook on and sell to the Russian Navy and also likely sell an export version to Egypt and perhaps Algeria, and even Iran might be interested in MiG-35s.

When the production of a few hundred MiG-35s has been completed that same production like could be used to make the new single or twin engined 5th gen light MiGs... much the same way production facilities were built for the Tu-160M and will be used to make PAK DA bombers later on.

In comparison if you want the Su-75 you wait ten years and then build a factory...

The MiG-35 can probably lob FAB-500 bombs with UMPK if it is adapted to do it.

It should also be able to lob FAB-1500 with glide kits too...

As for the Su-25, it didn't carry FAB-500 l or larger bombs at all. Wasn't it primarily armed with unguided rockets? The Su-25 also suffered significant losses in the SVO.

The Su-25 was direct fire rockets and bombs directly on target and it tends to use 250kg bombs, but can certainly use 500kg bombs too.

Ironically the air defences of the Ukrainian forces was largely ex soviet systems and was orders of magnitude better than HATO air defence forces.

By the time any serious MiG-35 production could begin, autonomous drones may already be widespread.

Most drones are autonomous, and they are already widespread, yet are unable to replace manned aircraft and attack helicopters....

Geraniums are nice and effective against fixed targets, but the battlefield has many targets that are not fixed...

Meanwhile, the Su-34 is in full production and can effectively deliver FAB series bombs. Why complicate logistics and increase costs with an outdated platform?

Su-34 is very big and very expensive to be hitting many of the targets that need to be hit.

Like using an Iskander to hit a Bradley.

It will do the job, but a MiG-35 or Su-25 can do it cheaper. The MiG-35 can use AESA radar and EO equipment to find and hit targets on the ground from standoff distances, where they will be safer from enemy ground fire.

It all depends on the target... if the target is a tank rolling across a field or down a road, then you launch an ATGM like Vikhr or Ataka or other missile and you destroy it.

If the target is 300 enemy soldiers crossing a field then a single weapon of any kind is not going to get the job done unless it is a couple of 250kg or 500kg cluster bombs. Enemy troops moving forward are constantly told not to bunch up so one weapon can't take the all out in one shot.

That is when you fire a volley of rockets spread out over a wide area to cover the field in HE and fragments... precision is not important... in fact having all your rockets hit the same aim point would be a bad thing because the idea is to spread out the impact points and spread the shrapnel around to injure as many soldiers as you can.

A 500kg bomb wont stop a 300 man attack, but 20 x 80mm rockets all spread around the field could injure enough to end the attack and make them withdraw in disarray.

Cannon fire can also be used but rockets deliver larger bombs with more fragments.

The point is that the Su-25 used to fly in and locate enemy positions and launch rocket and freefall bomb attacks. We have seen the rockets are now lofted from max range and free fall bombs are no longer used... even at very low altitude a glide kit can give a standoff range to make the aircraft safer.

A MiG-35 with AESA radar and EO equipment and also extra targeting pods could communicate with friendly forces on the ground and scan the terrain in front of friendly positions and pass that information to the local commander who can then use that live information to find enemy targets and ask air support to obliterate them, or pass the target coordinates to artillery or helicopter air support. For dealing with fortified positions he can determine the coordinates of buildings that need to be deal with, a 50kg 152mm HE shell or a 203mm 110kg HE shell or a 240mm 130kg HE shell could do the job, or they might decide that a 250kg glide bomb or 500kg glide bomb or even a 1,500kg glide bomb might be needed.

The MiG-35 will be operating closer to the front line than any Su-34 could and can deliver ordinance faster too.

Not only that it is cheaper to operate.

Another factor for adults is that no platform is invincible... Su-57s and T-14s will be lost in combat... get over it... when used correctly that should not happen very often but there are no super invincible platforms, and expecting the MiG-35 to be invincible is stupid too.

Some will be lost, but the damage they do will make it worth it.

One of the ignored factors in combat is eyes and guns... the more eyes and guns you have the more enemy targets you can find and engage at any one time.

MiG-35s have very good eyes and their guns are essentially the same carried by the bigger Sukhois, but they are cheaper to operate so you can have more in the air, meaning when an enemy attacks it will be detected faster and you can start blunting their attack sooner with more weapons that can be pointed at them faster.

The lack of payload weight and flight range is not a problem because no aircraft operates anywhere near its max payload capacity and long range just means you might be too far away from where you need to be to do your job.

Extra payload and range can of course be achieved by making it bigger and heavier and more expensive to buy and to operate, but that would just result in the MiG-35 being an Su-35 and they already have those.

If you think of it in terms of transport if the Su-34 is a transit van, the Su-35 is a car, the MiG-35 is a motor scooter.

You can complain the motor scooter has no protection from the weather and is vulnerable in accidents, but motor scooters can go lots of places cars cannot go and if the job is getting around a congested city during peak hours then a motor scooter... or should I say 20 motor scooters will be useful and cheap and get more jobs done than you could get done with 5 cars.

The motor scooter is inferior to a car in terms of speed and range, but you don't use it for international transport, it is a city commuter that you can take into the office with you if it is electric and plug it in to charge for the ride home.

IMHO the MiG is being killed by a lobby, and the neccesity for it in the short term will be used by the Su-75. I think its was a bad choice to stop getting MiG-29K and 35 deliveries, because they could well serve their niche of point fighter bomber (with todays weapons) and mantain the productuion lines and design bureaus. Instead we got Sukhoi hegemony . Time will tell.

But don't you love the juggling... before we knew the Su-75 was planned Russia didn't need a cheap numbers fighter so the MiG was useless, but now the Su-75 has been mentioned it seems the Russian military needs it but does not need it right now.

The sales with Malaysia, like the sales with Algeria were mostly political... much of the news coverage came from the news media in the region which is largely pro west and not very independent.

There was a new story about how terrible the MiG-29 was, and then there were news articles from people in the Malaysian military saying that those stories were nonsense and all made up.

Sukhoi is trying to take over, which is not a good thing no matter your opinion of their current products... Sukhoi is dominating the way MiG used to dominate and it is not healthy for Russia.