I think chengdu didnot put range on its page. this 3600kg seems to me weopon load.
these are the original specification of S-7 from a pak news source but i think these are little out dated interms of range and 85% capability of American F-16.

Yahoo25, the Chengdu webpage you gave me did not mention 3600KM, it had another kanji, i can read Japanese and few chinese kanjies since japanese is related to Chinese, in fact they are the base, also i can read Portuguese, Spanish , Italian and English so i can look for many webpages in different lenguages,
but let`s suppose Golden Dragon is right and the range is 3500KM and it can carry four SD-10 the FC-1 still will be less capable to the F-16 and therefore much less capable than the Su-30MKI, look the FC-1 top speed Mach 1.6 the Su-30 as minimun is Mach 2.0 it is at least a 400km difference as many webpages have reported (others claimed even Mach 2.35) , it is the most agile fighter besisdes the F-22 and still carries twelve AAMs the double of AAms, no point to see a Su-30MKI is at least the equivalent to two FC-1s but the FC-1 is only 8.5Gs capable so it is basicly not a macht to a Su-30MKI in dogfights, less capable in detection range still the FC-1 has no real advantages specially because the Russian know that the AA-12 is not top notch and they need a Meteor kind AAM and the Su-30MKI will be a likely candidate. okay the Chinese and pakistanies can also buy the Meteor or R-77 ramjets but the Su-30MKI only has the radar detection capability to use it along side the J-11, i only respect the J-10 becasue that is really a true new fighter that looks goods in paper not only is aesthetically pleasing as the FC-1, that by the way i like also you want to deny with inflight refueling the Su-30 will stay in the air 10 hours and has a range of 8000km and has two time the weapons load so it means in fact two sorties of a FC-1 and that even at 3500km range the FC-1 will carry only two SD-10 .

Note the important point that combat radius is bigger than 1200KM.
Why you simply not search this forum instead of some outside fan sites.
http://forum.airforces.info/showthread.php?t=24155&page=1&highlight=FC-1

Show me that 3600Km is written in Chinese in the link you gave me, i found a different kanji but not kilometers, i gave you that link so you can see the Chinese character for km

You are making again wrong comparisions. If you are comparing latest F-16 and Rafale to Flankers than F-16 or Rafale is not medium weight. F-16BLK60 can lift 9000KG weopons and with CFT has as much range as Flanker and can can carry 8 BVRs and engine produces 90% of thrust in non afterburning phase as afterburning of F-16A which gives alot cruising advantage. Similar is the case of Rafale. 9500KG weopon load and 14 weopon stations, CFT and upto 12 BVRs. So both are in heavy weight categories in terms of weopon load and range relative to Flanker.

so an F-16 weights 33,000kg so it is a heavy fighter and so it might weight 22,000kg in normal take off as a Flanker

This is what I said: I accepted the SARH encounters are “different from multi-targeting in the same sense as ARH missiles.”

Multi-targeting as a concept came before the ARH missile. The term was used for naval weapon systems with multiple tracking and targeting radars. In aviation, it was used for the F-15 when it was armed only with the Sparrow and the F-14 which had the ARH Phoenix and a TWS radar. The term was part of an American body of concepts developed in the 1960s.

The philosophy was of long-range acquisition and standoff engagement allowing NATO forces to fight off larger numbers of Warsaw Pact aircraft.

The whole concept was distinctly non-Russian until the Flanker and Fulcrum which were USSR’s first attempts at creating a “quality” fighter instead of a “quantity” one.

The idea for a F-15 flight was that it should have enough range with the Sparrow to destroy multiple targets (unless they were coming head on.) Track-lockpdestroy, track-lock-destroy before the enemy could even break away or close.

The whole concept depended on the bvr missile that gave time for engagement of multiple target.

The Flanker never showed that it could even shoot anything down with a bvr. It never showed that it was even capable of performing that initial step of hitting a plane out of visual range.

There certain is. Probably a slightly greater one than the technology gap between the Flanker and the F-15. Again, what F-15 could do doesn’t mean a Flanker could do it.

There is no proof historically because the F-15 is designed under an American philosophy of fewer, more sophisticated American machines taking on hordes of cheap Russian ones. The Flanker comes from the opposite system attempting to adapt to an American one.

So it had better prove it first. Again, it could even pass the initial test of carrying and engaging with a successful bvr missile.

Okay, I’ll accept that alleged kill. One possible hit by a R-27 out of more than two dozen? In 2000, the Flanker/R-27 combo has a record poorer than the Aim-7 25 years ago in Vietnam.

It tells me that Russian bvrAAMs are going through a stage today which the US had gone through three decades ago.

BTW, a report following the Vietnam noted that handling during wartime conditions screwed up the Sparrow too. So Raytheon hardened the later models so that the Sparrow in Iraq performed exceedingly well. In 2000, the R-27 still have problems being transported? You kidding me?

Three of anything against one is a major advantage. Be realistic. Not only is one plane outnumbered, it is also built by a system with a philosophy of winning by numbers not one that expected that its airplanes would be able to fight against superior odds.

A Russian radar firing a touchy Russian missile sitting in a tropical third world nation that depended on extreme care by ordnance crews to work is a crapshoot just like the Flankers in East Africa. Nothing proves the Flanker/R-27/R-77 combination could do the same job as the F-15/AIM-7/AMRAAM system it imitates.

Again and again we hear people assumng that just because multi-target and bvr warfare works with US/Western fighters, the same would work for an air force outside the West.

That’s pure conjecture and wishful thinking.

The Su-27 is as capable as the F-15, but the F-15 has a better combat record because China, Ukraine Russia and India who are the main Flanker users have not been warring and Israel and the US have been fighting in several wars.
The J-11 has not been tested neither the Su-30MKI or the SU-27 of Russia or Ukraine.

No nation will field few heavy weight fighter, the relation will be as much 1:3 just by price and the Su-30MKI or Su-27 can take on multibogeys engagements simply because they will carry more BVRAAMs eight AA-12 versus two or max four SD-10s in the FC-1 or six SD-10s in the J-10 which in the later is a more complex and therefore expensive.
The Su-30MKi will stay in the air longer and therefore more missiles are needed but also it gives better combat persistance.
The J-10 is perhaps a better LWF but also it is growing as the F-16 into a medium weight fighter.
Stealth is the latest technology to be incorparated and in that many think the F-35 is in another league but the F-35 is the top light weight fighter due to stealth but the Su-30MKI is a seriuos adversary to the J-10 or JAS-39 due to better combat persistance and less need to go to gunfights but the Eurofighter or Rafale have the best of both worlds and in that they will be as light as the JAS-39 or J-10 but more powerful and better armed

that is old data. globalsecurity is much updated and they have taken figures from CAC site. See the size of FC-1 has increased in length and desgn freeze hasnt achieved untill now it will be next year only.

Actual [2004]
LENGTH 13.95 meters 14.9679 m
HEIGHT 5.02 meters 4.77485 m
WING SPAN 9.5 meters 9.4646 m
MAX T-O WEIGHT 12,500 kilograms 12,474 kg
Empty weight 6,411 kg
Normal takeoff weight 9,072 kg
Maximum landing weight 7,802 kg
Fuel weight 2,268 kg
Weapons load 3,629 kg
Thrust/weight ratio >=0.9
MAX LEVEL SPEED 1031 knots Mach 1.6
MAX RANGE / Ferry range 864 nautical miles 2,037 km
SERVICE CEILING 16,000 meters 15,240 m
T-O RUN 500 meters 609 m
LANDING RUN 700 meters 823 m
Armament 23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon
6 – PL-7 AAM
6 – PL-10 AAMs
ASMs, bombs

Do you have the weapon load for the operational radius? operational can mean three fuel tanks, two SD-10 and Two PL-5

nope. One external fuel tank and 4 BVR is enough for FC-1 because BVRs are lighter and will ensure about 80% range of Su-30 which is enough for most engagements. So 2 FC-1 is equal to 1 Su-30 in BVR role and all your BVR isnt R-77. Remember price of 3 FC-1 is equal to 1 Su-30. Also central fuel tank can be made larger than wings as it is often stressed more than the others. So one external tank should be enough for this kind of role.

Why you think the Su-30MKI only can carry four R-77? it can carry eight R-77/AA-12.
The FC-1 operation radius is just a mere 1352Km, range of the Su-30MKI 8000km with one inflight refueling.
However what i have read about the Su-30MKI says it only can carry 6 AA-12 adder but it is possible to carry eight AA-12 since look at the pictures the SU-35 can carry four AA-12 Adder in wing hard points and if you want a longer range in a FC-1 three wing tanks are the only solution and only two SD-10 will be carry

It also proves that Su-30 is limited to only 6 BVRs and there is nothing definite about number of BVR carried by FC-1. F-16 increased it later through wing tips and Gripen can carry 6 and from where you get the agility figures of FC-1? and 10 hrs stay with what speed and weopon load? and does it involve external refuellling?. post some data about timing of Su-30 from brake release to 36000 feet and speed at that time. you donot have any figures from any source and only posting your believes.

No i was wrong it can carry 8 BVRAAMs (and i later corrected my statements) and 4 WVRAAM because it can carry two AA-10 or AA-12 withing the engines nacelles, two AA-10 or AA-12 on the engine nacelles and four AA-12 or AA-10 on wing hardpoints look at the SU-30 MKI drawing and you wil find 8 hardpoints for BVRAAMs