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

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

But relaxed stability iirc. I was thinking things like fly-by-wire, avionics, engines. F.e. the first TF30 has something like 8400 kg of thrust. Even the later model used in the Tomcat has only 9500 kg of thrust. Compare that to 12.500 for the AL-31. So an early Flanker like design would be much heavier with less thrust. Much like the F-111 or F-14 in fact. The F-111 would need the thrust of 4 TF-30 engines to match the Su-27s TWR.

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.

Ah the Su-33 from 1987… F-14 first flight was in 1970.
CATOBAR take-off and bring back weights are not the same as OEW and MTOW.

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.

Yep, more or less.

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

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.

Surely the Flanker and its derivatives would be able to do all the missions, only much worse esp. if we’re talking 1970 or so. Even in 1985, the Flanker has less payload/range than an F-111 not to mention low level capability. It has less fleet defence capability than the old Tomcat. It’s about the same as an air superiority fighter, but the F-15 is smaller and thus cheaper (compared to a western equivalent).
Now if you say we don’t need to deliver 20 dumb bombs at M 0.95 at 200 feet 600 miles away, we don’t need AIM-54 for fleet defence, you’re fine. But you’re also in a modern, post cold-war PGM age. 😉
How many types did the Su-27 family replace and when?

BTW, if we compare an air-air configured F-15E and Su-35:
Empty weight sans CFTs: 14.6 vs 18.4 t
-2 CFTs: 1100 kg
Empty weight: 15.7 vs 18.4 t
Fuel: 10.1 vs 11.5 t
Thrust: 25.8 vs 29 t
TWR @ full fuel: 1.0 vs 0.97

Looks very comparable to me.

Dogfight implies WVR, doesn’t it. Is the F-35 cleared to use Sidewinders? Or did they simulate AIM-9X capability? No AIM-9X on F-15Es. Or was it guns only? AMRAAMs? Somehow I doubt unexperienced F-35 pilots would dominate F-15s 8:0 in WVR fights which leads me to believe those weren’t dogfights. As usual with such exercises, without knowing any details, results don’t say much.

An Americanised Flanker developed as an alternative to Super Hornet would’ve been superior in the air defence role, in the strike role, in the growler role, in the tanker role …. and would have served as a better complement to F-35C over the next two decades to boot.

Any alternative to the Super Hornet would have been superior. But also much more expensive and risky.
Not so sure about the Flankers CATOBAR capabilities. What about bring back weight? Sure it could have been adapted. But seriously, why would you do that, (heavily) americanise a Flanker, when you can just as well work on something domestic.

If you read the backstory on the ATF project, they knew the production aircraft would end up weighing around 20 tons. Engine thrust was planned around that assumed weight growth.

Are you sure?

F-22 weight increase agreed

03 May, 1995

THE US AIR FORCE and Lockheed Martin/Boeing have agreed to allow the F-22’s empty weight to increase by 610kg, or 3%, to avoid pushing costs up. The growth comprises a 385kg weight-budget increase and a further 225kg allowance for uncertainty.

The F-22’s projected empty weight has increased from 13,980kg at the preliminary design-review in 1992 to 14,365kg at the critical design-review, completed in February. Programme officials are confident that the additional 225kg allowance will not be needed.

source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-22-weight-increase-agreed-26820/

I wouldn’t say that exactly.

I would say, that if the US had build the Flanker, it could have met the requirements of FTX, FX and VFX – perhaps not quite as well in all areas as the individual platforms* – but good enough to allow one common airframe to do.

*For instance, sea-level dash would be pretty rough compared to F-111.

So, no F-111, no F-15, no F-14… probably no F/A-18 C/D and thus no F/A-18 E/F.

Ahm, no?
Check the first flight and IOC dates. F-111, F-14 and even the F-15 are much older designs than the Flanker. If anything, Flanker could have battled for the F-111 replacement.
A-7 was replaced by F-18, not F-14, thus F-18 would still exist even if instead of F-14, there was some other heavy fighter.

I would say Canada and Australia would have loved access to a Flanker-eqsue airframe to cover their large patrol areas. The USN would probably be keen on the payload-range relative to any Hornet and the USAF would have liked the more flexible option of 2x flanker squadrons compared to 1x Aardvark and 1x Eagle.

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

Well it is intended to be a trainer, no afterburners means less cost and complexity. Deleting gun and radar reduces weight and almost 6 tons of thrust is enough to allow good performance when flying clean. Like the M-346 really. Unlike the Italian/Russian design, AT-5 could even fly supersonic in level flight, but that’s just my guess based on the F-CK-1 design being a M 1.8 fighter.

Jaw dropping? Why? If you look closely, the 35 requires a rather long distance after take-off to fly horizontally, collecting speed before it goes into climb..

Another explanation for the long horizontal flight after take-off: The pilot has to go out of burner until the landing gear is retracted and the doors are fully closed, to prevent overspeeding. Then, accelerate with full a/b power and climb once desired speed is reached. Doesn’t sound unreasonable considering the F-35s reported excellent subsonic acceleration and the jet is lightly loaded, most likely no weapons and possibly not a full fuel load.
Alternatively, they could have climbed at a steeper angle right after take-off.

yes, obviously you will bring enough for planned flight plus safety, but not one more pound

Not necessarily. Some demos are flown with fuel tanks, MiG-29 and EF Typhoon come to mind. Others like to fly with some weapons, like the Super Hornet (Boeings own demo I think) or Flanker.
It’s not like a few hundred pounds make all the difference.