Su-35 has 3600 km range with 11.5 t internal fuel, so that value for the SK is interesting indeed.
The range given for the F-35A is a max range in hi-hi-hi conditions, optimal cruising with internal AAM load, so as close as possible to the max range on internal fuel of Russian manufacturers. A 60% difference is not justified because of fuel reserve issues.
Determining range based on the fuel fraction is not an appropriate method BTW.
I agree we don't know the weight difference of the LTS vs de F-35, I am assuming it must be lighter by a decent margin because of the inferior thrust of the export engines and the 8 g airframe, if not I find it difficult to understand them talking about the superior TWR of the plane, as was said in the presentation by people in the know.
Again, I don't see that a plane with the basic dimensions of the MiG-35 as the LTS has 50% more range with the same fuel load, that does not make any sense to me. But we will see.
The MiG-29 has 3.5 t internal fuel, that is the reason for me saying that the LTS may have roughly twice the fuel for ca. twice the range.
Being faster is pretty easy given the design of the F-35 is not optimized for the supersonic flight. The LTS has a totally different bay layout that results in a longer, more slender fuselage which should quite naturally lead to lower supersonic drag.
As to the claim about supercruising, that is new to me. They talked about sustained supersonic flight, but I have not seen any clear, reliable mention to supersonic cruising.
That is what I assume too. 5G fighters have big fuselages with big internal volume due to the internal bays, it is just logical to use that for increased range, the same way F-35 does. And that translates in low TWR of course. For instance a F-35A at MTOW will be roughly 0.63, almost exactly the same as a LTS would, with 11 t empty weight, 7.4 payload and 7 t fuel, for a 16 tf engine. Coincidence?
Don't quite get that sentence. But sustained turn has two different relevant aspects in the LTS:
> The overload capability is lower than the standard with 8 g, that would restrict the manoeuvring at low to medium altitude compared to 9 g aircraft
> The wing loading, on the other hand, seems quite good in fact, much more in the class of the Eurofigter and Rafale (ca. 220 kg/sqm empty) than in that of the F-35 (310 kg/sqm), and that, even if we assume an empty weight as high as that of the F-35. So, at medium to high altitudes where the lift is the actual limitation for turning, the LTS should be substantially better than the F-35 and possibly, if the empty weight is contained, even better than the Eurocanards.
Seeing how the Su-57 takes off on the spot, with the same wings, and without even bothering deploying flaps, leaves me no doubt the lift generating capabilities of the LTS can be really outstanding. As said, the wing load is between low and ridiculously low. I don't know how such big wing surface reflects in skin friction drag, but it is clear that Sukhoi opted for the advantages of having big wings instead of keeping that drag contribution at a minimum like in the F-35.
