The 117S that powers the Su-35 is referred to as AL-41F1A and 117 that powers the PAK-FA as first state engine is referred as AL-41F1.
I expected as much... so the Al-41 will see service...
I really do not see AL-41 ever seeing light of the day...
Yes even the MKI does that but the first aircraft ever to do that was Mig-31 way back in mid 80's
I know... the intended point is that only an aircraft doing the job of the Mig-31 would benefit from such a capability... perhaps the replacement for the Mig-31 will be the Su-35 when numbers of the T-50 get into service in large enough numbers to make it possible.
Spares is a big problem for Mig-21 and cannibalizing does not help much as India has realised with its Mig-21 fleet.
If they haven't sold them already the Russians probably have spares for the aircraft they put into storage too. I mean they probably had their own spares to support them in service so when the aircraft were put into storage it would be interesting to find out what happened to the spare supply. If they have spares it will be worth selling them to countries that use the aircraft. If they don't have spares then it might be worth while producing spares as a way of earning export dollars and keeping clients that can't afford anything better at the moment.
More ever a decent Flanker variant is much cheaper and packs a big punch , Even the Mig-29 variant comes cheap and Mig-35 is a good aircraft , but migs have lost their sheen after the end of SU.
I agree that both the Su-27 and Mig-29 have more growth potential than the Mig-21/-23/-27 and Su-17/-22 but they have lots of these aircraft in storage and need to do something with them.
You could fit a Mig-23 with a radar designed for the Mig-29 and it could carry R-77s and R-73s or later model missiles to be almost as potent a fighter. It would probably have improved performance if fitted with an Al-41 engine and reduced operating costs and an avionics upgrade might only cost 10-15mil or so. Not everyone needs Flanker class aircraft.
I think besides the Mig-35 , Su-27SM , Su-35 the future lies in UCAV like SKAT.
Certainly UCAVs should be developed, but a UCAV is not very situationally aware and if you put on it sensors like radar and IRST and defensive suites to protect it from air defences and enemy aircraft fired missiles then it starts being as expensive as a manned aircraft. If you don't fit it with these things then it becomes vulnerable to attack like a cruise missile.
In combat against the Taleban a SKATE would be very useful for the precision delivery of ordinance on target without risking aircrew.
Against an enemy with even the most basic airforce however and you are going to start losing a lot of aircraft.
I think for the moment that the future remains with manned aircraft for most roles except observation and recon.
I am not sure what impact it will have on Mig-29 aerodynamics and flying qualities and more ever they will have to strrengthen the intake which will have weight penalty and not sure how air flow inside the engine will be affected.
Such a conformal missile position offers the lowest increase in drag and RCS short of an internal bay. The only problem has been missile seperation at launch... making sure the missile doesn't strike the aircraft after launch. The fact that the R-77 already uses a catapault to throw it downwards clear of the aircraft at launch means that will not be an issue. The other problem of course would be ground clearance so R-27s could not be used for example, but the small and folding fins of the R-77 and R-77M with triangular fins should allow such a missile location.
The missiles will not effect airflow to the engines as the engines are in the rear of the aircraft no where near the front engine intakes.
With pylon mounted jamming pods on the outer wing pylon and the two inner pylons on each wing for the main mission payload (ie Kh-31 missiles, Kh-35 missiles, guided bombs and fuel tanks) that leaves the third pylon out for AAMs. With conformal missile positions able to carry 4 medium range missiles without using a pylon or 5 missiles if the centre pylon is used for another missile as a standard loadout and the alternative being a centreline fuel tank and only the outer two BVR Missiles inconformal locations I think it makes the aircraft more flexible and better armed.
Even with a 5 weapon wing being able to carry extra BVR missiles on the engine nacelles makes it a better equipped aircraft.
In the Mig-35 one engine nacelle is already used for the lower portion of the optical system so two conformal missiles on either side might effect it of course.