VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

[Cain Marko]

Exposed Engines blades are big source of radar images and probably increase the cross section more than Pylons, Drop tanks and ordinance, Also the All Metal Larger body Su-30 will start of with a much bigger radar cross section than smaller Composite built LCA and Rafale, these are not 5th gen stealth birds by any stretch of the imagination but probably have a much lower detection range.

Lower by how much? Will the smaller rcs compensate for the massive radar range of something like an upgraded bars or irbis? Iirc rcs has to be reduced by over 16 times to half the detection range. Afaik the mki and even the less advanced mkk was supposed to increase composite usage in the airframe with time. I'm not sure to what extent though.

[Cain Marko]

The mki is a long range bruiser and an exceptional close range fighter. No mistake. Even the fulcrums found it extremely difficult to handle the flanker up close as was seen in the Ethiopia vs Eritrea skirmish. It's large size is a relative weakness but also a strength because it allows this bird to carry massive jammers and sensors. Combine that with super maneuverability and endurance means that it can engage and disengage at will. Every dact exercise so far it has shown it's mettle.

I doubt most 4+gen fighters, esp smaller ones will be able to get first shot/kill against it as we saw against the tsp f16/amraams. With a hyper powerful radar to maintain lock, long ranged sarh aam's fired off by mki will be hard to shake off. No wonder the iaf continues to invest in the r27s even today.

The aesa + meteor equipped rafales will probly change this though. Can't wait to see how the upgraded MKI turns out.

[Kartik]

The bigger problem with the Su-30 is the exposed engine face. No blocker or serpentine intake. It is right in the line of any radar waves coming it’s way. Masking the compressor face with serpentine intakes alone will reduce the RCS a great deal, everything else being the same.

How much will hidden engine faces help though if you have large EFT's and bombs dangling under the wings?

Given everything else being the same, the exposed compressor face will be a big reflector. All 4th gen designs have expended a great deal of effort in hiding the compressor face. It is not for nothing that this would be done, given the considerable difficulty in the perfecting the flow dynamics of serpentine intakes.

Given that the general cross sectional area of a Rafale is smaller than a Su-30, even with the drop tanks and weapons hanging off the pylons, I would imagine it has a smaller RCS. Of course without access to any real data one cannot say how much.

[Karan M]

ITAE researchers presented a paper to a conference on stealth in London in late October 2003, which was organized by the International Quality and Productivity Centre.

"According to the ITAE presentation, Russian researchers have developed mathematical tools that can calculate scattering from complex configurations, such as an Su-35 carrying a full external missile load, by breaking them down into small facets and adding the effects of edge waves and surface currents. The antennas are modelled separately and then are added to the entire RCS picture.

"A problem of huge size" is how the researchers describe the Su-35 inlet, with a straight duct that provides direct visibility to the entire face of the engine compressor. The basic solution has been to apply ferro-magnetic radar absorbent material (RAM) to the compressor face and to the inlet duct walls, but this involves challenges. The researchers note: the material cannot be allowed to constrict airflow or impede the operation of anti-icing systems and must withstand high-speed airflows and temperatures up to 200°C. The ITAE team has developed and tested coating materials that meet these standards. A layer of RAM between 0.7mm and 1.4mm thick is applied to the ducts and a 0.5mm coating is applied to the front stages of the low-pressure compressor, using a robotic spray system. The result is a 10-15dB reduction in the RCS contribution from the inlets.

The modified Su-35 also has a treated cockpit canopy which reflects radar waves, concealing the high RCS contribution from metal components in the cockpit. ITAE has developed a plasma-deposition process to deposit alternating layers of metallic and polymer materials, creating a coating that blocks radio-frequency waves, is resistant to cracking and crazing and does not trap solar heat in the cockpit. The plasma-coating process is then carried out robotically in a 22 m3 vacuum chamber.

ITAE and its partners have also developed plasma-type technology for applying ceramic coatings to the exhaust and afterburner. The conference video also showed the use of hand-held sprays to apply RAM to R-27 air-to-air missiles.

ITAE has studied at least three techniques for reducing the RCS contribution of the radar antenna, in addition to the simplest method of deflecting the antenna upwards and treating or shrouding other components. One of these is to design a radome that can be switched from RF-transparent to RF-reflective. The interior of the radome would be coated with a cadmium sulphide or cadmium selenide thin-film semiconductor material which changes conductivity when illuminated with visible or ultra-violet light. However, the problem of making such a film has not been solved.

A second technique that is also described in Western literature is to place a frequency selective surface screen in front of the antenna. This is a foil-like metal screen etched with small apertures which allow RF energy to pass within a narrow waveband, corresponding to the radar's own operating frequency. This reduces RCS, according to ITAE, but at the expense of radar performance.

The ITAE paper also gave some indications of the direction of stealth technology for future stealth aircraft. Test facilities include large compact indoor RCS ranges for large-scale models and outdoor ground-level ranges with short pylons that can be used to test full-size aircraft (rather than the models used for US pylon tests).

In future designs, one emphasis is on large, complex skin panels, reducing the number of gaps and mechanical fasteners in the skin"

[Karan M]

Hope this is considered and adopted as part of the Su-30 MLU.

[Indranil]

That doesn't represent the response time. When you are carrying nuclear bomba, you are a basically a civilian airline in performance. And you will get picked up in excess of 100 kms by AWACS and ground based radars. That is sufficient time to vector responses.

The security of nuclear delivery through aerial bombing is not designed through RCS reduction of 4th gen aircraft. In a contested environment, such delivery using 4th gen aircrafts are designed through saturation and deception. You hide your delivery aircraft among a huge flotilla of aircraft.

Some aspects of it where shown in Balakot as well. The IAF showed the Su-30s and invaded using the Mirages. But nuclear delivery will be much more involved ballet. It turned out that IAF did not need the deception, the Mirage 2000s went in and out uncontested.

[Kartik]

Completely agree. Any work done on the Su-35 for RCS reduction via RAM on the inlet duct walls and compressor face as well as the cockpit canopy should be a part of the MLU. the IAF may not highlight this publicly, but I seriously hope that this is taken up given that this might be the last major upgrade of the Su-30MKI.

Even the MiG-29UPGs could benefit from this, although I suspect that it can only be done at the overhaul stage, when the intake and engines are all removed from the airframe.

[Cain Marko]

Exposed Compressor faces are an issue but a number of legacy birds will face this issue including the Mig 29 and the mighty f15 eagle and even the su 35. The Su35 supposedly has managed to bring down the birds rcs to about 1-3msq and I don't think they use blockers. I guess appropriate use of ram coatings do help motivate the issue. The same has been done for the Mig 29k. Fwiw, the Russians claimed to have reduced the rcs of the Mig 21 by a very large measure.

[Indranil]

Hope this is considered and adopted as part of the Su-30 MLU.

The Su-30 upgrade is going to be a great boost to indigenous systems. Apart from engine and radar, every aspect is likely to be Indian.

By the way, I have been finding out about the Mig-29 upgrades. The more I learn the more I appreciate it. For example, unrefueled, the upgraded Mig-29s have almost the same endurance as Rafales (with and without drop tanks).

[Cain Marko]

Hope this is considered and adopted as part of the Su-30 MLU.

The Su-30 upgrade is going to be a great boost to indigenous systems. Apart from engine and radar, every aspect is likely to be Indian.

By the way, I have been finding out about the Mig-29 upgrades. The more I learn the more I appreciate it. For example, unrefueled, the upgraded Mig-29s have almost the same endurance as Rafales (with and without drop tanks).

Fascinating considering that the rd33.3 is far more powerful. Not to mention that the Mig is definitely heavier empty. Indranil, the Navys K has extensive rcs treatment including cross tooth joints in certain locations, does the upgrade have similar treatment? Also, does it use the same French hms or is it the sura?

[Indranil]

The Mig 29 UPGs internal fuel capacity is a staggering 5.6 tons to the Rafale's 4.7 tons.

[Cain Marko]

Woaw! I thought it was about 4.7 tons. And that the K has 5.6 tons. But this is great...

[ArjunPandit]

Hope this is considered and adopted as part of the Su-30 MLU.

The Su-30 upgrade is going to be a great boost to indigenous systems. Apart from engine and radar, every aspect is likely to be Indian.

By the way, I have been finding out about the Mig-29 upgrades. The more I learn the more I appreciate it. For example, unrefueled, the upgraded Mig-29s have almost the same endurance as Rafales (with and without drop tanks).

that is an interesting observation indranilji, I am reading it for the first time, the mig 29 has always been touted as short on legs due to thirsty engines as compared to f16 or rafale. Please tweet this too...the narrative needs to be corrected

[nachiket]

The Mig 29 UPGs internal fuel capacity is a staggering 5.6 tons to the Rafale's 4.7 tons.

The original had 3.5 tons! How did they manage to fit 2.1 tons into that dorsal tank? I mean, it's big but not that big.

[Indranil]

They have two more smaller tanks in place of the louvers.

On internal fuel, the ranges of the UPG is cited to be around 2100 kms vs. the Rafale's 1800 kms. Truth be told, I think they are both close 10 1800 kms. With three external tanks, the UPG has a range of about 3,100 kms vs the Rafales' 3600 kms.

[Philip]

Are there any further improvements in the 35 barring TVC?
There was a hint at a decent lowering of unit cost for tranche 2 being offered by Dassault.Any idea of the approx. price?

[Kartik]

The Su-30 upgrade is going to be a great boost to indigenous systems. Apart from engine and radar, every aspect is likely to be Indian.

By the way, I have been finding out about the Mig-29 upgrades. The more I learn the more I appreciate it. For example, unrefueled, the upgraded Mig-29s have almost the same endurance as Rafales (with and without drop tanks).

that is an interesting observation indranilji, I am reading it for the first time, the mig 29 has always been touted as short on legs due to thirsty engines as compared to f16 or rafale. Please tweet this too...the narrative needs to be corrected

That narrative was correct in the past, when the un-upgraded MiG-29s were flying in the IAF. the upgraded MiG-29UPGs address that shortcoming and that narrative now needs to be built up. At least on BRF it should be understood that the MiG-29UPGs have a pretty decent pair of legs and endurance is no longer an issue, especially when you consider they have in-flight refueling as well.

[Kartik]

The Mig 29 UPGs internal fuel capacity is a staggering 5.6 tons to the Rafale's 4.7 tons.

That is the quoted internal fuel capacity for the MiG-29SMT-II upgrade which included 2 additional 219 litre fuel tanks in the LERX, alongwith with the 950 liter dorsal CFT. So does that sort of confirm that the MiG-29UPG carries fuel in the LERX region as well?

But with 900 kgs of additional fuel over the Rafale, the MiG-29UPG will still have similar range compared to the Rafale..what could that be attributed to? A part of it could probably be the fact that the M-88 has a lower Specific Fuel Consumption in both dry and afterburner. Could the Rafale be less draggy than the upgraded MiG-29UPG?

Nevertheless, it is impressive that the range and endurance are so far enhanced on the MiG-29UPG. Certainly explains the reasoning behind going for additional numbers. Apart from its other features like improved avionics and weapons.

One thing I never quite understood. Why doesn't the IAF expose the MiG-29UPG and Mirage-2000I squadrons to international exercises? Internal DACT will train their crews, but every time there's an exercise, its the Su-30MKI that represents the IAF. Which I find quite odd.

[Indranil]

Are there any further improvements in the 35 barring TVC?
There was a hint at a decent lowering of unit cost for tranche 2 being offered by Dassault.Any idea of the approx. price?

Phillip saar, I have told you many times now. Mig35 doesn't have TVC. You are confusing it with the Mig-29 OVT.

Mig 35 is a very good airplane. Mig-29 UPG cannot get there without structural changes.

One of the problems with the Russkies is that they don't have PR agencies like the Saab and Dassault. In airframe design, they are second to none.

[ArjunPandit]

^^thanks kartikji, could it be because the Su 30 had long legs in past..and also Su 30 was an unknown to the west unlike Mig 29, which both US and european got their hands on extensively in FSU days..

[nachiket]

But with 900 kgs of additional fuel over the Rafale, the MiG-29UPG will still have similar range compared to the Rafale..what could that be attributed to? A part of it could probably be the fact that the M-88 has a lower Specific Fuel Consumption in both dry and afterburner. Could the Rafale be less draggy than the upgraded MiG-29UPG?[/b]

Interesting thing if you look at Wiki is that the M-88 seems to have a higher TSFC dry (79 kg/kNh vs 75 kg/kNh) but a lower TSFC wet (169 kg/kNh vs 188 kg/kNh).

However the RD-33 also has a 6kN higher max wet-thrust.

[Kartik]

^^thanks kartikji, could it be because the Su 30 had long legs in past..and also Su 30 was an unknown to the west unlike Mig 29, which both US and european got their hands on extensively in FSU days..

Please no ji in your addressing of me.

The Su-30 having long legs has nothing to do with the exposure to the MiG-29 squadrons in exercises conducted within India. Yes, when it came to flying across continents, the MiG-29s were incapable of it till the UPG upgrade happened and they became in-flight refueling capable.

But even for Mirage-2000s, except for the exercise in South Africa, they've not ventured out of our country. But at least on Indian soil, they are active participants in exercises. The MiG-29s weren't even given that, with some peripheral roles in most exercises, completely at odds with their status as the premier air superiority fighter in the IAF that focused entirely on air defence and air superiority.

Especially against the RSAF, which exposes them against the F-16 Block 52. The MiG-29s are all based on the Western front and will take on PAF fighters in a conflict. Their primary threat is the F-16 and these exercises would validate tactics and the capability of the MiG-29s in BVR combat against these jets. It was the pasting at the hands of the French AF Mirage-2000-5s in the first exercise that brought home the lack of BVR training of the IAF pilots and brought about a big change in the IAF's approach towards BVR combat.

Let's see if the fact that the MiG-29s are now upgraded and available in large numbers means that they also get to participate in exercises.

[Cain Marko]

The Mig 29 UPGs internal fuel capacity is a staggering 5.6 tons to the Rafale's 4.7 tons.

The original had 3.5 tons! How did they manage to fit 2.1 tons into that dorsal tank? I mean, it's big but not that big.

Another thing to consider is that the Su35 has a similar dorsal hump like the smt. It carries 2 tons more than the mki too. Perhaps they will consider a similar bump for the mki along with plumbing for EFTs. This will especially help if the engines are upgraded, which I imagine will be.

[Indranil]

The Mig 29 UPGs internal fuel capacity is a staggering 5.6 tons to the Rafale's 4.7 tons.

That is the quoted internal fuel capacity for the MiG-29SMT-II upgrade which included 2 additional 219 litre fuel tanks in the LERX, alongwith with the 950 liter dorsal CFT. So does that sort of confirm that the MiG-29UPG carries fuel in the LERX region as well?

But with 900 kgs of additional fuel over the Rafale, the MiG-29UPG will still have similar range compared to the Rafale..what could that be attributed to? A part of it could probably be the fact that the M-88 has a lower Specific Fuel Consumption in both dry and afterburner. Could the Rafale be less draggy than the upgraded MiG-29UPG?

Nevertheless, it is impressive that the range and endurance are so far enhanced on the MiG-29UPG. Certainly explains the reasoning behind going for additional numbers. Apart from its other features like improved avionics and weapons.

Kartik, Nachiket, others .... I take back what I had said earlier.

The UPG has the same fuel increase as that of the SMT. Around 1997, they had found that the marginal increase in fuel due to deletion of louvers did not justify the modification of the air intakes. IAF UPGs have also retained the louvers. The SMT's internal fuel volume was around 6560 ltrs or about 5.15 tons of fuel. Its range was 2100 kms on internal fuel. This is the UPG figures as well. You can now see that Rafale can travel roughly 1850 kms on 4.7 tons of internal fuel whereas the Mig 29 SMT could go 2100-2200 kms. These all line up. I would expect the IAF's UUPGs to thave the same range.

There is an increase of 2120 ltrs (1.67 tons) of fuel from the 9.12 variants that IAF inducted. There was 240 ltr increase going from 9.12->9.13. And then there are two conformal dorsal tanks of capacities 1400 ltrs and 480 ltrs respectively.

[nachiket]

Kartik, Nachiket, others .... I take back what I had said earlier.

...

There is an increase of 2120 ltrs (1.67 tons) of fuel from the 9.12 variants that IAF inducted. There was 240 ltr increase going from 9.12->9.13. And then there are two conformal dorsal tanks of capacities 1400 ltrs and 480 ltrs respectively.

1.67 tons makes more sense. I distinctly remember reading somewhere that the increase was around 1.5 tons but I cannot remember where now. 1.67 tons is close enough. Still a significant improvement.

I suspect the M-88's main advantage over the RD-33 is it being smaller and lighter, yet producing nearly the same amount of thrust rather than it having significantly lower TSFC. So more space and weight margin available in the Rafale's compact body for fuel without resorting to the Mig-29 like hump.

[SaiK]

people give conflicting data about Rafale RCS, comparing nearly with Typhoon and SHornet. I can't believe Rafale after giving much engineering into their composite skins, would have the numbers near SHornet, unless they are comparing similar skins. Also, there was a big talk about Su30-MKI upgrade for super sukhoi standards with home-grown Tejas skins [whatever happened to that initiative?].

[chetak]

Are there any further improvements in the 35 barring TVC?
There was a hint at a decent lowering of unit cost for tranche 2 being offered by Dassault.Any idea of the approx. price?

Phillip saar, I have told you many times now. Mig35 doesn't have TVC. You are confusing it with the Mig-29 OVT.

Mig 35 is a very good airplane. Mig-29 UPG cannot get there without structural changes.

One of the problems with the Russkies is that they don't have PR agencies like the Saab and Dassault. In airframe design, they are second to none.

it also includes all mechanical design, sirji.

Even in israel, it is the russian jews who stand head and shoulders above all others and are outstanding in this field.

I have closely observed the innards of some of their EW pods and the mechanical design is unbelievably complex as well as impressively compact.

Form and fit have quite simply been redefined by these guys in a revolutionary way and by superb packaging, the function has been considerably enhanced.

[chetak]

people give conflicting data about Rafale RCS, comparing nearly with Typhoon and SHornet. I can't believe Rafale after giving much engineering into their composite skins, would have the numbers near SHornet, unless they are comparing similar skins. Also, there was a big talk about Su30-MKI upgrade for super sukhoi standards with home-grown Tejas skins [whatever happened to that initiative?].

Saar,

Quite simply put, RCS is not only about composite skins.

It involves a complex array of other design features as well, with a lot of them being collectively and simultaneously deployed for best RCS reduction results.

RCS reduction as an afterthought is much like applying a bandaid on a gunshot wound and just as effective. It needs to be incorporated ab initio into the design to be of any use. Hardly practical if RCS reduction tech is very expensively deployed but the infrared threat is not addressed at all.

Detection can come in various forms, and our “stealth” aircraft would have to address all of them. That said, RAM may be one of the lesser effective methods in the RCS reduction arsenal.

Look at the nighthawk F-117 to see some of these features.

[Katare]

When comparing range, one should also look at the payload capacity. Rafale can carry 2x of what Mig29 upgraded versions can carry.

As for as radar cross section and exposed turbine blades are concerned, my understanding is that its all due to doppler effect. Doppler effect depends on motion, faster the motion better and more pronounced the phase shift you receive. Jet engine blade tips are almost always moving much faster than the aircraft itself so without tucking them away you have no shot at true stealth.

[srai]

^^thanks kartikji, could it be because the Su 30 had long legs in past..and also Su 30 was an unknown to the west unlike Mig 29, which both US and european got their hands on extensively in FSU days..

Please no ji in your addressing of me.

The Su-30 having long legs has nothing to do with the exposure to the MiG-29 squadrons in exercises conducted within India. Yes, when it came to flying across continents, the MiG-29s were incapable of it till the UPG upgrade happened and they became in-flight refueling capable.

But even for Mirage-2000s, except for the exercise in South Africa, they've not ventured out of our country. But at least on Indian soil, they are active participants in exercises. The MiG-29s weren't even given that, with some peripheral roles in most exercises, completely at odds with their status as the premier air superiority fighter in the IAF that focused entirely on air defence and air superiority.

Especially against the RSAF, which exposes them against the F-16 Block 52. The MiG-29s are all based on the Western front and will take on PAF fighters in a conflict. Their primary threat is the F-16 and these exercises would validate tactics and the capability of the MiG-29s in BVR combat against these jets. It was the pasting at the hands of the French AF Mirage-2000-5s in the first exercise that brought home the lack of BVR training of the IAF pilots and brought about a big change in the IAF's approach towards BVR combat.

Let's see if the fact that the MiG-29s are now upgraded and available in large numbers means that they also get to participate in exercises.

They participated in the Cope India(s) against F-16s and F-15s.

[Mukesh.Kumar]

people give conflicting data about Rafale RCS, comparing nearly with Typhoon and SHornet. I can't believe Rafale after giving much engineering into their composite skins, would have the numbers near SHornet, unless they are comparing similar skins. Also, there was a big talk about Su30-MKI upgrade for super sukhoi standards with home-grown Tejas skins [whatever happened to that initiative?].

Saar,

Quite simply put, RCS is not only about composite skins.

It involves a complex array of other design features as well, with a lot of them being collectively and simultaneously deployed for best RCS reduction results.

RCS reduction as an afterthought is much like applying a bandaid on a gunshot wound and just as effective. It needs to be incorporated ab initio into the design to be of any use. Hardly practical if RCS reduction tech is very expensively deployed but the infrared threat is not addressed at all.

Detection can come in various forms, and our “stealth” aircraft would have to address all of them. That said, RAM may be one of the lesser effective methods in the RCS reduction arsenal.

Look at the nighthawk F-117 to see some of these features.

++1 Saar. I remember reading somewhere that when the Skunkworks team were worried they it would not fly the designers were told you make or invisible and then we will figure ppt a way to make it fly.

The development of the Night Hawk actually pushed the envelop of development of fly by wire technology radically.

[Haridas]

Saar,

Quite simply put, RCS is not only about composite skins.

It involves a complex array of other design features as well, with a lot of them being collectively and simultaneously deployed for best RCS reduction results.

RCS reduction as an afterthought is much like applying a bandaid on a gunshot wound and just as effective. It needs to be incorporated ab initio into the design to be of any use. Hardly practical if RCS reduction tech is very expensively deployed but the infrared threat is not addressed at all.

Detection can come in various forms, and our “stealth” aircraft would have to address all of them. That said, RAM may be one of the lesser effective methods in the RCS reduction arsenal.

Look at the nighthawk F-117 to see some of these features.

Making all aspects X band stealth is difficult, making stealth for broadband microwave super difficult

Correct, unless all wheels of tank move in unison, it ain't going nowhere.

In RF engineering it's like having a near perfect low loss cable but terminated in highly mis-matched termination, will always reflect.

Most untrained people wrongly think that composite surface don't reflect. Composites are lossy and have high dielectric constant, so they reflect rf quite nicely, perticularly if not shaped for stealth.

Else I would not be buying expensive rubbery RF absorbers for my anachoic chamber, instead of some composites from nearby Tap-Plastics.

Making X band frontal stealth is difficult, all aspect stealth is even more difficult. Broadband all aspect microwave stealth near impossible to engineer.

[Katare]

In short, can’t polish Om Puri into Aishwarya Rai. Ashwarya Rai has to be Aishwarya Rai from birth!!!

[brar_w]

In short, can’t polish Om Puri into Aishwarya Rai. Ashwarya Rai has to be Aishwarya Rai from birth!!!

And the performance of those “we have sensible VLO too” marketing campaigns from Dassault, Boeing and SAAB as they postured to take on 5th gen fighters proves that.

[Manish_P]

In short, can’t polish Om Puri into Aishwarya Rai. Ashwarya Rai has to be Aishwarya Rai from birth!!!

Poster NRao had posted a good series of articles from Aviation week, about LO/Stealth, in the thread 'Stealth in military aviation, pros and cons'

https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=2185278

Touches on Shaping, Engine inlets, RAM coatings etc

[tsarkar]

They have two more smaller tanks in place of the louvers.

On internal fuel, the ranges of the UPG is cited to be around 2100 kms vs. the Rafale's 1800 kms. Truth be told, I think they are both close 10 1800 kms. With three external tanks, the UPG has a range of about 3,100 kms vs the Rafales' 3600 kms.

I dont agree. Is the SFC of RD-33 without FADEC less than that of M-88 with FADEC?

MiG-29K serving with IN has the same dorsal tank and additional tanks inplace of louvers not needed in the naval version. The raised cockpit of the K asked by IN makes the hump of the dorsal tank less apparent. However the MiG-29K of the IN doesnt have the range despite the increased internal fuel.

The dorsal tank and louver tanks from the MiG-29K developed for IN and with Indian money went to the MiG-29UPG along with Zhuk radar.

The full MiG-29K features are sold as MiG-35 minus the folding wings. MiG-35 continues the twin cockpit specifically built for Indian request.

MiG-29UPG is a low cost subset of features developed for MiG-29K

[Indranil]

1. As you said the airframes of Mig 29K/29M and 35 are related ("new unified family") and are significantly different than that of the Mig 29 A/B/C/S/SE/SMT/UPG etc. ("Mig-29 fighter family"). However, the UPG/SMT does carry almost the same amount of fuel as the new unified family and has similar combat radius and ferry range.
2. The Mig29k has problems but is unnecessarily maligned for range. Actually, it has very good range. It has a combat radius of 850 kms and a ferry range of 2100 kms on internal fuel. With three tanks, they have a combat radius of 1300 kms and a ferry range of over 3,000 kms. The Mig29ks are fitted with buddy refueling pods where the tanker will take off with 5 external tanks. It would refuel the strike fighter, drop its tanks and fly back to the carrier/base. In this scheme, the combat radius is close to 2000 kms (with range in excess of 5500 kms).
3. The Mig-29k has the ability to take off with full MTOW (5.5 tons of payload) from a skijump from position 2 (195 mtrs). That's because its engines are capable of generating nearly 93kn for a short during take off. Its intake is straight (giving exceptional pressure recovery). It lowers its intake lip to expand the intake. This is significantly better than the auxiliary doors employed by Rafale/NLCA. I would like to see Rafale take off at its MTOW( same as Mig29k) with 20% less TWR.
4. Mig also spent a lot of energy on RCS reduction on the new family. It is not in the same region as Rafale, but still the newer versions have significantly lower RCS (by an order) than the original Mig29s. I don't know how much of these were ported over to the UPGs. RAM coatings must have been. But were the surfaces retouched before the RAM coatings? That, I don't know.
5. As I said earlier, Mig doesn't have a marketing team like that of Saab and Dassault.

[Indranil]

I also want to correct one misconception. The dorsal tanks on the Mig 29k were don't developed with Indian money. That development occurred in parallel with the Mig 29M in the 1980s. They had prototypes flying with the "hunches" in the late 80s onwards.

Yes, the Mig29k program was resurrected using Indian funds.

No more on the Migs on this thread from me. I started this discussion here because they were initially related to the comparison with Rafales. 

[Cain Marko]

Thanks for the comprehensive low down Indranil, one more thing to add.... The 29k, M family have a sizeable use of composites as compared to the originals. This will have consequences for twr, payload and possibly rcs as well.

1. As you said the airframes of Mig 29K/29M and 35 are related ("new unified family") and are significantly different than that of the Mig 29 A/B/C/S/SE/SMT/UPG etc. ("Mig-29 fighter family"). However, the UPG/SMT does carry almost the same amount of fuel as the new unified family and has similar combat radius and ferry range.
2. The Mig29k has problems but is unnecessarily maligned for range. Actually, it has very good range. It has a combat radius of 850 kms and a ferry range of 2100 kms on internal fuel. With three tanks, they have a combat radius of 1300 kms and a ferry range of over 3,000 kms. The Mig29ks are fitted with buddy refueling pods where the tanker will take off with 5 external tanks. It would refuel the strike fighter, drop its tanks and fly back to the carrier/base. In this scheme, the combat radius is close to 2000 kms (with range in excess of 5500 kms).
3. The Mig-29k has the ability to take off with full MTOW (5.5 tons of payload) from a skijump from position 2 (195 mtrs). That's because its engines are capable of generating nearly 93kn for a short during take off. Its intake is straight (giving exceptional pressure recovery). It lowers its intake lip to expand the intake. This is significantly better than the auxiliary doors employed by Rafale/NLCA. I would like to see Rafale take off at its MTOW( same as Mig29k) with 20% less TWR.
4. Mig also spent a lot of energy on RCS reduction on the new family. It is not in the same region as Rafale, but still the newer versions have significantly lower RCS (by an order) than the original Mig29s. I don't know how much of these were ported over to the UPGs. RAM coatings must have been. But were the surfaces retouched before the RAM coatings? That, I don't know.
5. As I said earlier, Mig doesn't have a marketing team like that of Saab and Dassault.

[SaiK]

something tells me, stealth world is missing permeance totally, and look at absorptions and internal deflections rather spend huge billions like F117s exterior shapes, and as a consequence, lose aerodynamic aspects. Raptor and JSF did a pretty good job towards this goal as compared to F117s.

OT, but I think this is where the future lies for India. I strongly feel, it has to do only with skins., how much ever thick it may be. It is 101% possible to retain same aerodynamics, and build 360* stealth totally on skin absorption techniques.