The given ranges are varied and mostly include drop tanks. No way a Jaguar does 3500km on internal fuel alone, or the Mirage 2000 3300km.
MiG-21s are credited to 900km on internal fuel.
MiG-29s, 1500km on internal fuel, 2100km with centre-line drop tank.
Su-30 is the only aircraft with no drop tank capability. The Russians obviously thought it had enough range to not need drop tanks, so I suspect the true range is more than 3000km ; any case the Su-27/34 published range varies from 3500km to 4000km. All we know for certain, is that the Su-27 flew from Moscow to Paris non-stop, without inflight refuelling , whereas the early MiG-29s had to use the inboard wing stations to carry 2x drop tanks extra for the same trip.
Jaguars in IAF service are of 2 types - Jaguar IS and Jaguar IM , where the I is interdiction, s = strike and m = marine. Jaguar IS is the one with small sleek nose similar to MiG-27, with optical/IR sensor. Jaguar IM has a radome and radar, and primarily meant for anti-ship operations, with the Sea Eagle missile on its centre-line station.
Jaguars have 2 additional hardpoints - in the middle and over the wing, where they can only carry a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinders or Magic 2 short range AAMs.
Stealth coatings are quite impractical, as the USAF found out , the coatings on F-22s would wear off very soon, especially in rains.
Any coating - including paint, suffers a lot on fighter aircraft. The high speed and turbulent airflow causes a lot of friction, which wears off paint , first and foremost on leading edges of wings, tails and LERXs. Having seen fighters up close, the durability of paint is few months at best, RAM coatings don't stand a chance. BTW, it is these very areas that coatings cannot stick to, that are also the big radar reflectors.
The absence of radar on MiG-27 doesn't do it any favors in terms of being shot down by radar homing missiles because the west doesn't use any, and the Russians only have a few which are more intended to be used against AWACS - if the AWACS shuts down its radar, it might as well return home. Passive radar homing missiles aren't intended to be used against fighters.
With any kind of radar, you will always bee seen before you see (the other). It's like headlights, the amount of light that gets reflected back to you, is a mere fraction of the light you emit, and the target/object that it is reflected back from, gets a lot more of it than you do. AESA radar tries to mitigate this by spreading its emissions over many frequencies simultaneously , than a single frequency emission with very high energy. It is supposedly harder for enemy RWR to detect, but by the physics principle, the target still gets a lot more of your radar beam than you do.
The MiG-27 was intended to have the GSh-30-6 6 barrel rotary cannon, the most powerful airborne gun, but it turned out too powerful, the recoil and vibration would slow the aircraft and vibration could slow cause the jet to come loose. Eventually, they fitted it with GSh-23-6 23mm cannon instead.
It's misleading to say the MICA doesn't raise any warning to the target , any radar emission directed at you, will be picked up by RWR. The modus operandi of active radar AAMs is not that the target gets no warning - it's that it allows the firing aircraft to break away and provide only minimal course updates, until the missile itself is close enough to have its own radar be able to track the target. The benefit is in the firing aircraft being free to maneuver elsewhere, without having to "paint" the target with CW (continuous wave) illumination for radar guided missiles like the AIM-7.
MICA stands for
Missile de
Interceptione , de
Comabte , de
Autodefence , in short , it was meant to be a short range (like Magic 2) and medium range (like R530D) missile in one. The Mirage 2000 could carry 4 MICA + 2 R530D + 2 R550 Magic 2 missiles.
Russian aircraft are often criticised over poor serviceability and consequently low fleet availability. The much touted western jets aren't all that reliable either. This French paper states the Rafale's availability rate is under 48% and this is a new fighter. As aircraft age, fatigue causes more failures and hence higher maintenance requirements. See the C-130? It's hailed as one of the best, most hardy and reliable transports, and it's at 29% availability.
http://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2015...au-sol_1333006
Although, if the IAF has decided to get more of the 2000s, there would be no MRCA tender, but after long delays by India, the French didn't want much longer and closed the production line of the Mirage 2000. There as a nice article hosted at Bharat Rakshak, of a Vayu article from 1987 or so, when the newly inducted MiG-29 was flown against the Mirage 2000 - can't find it any more though. But here's an IAF - Israeli , not Indian, account of their MiG-29 experience.
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/figh...xperience.html