Actually the 750h is not exact, I am pretty sure it’s a lot more than that like 1500h mentioned by Crobato, and thats the meantime before overhauls, the fatal life is many times higher than the MTBO
http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=439

Besides, Russian engines do not require daily maintenance checks and such like Western engines do and on top of all are very cheap to replace.

Also, Golden Dragon, why do you all of a sudden have to get into anti-Russian discussions, and this one being very off topic now.

Yes but Su-35’s range has to be MUCH bigger than FC-1’s, it’s hard to get the exact figures but the combat radius of 1200km for FC-1 is hard for me to believe for some reason, it’s way too short ranged for that range.

Not only that, but then theres the R-77M-PD in development which will have a range well exceeding 150kms according to Vympel though is still in development like the SD-10 which is a good match with R-77E on paper.

I would not exactly call R-37 obsolete, it’s a much improved R-33S and according to some sources more like a whole new missile which shares very few things with existing R-33S. It has a 300km range, is ARH/SARH and can engage more agile targets than R-33S could. Sukhoi/Vympel have said they were willing to integrate

Very true, though how good would Su-34s armed with long range cruise missiles like Kh-101 and Kh-SD really be? Or for that matter any other Flanker out there.

Maybe 8 engaged and 20 tracked but at what range, probably much longer than that of RC400.

When you are discussing FC-1 and Su-35 than it means mostly third world airforces where pilot and maintainance personel are not that expensive. for fuel compare 3 RD-93 versus 2 AL-31FP. On one side 6600KG fuel versus 10000KG fuel. If FC-1 is going to be fitted with that H-4 Raptor 2(1200KG) and Antiship missiles than rest assured that it can carry heavier AAMs also. Regarding engaging multiple aircraft than you should know that most BVR engagement is within 20 to 40KM range and FC-1 is getting multiple engagement radar with IRST so it doesnot make big difference. the other advantage of smaller fighter is that due larger RCS of Su-35 it will be locked first.

But isn’t lets say Su-35’s radar much larger and much more powerful, it will allow engagement of many different targets at much longer range than any radar that would be able to fit in an FC-1.

But not to mention operating also 3 FC-1s will be more expensive than operating a single Su-35 plus to add to the maintenance and other crap + extra pilot training. Also would you not say that Su-35 can carry way bigger weapons than FC-1 could, though lets say FC-1 was armed with Russian weapons, an Su-35 would be able to carry much bigger weapons like larger cruise missiles, and even long range AAMs could be integrated like R-37/M and large Anti-AWACS missiles like KS-172.

Also would you not also say that an Su-35 will be able to engage and down 3 FC-1s at a same time?

The nose depends on the design of theaircraft, it depends on fuselage design. Look at for example the F-35 which is quite large and heavy, yet it’s nose is pretty small, or even look at the Gripen whose nose is not small at all.

As for long range missions and such, why not get tankers? Sure it might a few extra costs and such but it’s not alot.