Honestly, RALL, I don’t see them competing much at all. They are completely different weapon systems, and are oriented towards different parts of the market. The Su-57 is designed as the logical upgrade for Flanker users – having a large flight endurance and a high payload capacity. It will also appeal to anyone seeking a 5th gen fighter with an internal storage compartment designed for large munitions as well as those who desire a robust sensor platform.

The FC-31, on the other hand, seems to be a “bare bones” type of 5th gen fighter. You get the radar and MAWS…and that’s about it. It doesn’t have anywhere near the range and it can’t carry as much. But (if they finish the design) it should have appeal for those only seeking a cheap 5th gen.

The J-20 would compete better with the Su-57.

How do you know that the J-31 has inferior range to the Su-57? For example, do you even know what the fuel fraction of the J-31 is? It seems your only criticism is that the Chinese aircraft is smaller than the Russian. J-31 too small for the customer – fine, they can buy the J-20.

Too many crashes for a start. Draken had a much better safety record and a longer range which would have better suited the australian mission.

Some Mirage operators had a good safety record with the aircraft, some didn’t. Same goes with the F-104. If the SAAB has a substantially better range than the Mirage, well then it might have been a better choice for the RAAF alright – but there are other factors to take into consideration. Perhaps Sweden liked to impose restrictions on how their arms exports were to be used?

What I also find ironic was the fact that the RAAF were not so happy with the Mirage’s Atar powerplant and seriously had plans to swap it with the RR Avon in production. The Draken,of course, already came with the Avon fitted.

Both were still better choices than F-104.

I love the Starfighter…

Better Area rule would be several things;
Less draggy airframe design layout.
A wider and flatter airframe would mean slightly better lift Coifficent(body-lift), depending on Airfoil, LERX, LEVCON etc.
A wider and flatter airframe would also make larger int fuel tanks a little less tricky. You can store lots of fuel in between the two Engines, but depending on how wide the engines are mounted.
See Flanker/T-50 for clues.

Well, they got over 8 tonnes of fuel inside the airframe of the F-35 which is not bad – the F-35 is probably “wide and flat” enough I’d say.

They are working very fine, will still be in production late 30ies and, more important, they will fly, not be hangar queens!

The French ones don’t – half of French air force Rafales weren’t flying at one stage. Might still be true. Same could almost be said for RAF and Luftwaffe Typhoons.

What is point of putting dogfighting missile in F-35 storage? Other stealths have dedicated storage for dogfighting missiles, with small doors which open and close fast and drag impact isn’t no where near as when you open F-35 storage.

Much better solution would be small underbelly multirole pod, it can carry two HOBS missiles and DIRCM.

Short-range missiles can be fitted to external wing pylons for when stealth is not important (for air defence missions etc.). When stealth is important the F-35 is not going to be getting into any WVR dog fights anyway.

[USER=”40269″]FBW[/USER]

…while JSF already can boast of some hundreds of planes, despite them needing costly retrofits and management efforts. So, nothing but a childish discussion, again, which is more about emotions than substance. Can we go back to facts please?

What costly retrofits are you referring to?

I’m not comparing anything. Prototypes, programs, development processes, skill of designers or whatewer.

My point is simple: JSF program started in 1993, PAK-FA in 2001, kinda 8 years inbetween. So statements like: “there is over 300 F-35 and they are bombing ISIS already, but where is your Sukhoi? Only first one will bi build in 2019? – meh” – is kinda stupid.

By the way, my guess is that serial one would be built one the same line where all the prototypes was built. Only difference is it would built not for testing purposes but for VKS. For pilots training and tactics development.

But it wasn’t me who started the asinine comparisons between the F-35’s serviceability and concurrency record and the Su-57, now was it?

But it can be interesting to compare different aircraft projects sometimes – even when they originate in very different countries, and with very different requirements expected from the final aircraft.

Actually, I suspect that the most important “technology demonstrator” for the PAKFA project was probably the Su-37 in the 1990s – certainly with regard to the fly-by-wire flight control systems and TVC. Come to think of it, the Su-35S could also be considered a tech demonstrator as well?