News for you.

Its both.

From head on, it can be the lower figure. Indeed, both aircraft would have had a requirement for reduced frontal RCS when in gestation in the 80s.

But, viewed, say, directly from above, it could be 50 m2.

Then again, viewed from the wrong angle, the RCS of the F-22 or F-35 will be measured in tens of m2, it’s just it’ll occur at less angles for those two.

As an earlier example with the Rafale stated you can take the overall 50-60% readiness rate to well above 90% at times of surge and deployment

If you have the parts.

The F-111 was much earlier though.

Your right, I didn’t realise just how much earlier the F-111 came long c.f. the teens.

A Flanker design was impossible with early 60s technology. Besides, the Su-27 is unsuited for the F-111 mission.

I would not say a Flanker was impossible with early 60s technology. It wasn’t an unstable design.

Much the same for the F-14. No Flanker can take off with 6 Phoenix missiles from a carrier and land with 4.

No Flanker has, but could a CATOBAR Su-33 do it? I think it could.

According to Wiki – which instantly means pinch of salt – OEW for the two favours the Su-33 by ~1400 kg and MTOW favours the F-14 by ~700 kg. So theoretically, the Su-33 has a ~700 kg fuel/payload advantage.

Also, combining the missions of F-111 and F-14 into a single design has been tried, it didn’t go well.

True, it didn’t go well. But I consider that due to the F-111 being ill-suited to carrier operations – we know that isn’t the case for the Su-33.

I have already stated that the Flanker wouldn’t be able to do all things as well as the dedicated platforms, and cited low level speed as an issue.

In short, what you’re proposing is a common airplane designed in the early sixties at Su-27 i.e. mid-seventies levels of technology, able to fly low-level strike missions at high speeds over long distances, flying fleet defence with 6 AIM-54 missiles, and on top of that being a nimble air superiority fighter for the european theater.

Yep, more or less.

You’d probably have to have specialised sensor pods for mission specifics, FAST packs probably.

A programme like that would make the F-35 look like a walk in the park. It would have led to US forces flying F-4s today.

The F-35 has problems due to trying to break the laws of physics – a fat airframe with a short assed stumpy fuselage with small wing aspect ratio trying to do everything including STOVL (that and the LHD requirement really screw it over).

A Flanker operating as an interdictor, a fleet air defense or a front line air dominance fighter does not. Why do we know this? Because it is now doing, or has already done, all 3 quite well anyway.

Both Canada and Australia were offered the F-15, among others, but chose the smaller and cheaper Hornet.

Oh. Didn’t know that.

Regarding the original question though, all in all various F-15 variants fill the Flanker’s role very well, so my answer would be no – the West is not missing out on anything.

Disagree.

The Su-33 is capable of STOBAR operations. No Eagle variant can do anything similar.

Interesting and original but worthless. Generating pitch up for a fwd centered aircraft with a section profile shaped for positive lift is like building a car for driving it in reverse!

Ok, here is what the movable wingtip were meant to be:

Subsonic and super to hyper sonic aerodynamics are very different.

To say one on a subsonic aircraft is worthless, then compare it to a super/hypersonic aircraft is pointless.

The SB4 was abandoned as the isoclinic wing didn’t work as expected. Not the controls which were actually praised.

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1953/1953%20-%201381.html

After the” Sherpa’s first flight on October 4th the company’s chief
test pilot, Tom Brooke-Smith, is quoted as saying, ‘”It was, by
any standard, a satisfactory first flight. The Sherpa does not appear
to suffer from the longitudinal sensitivity normally associated with
the tailless configuration. My initial impressions of the stability
and control of the aircraft are very favourable.”