complete ********! A Demontrator indicates something that comes before any prototypes. But a demonstrator will still be connected or part of a spesiffic program, unless that program gets canceled.

Yes some sort of flying demonstrator is usually required before producing prototypes (YF-22, EAP before Typhoon, Rafale demonstrator) but perhaps it’s not an absolute necessity , in which case why do they bother? To what extent can we really regard the project 144 or the Su-47 as tech demonstrators for PAKFA could be debated – 144 flew twice only for a total time of 40 minutes.

Again its about program management. The planning ahead.

Exactly what we are debating, aren’t we?

The PAK-FA (Su-57) that flew in 2010 was not a “technology demonstrator”.

It was not supposed to be, but perhaps that’s what it has become? The fact that it was not flying with its final engine, and still isn’t flying with its final engine , would suggest it is the case?

you also have to look at this in the light of concurrency. The slow start might help save money further down the road, unlike F-35 where they just pump out several scores of jet from the first years, only to have the jets semi functional due to changes when the 3rd or 4th year comes around, by then having already spent Billions on jets that would not go the the Frontline or require massive upgrades again..

The most pathetic statement I’m probably going to read today. 380 f-35s flying, 190,000 flight hours completed. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/F-35/F-35%20Fast%20Facts%20April%202019.pdf
And the F-35 has already flown combat missions. I don’t think you can even compare the Su-57 and F-35 programmes as regards actually fulfilling the hopes and desires of the people who are building and paying for both aircraft.

At the moment there are 380+ F-35s flying while there there are only 175+ Rafales flying today. Rafale may never see a production figure over 500, while F-35 has been ordered in its thousands. In the long term, it is always easier and cheaper to operate an aircraft when it has been produced in large numbers – the more aircraft of a type produced, the cheaper it is to keep it flying.

Here’s a link:
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/178…t#.XMmS6OgzaUk

Rafale Fighter Jet Serviceability Rate With French Air Force Is 48.5 Percent​​​​​​​

Me too. All because Spud got butt hurt over a news article and still hasn’t apologized to Tango for his over-reaction.
In the end, we lost one great source of news updates, while the other guy that remains, hardly even posts.. let alone news.

Actually, I think it is Spudman who deserves an apology at this stage, considering all the character defamation and personal attacks he has received ever since he had the temerity to criticise a choice of media links by Tango.

F-104 in competition with the MiG-21
F-106 compare with su-9 / su-11
F-101 – Yak-28P and Tu-128
Su-15 it makes sense to compare with the F-4
I Think it would be fair

F-104G compares with the Yak-28B as a tactical nuclear bomber.

F-106 compares more with the Yak-28P and Su-15 in armament and range as interceptors

Closest aircraft to the MiG 21 in the 1960s was probably the F-5A

No real Soviet equivalent to the F-4 as a multi-role aircraft.

It would be interesting to compare MiG-23 production with that of the F-4 jet. I believe the US was pumping out hundreds of F-4s per year in the 1960s during the Vietnam war.

They do but different than the ones Civil Aviation use…………

Thanks. Won’t take them long to find out what happened then – the water is 1500 metres at that location – not too deep, I should think.