Sukhoi clearly differentiate between 4, 4+, 4++ and 5th generation. These are not meaningless numbers. MIG-31/F-22 surely has legs to disengage from F-35. It is the speed and altitude that matters in Air to air fight along with big radar not no one can jam. AWACS does not mattr to MIG-31 and it doesnot matter in individual aircraft qualities.

The MIG-31 can’t outrun a Mach 4+ missile, and won’t know it needs to run, if it can’t see the F-35.

Su-34 is claimed that is completely immune from air defences. Not no other aircraft can claim.

Any aircraft can claim that, if the only evidence needed to back it up is a claim.

From OKB Sukhoi: Su-27
range at cruise-speed is 4000 km or 2160 nm. Internal fuel is 9400 kg or 20700 lb. That does translate into 2,35 kg per km. Adding AAMs half that distant your down by 10 % in range or at 2,61 kg per km.
The data of a F-35A sofar are:
range at cruise-speed is 2225 km or 1200 nm. Internal fuel is 8382 kg or 18480 lb. That does translate into 3,77 kg per km. Adding AAMs internal will not affect that value.
For practical purposes we do compare the smaller F-35A with Su-27 loaded half the way for a typical mission and do realize, that the stealth F-35A does consume over 40% more fuel for a same distance.
So much about the cold facts. If you have better data at hand you are free to reveal that.
Going to a Rafale, which is similar in size. With 8 AAMs and 3 ETs = 11500 kg fuel in total, it can go over 3700 km in total.
That does give 3,11 kg of fuel per km, when the F-35A is still over 20 % worth compared to that draggy Rafale.

When in peace-time there is the need to carry the ET or ETs in need for a peace-time mission, non will drop that of cause. But flying at subsonic speeds that ETs will rise fuel consumption by some percent only.

The consumption values of the F-35A do remember me about the Su-24 with Tj engines. 😮

Comparing Ferry ranges w/ ETs vs. combat radius doesn’t tell the whole story though. What’s the combat radius of a Flanker with a 5000+lb external load?

Whilst not disagreeing with your comments; for balances sake i feel compelled to point out that the above is exactly what the US has been doing for decades, the claims re the F15 when first deployed (when it was falling out of the sky ((mild exaggeration there)) due to it’s dodgy engines) are a case in point. The manufacturer and lead customer of any product that is vastly expensive have a massive vested interest in claiming that it is the dogs gonads, be it an airplane or washing machine!

The difference is the combination of real world experience and simulations, to add greater realism in the simulations. We’ve seen how F-15/16s perform against other aircraft. We’ve seen how F-22s perform against F-15/16s/etc…
We’ve seen how weapons perform in tests. A lot more accurate conclusions can be drawn, when the base of knowledge is higher. No RuAF plane has ever flown against the F-22 in an exercise(or an F-15/16 for that matter). No Russian IADS system has ever been tested against an F-22(or B-2, or F-35,etc..), so there’s much more speculation in their simulations.

Raised popularity from 50 to 90%… Most politicians would kill for a result like that.

They greatly overestimated the capabilities of their military in assymetric warfare. Iraq should have never ended the way it did(n’t).

So to get higher approval ratings for Bush, a large number of people conspired to commit treason? I’m not buying any tin foil hat explanations.

Blunders have been made, but they’ve been political miscalculations. The military has performed very well by any metric.

Expensive oil and slow economy has not hurt people in the higher ranks. Infact many republican politicians (including Bush and Cheney) have their stakes in oil business and expensive oil is greatly increasing their profits making them even more richer. Now slow economy is something people in Washington and at wall street did’nt expect. It is a result of i) decades old bad habits of spending beoynd ones means, ii)invasions and their unexpected outcomes, iii)habit of paying less taxes, iv)cheap chinese/indian imports etc.

Expensive oil doesn’t help, as that just means that oil companies have to pay more per barrel. Their profits are based upon volume sold, as they’re only making about $.08 to .10/gallon profit.

Not design capabilities of chip only manufacturing. that require contionous investment which Soviets lacked but not Russia and fabs of East Asia are now open.

Name one Russian industry aside from oil/gas/weapons that is responsible for a huge cash flow.

There is simply no proof of Afghans (or Talian govt) involvement period. Bush regime with all kinds of recources at her disposal could’nt proove it, how would you? Every now and then illegally captured so called Al-Qaida terrorists are being released quietly from infamous G-Bay just because there is no proof of their involvement. And again Flex is right, Saddam was hanged as a result of a very murky trial under the directions of occupation forces not by an independant legitimate court. Who brought down the WTC? actually question should be, who benifitted most from WTC collapse? the so called terrorists aka muslims or the owners of WTC and people in Bush regime who were already preparing to attack Afghanistan and Iraq and looking for any kind of excuses. If incidents like Gulf of Tonkin http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/ can be fabricated to impose war on Vietnam why similar incidents cant be fabricated to justify a pre-planned invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Exactly how has anyone in the Bush “Regime” benefitted from the collapse of the WTC? Unless they wanted expensive oil and a slow economy, it just doesn’t make any sense.