When upgrading su-30sm into sm2 standards, you are basically gutting the whole aircraft's electronic systems and changing it. That is going to be costly especially the first models, for each su-30sm2 you are going to need two pilots at bare minimum..
While su-35 needs only one in comparison, that also plays a role
I have a PC box I bought in 1997... if I want to keep using it I will struggle to find RAM modules to fit it, or graphics cards to install that will work on such an old motherboard.
It is an AT-X standard PC box however so I can take out the old motherboard and CPU and RAM and put in a brand new motherboard with new CPU and modern RAM cards and a new graphics card and have a system as capable and as modern as any new computer.
Replacing the old components with new components actually makes it much better and much more efficient and upgrades and using new software is much easier and much better.
Going from a 1998 PC with 56 Baud dialup to my current 1GB broadband connection is a massive improvement on its own, and plugging in new digital TV and radio tuners and other modern equipment is much much easier than trying to do it on a 650Mhz Athlon computer with USB 1.2 and Windows 98.
It would improve commonality across the fleet having them all fitted with the same engines and avionics and LCD screens and radar and onboard computer networks... more importantly it would be all Russian so you would be eliminating potential back door hardware from your aircraft.
An Su-30 would not require two pilots... it should be able to operate perfectly well with just one if you wanted to.
No if by that token support you get to convince foreign buyers the plane is real and usable.
The Russian air force would end up with an aircraft they will only use in tiny numbers... making them horribly expensive to support and operate... even if it gets contracts for export, why would the Russian AF care about that?
How can flying a plane the Russian AF no longer operates represent the Russian Air Force?
Twice the engines is twice the service tasks, twice the spares and twice the amount of pieces that can fail. No amount of mental gymnastics is going to change that.
And if the engines are simple and easy to maintain and service twice bugger all is still bugger all. Having twice the number of engines reduces the chance of total engine failure... it does not increase it.... otherwise the B-52 would be the least reliable aircraft in the world... and the most expensive to maintain.
The engine should be the easy part, having one instead of two. Avionics for small or big planes take roughly the same space, granted radar will be smaller, mainly the antenna and power supply. Many other elements are modular or can be scaled down relatively easy. All life support can be identical, as many other elements. And in general all the technologies can be applied, reducing substantially the development and production costs. It is elementary to proceed like Russia has done.
But the new engine will be bigger than either of the current engines so it wont take up half the internal space of the existing two engines. A smaller radar wont do a huge amount to fit stuff in a smaller plane... most parts are modular and don't scale down at all... life support, ejection seat, etc etc are the same size so will take up more space in a smaller aircraft than they would in a larger aircraft. Internal weapons bays will have less room but will need to carry a basic load.... by reusing existing technologies you are essentially going to fill the smaller aircraft to capacity much faster... so fuel and weapon capacity will have to be dramatically reduced.
So Russia using Su-27 still is sacrificing their pilots?
They will eventually be replaced, just like pilots flying Mig-29s.
The force is planed as a whole and no "second rate" planes are used, simply ones are defined for certain missions which other planes should not attempt.
Not no second rate planes are used... no second rate planes are bought. Existing planes might be upgraded or replaced.
No, a customer needs to know that MiG is not delivering a half backed PoS, they need to know the manufacturer is also hold accountable by the VKS and ensure the product they receive is real, fully developed, supported and hence operational
And just using new MiGs in a non operational non frontline non military aerobatic display team role is proving the performance of the MiGs to foreign customers how?
No way, that would mean the LMFS is little more than a trainer...
It will have two engines too.
The industrial base issue is relevant indeed, I am not sure what the development and specialization path for each company in UEC is...
There are enough requirements for engines in Russia in all sorts of platforms and roles to keep Klimov and Saturn busy.
You don't have any hard evidence of such policy and you know it.
All the single engined aircraft were withdrawn from service at a time when the MiG-27K and MiG-27M were still rather capable light strike aircraft and the MiG-21 was the cheapest plane in their inventory...
The only two planes they have/are adopted/ing since 1990 with one engine.... the Yak-152 and replacement for the An-2.
The only single engined aircraft they have in service are the L39 and An-2.
Okhotnik has one engine, many Migs in the times of far less reliable engines were, and now UEC is proposing the PLIB
Lots of unmanned drones with one engine... lots of missiles with one rocket motor too...
That sadly got no proper replacement...
MiG-29 is a much more capable aircraft in every respect... even the early bog standard model.
And no AB, to make it even worse.
They suit the size of the aircraft and its role.... even 7-8 ton thrust engines in full AB would not make it supersonic but would burn a lot more fuel and make it a much shorter ranged aircraft...
Same problem as with the Yak-38 and Yak-38M... both subsonic only, but the more powerful engine in the Yak-38M improved acceleration but didn't change speed and shortened operational range and time on station with a very similar payload.
Do they fly these planes fully equipped or do they remove the combat equipment for display flying?
Normal military aircraft, but normally unarmed.
Dummy weapons with smoke emitters, but not usually full weapon load of dummies.
The MiG-35s they use in the Swifts will likely include TVC and therefore be similar to the MiG-29OVT in aerobatic performance...