What’s the record on delta canards with high finnesse ratio? Also double lerxes and canards?
Mass is also dependent on materials and empty space. The F-22 is way heavier than it’s dimensions would indicate in part because of ram. A lighter ram/material/internal structure/bigger air tunnels could all affect mass. There’s also the possibility that it looks more volumous than it is.

F-22 is not heavier when you consider it has greater internal fuel capacity, internal volume for weopons, greater wing area, heavier engines, TVC and airframe strengthened for higher speed manavoures compared to F-15. RAM is one part of equation.

You wont see TVC in MIG-31 upgrades and it has smaller wing compared to rest of the body. It is straightline performance aircraft.
J-20 is trying to follow MIG-31 with smaller wing and lack of TVC.

Well Australlia hasnt signed the 14 so how order can be placed.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-minister-stephen-smith-losing-patience-on-delivery-of-joint-strike-fighters/story-e6frg8yo-1226116806218
The government has tentatively placed an order for 14 F-35s, with the first two due to be delivered in 2014 for training purposes.

However aircraft maker Lockheed Martin says a contract for the 14 aircraft has not yet been signed.

No the naval 4th gen has not been started and SAC’s is hoping their stealth fighter will be a supplement for the PLAAF — it will be a multirole aircraft to complement J-20s airdom. J-19 is funded by AVIC/SAC and not by PLAAF. A private project, if you will.
Basically, PLAAF are already commited to J-20, and J-19 is a plane cheaper and more multirole 4th gen aircraft which they hope the PLAAF will have a need for to fill in the numbers. I mean we can’t expect all 400+ flankers to be replaced on a one to one basis by J-20s right?

We’ve been over the J-20s length over and over, and despite all the eyeballing people want to do the maths shows J-20 as 20-21m long. Huzhigeng’s claim that J-20 is 20.3m long corresponds with that number

i am not sure cheaper & multirole can coexist. unless it is single engine plane with very modest mulitrole ability like J-10. There is no website for design bureau/factory for any 4S claims associated with this plane that your putting.
There is no math in J-20 size.
You can clearly see avg size people standing under the wings. if you put those people on top of the plane. There hands wont reach the top of the tails when they are in place.
width of canards extend to half of plane wing. Adding all those structures to the plane will add considerable weight. and on top of that taller landing gear. why would J-20 need tall landing gear when it is airsuperiority fighter?
F-35 is multirole with tall landing gear
http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/f-35b.jpg
http://www.chinasmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/china-pla-j-20-stealth-fighter-jet-04.jpg

first solo flight after over 100 training flights. it looks odd.
i like the updates Russia factories are giving to keep track of implementation.

http://www.irkut.com/en/news/press_release_archives/index.php?id48=462

Well you have this picture. right in this form. Eye ball observation cannot be that wrong.
1.Nose of FC-1 is equal or bit longer than J-10
2. I would say length of cockpit is about same.
3. wheel base (distance between front & rear wheels) FC-1 is longer than J-10.
4. The only thing that makes J-10 little longer is the distance behind the wheels to engine.
based on above obervation J-10 should be atleast equal to FC-1 in lenght but it is not. J-10 is 1.4 m longer. J-10 taller height masks its side profile length.

Put the same logic to F-22 picture. The wheel base of F-22 is alot shorter than J-20. F-22 nose is shorter. The distance behind rear wheels in F-22 is shorter.
There is nothing in F-22 that looks bigger.
and with F-22 reduced height compared to J-20. J-20 is masking its extended length in comparison pictures. There is little reason to believe that the difference between F-22 & J-20 is 1.5m. The same way Su-35 taller structure make it smaller than 22m.

http://www.freewebs.com/mrsport008/Raptor%20Profile.JPG

Again where in that post did i say “that only China can produce fighters and double digit SAMs in decent numbers”?

Where did i even mentioned, theorized or assumed that China could outproduce Sri Lanka, Tanzania or Bothswana in the “Evolved Flanker and double digit SAM´s” dpt?

If you had read the entire topic you would have noticed that i´ve specificaly mentioned one particular “Chinese” scenario.

well “Anywhere” encompasses whole planet. I am even more skeptical there would be evolved Flanker operationally certified in China in forseeable future.

Anywhere were double digits SAM´s and evolved Flankers would be present in decent numbers. On a “purely theoretical” scenario, its called “China”

Where did i wrote “that only China can produce fighters and double digit SAMs in decent numbers”?

here.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=111577

PLAAF has ~400 flanker variants in service with large numbers of S-300 variants and the comparable HQ-9. His statement wasn’t really flawed because I don’t think he was talking about production, but rather operation.

how you know he was taking about operations . as the tone was in future tense of operating against F-35/F-22.
But none of the 400 is evolved Flanker. so the answer is zero.
China at most has one Factory for Flanker and that factory does not have stellar record of production numbers of relatively obsolete airframes. No integration of fancy stuff like TVC. Now they are going waste resources on more ineffective stuff like Naval Flanker.
Russians atleast has relegated Naval fighter to MIG Factory. So main factory for Flanker resources are not used on some thing that will not a make a big difference.

That’s up for debate, what isn’t up for debate is that Su-30MKKs and MK2s, as well as JH-7As have the legs and payload for the operations you were talking about.

They dont have payload & legs nor there is tanker in class of IL-78 to support a mission.
If Su-30 had the payload and legs. There wont be Su-34/Su-35 with there increased internal capacities, flight profile optimized with strike weopons, 3000L/2500L ETs, bigger EW containers. These two are only evolved Flankers. than there is multiplier effect of range on refuelling fighters having bigger fuel tanks.
http://fl410.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/sukhoi-su-34.jpg

And you know this due to experience with CAC’s manufacturing of the aircraft and long term observation of PLAAF operations with J-10? J-10’s got shorter legs than flankers, that comes without saying, but it’s not exactly low end like the Mig-21 was.
It has a reported combat radius of 1100 km btw, and a payload of 6 tons. I suppose I will agree with you if we can consider F-16s as 21st century Mig-21s as well.

J-10 cannot become F-16 of 21st century as F-16 was highly effective fighter for its role at the time. this 6 ton is in theory.
the display of export RVV-BD export missile at MAKS. the era of small fighters have truly passed. single engine will not provide the power/acceleration that will utlize that missile in adverse jamming condition at optimum range. and this is export version. missile ranges are going to increase even more with time.