Talk:Sukhoi Su-47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Engine used in flight tests and intended for serial production

Engine used in flight tests and intended for serial production. WEB sources spin around AL-31F, AL-31FU, AL-41F and D-30F6, the last as the favorite. It seems probable that S-37 was tested with AL-31FU for trust-vectoring system trials and with D-30F6 for high-speed tests. --Savine, Alexander. Jan 25, 1998. http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/s-37berkut.html

The page originally said "Powerplant two Aviadvigatel D-30F6 afterburning turbofans at 68,340 lb (303.8 kN) each (original) two Saturn/ Lyul'ka AL-37FU afterburning turbofans at 63,930 lb (284.4 kN) each w/ afterburner (planned)"!

That would give it well over twice the thrust of any other jet-fighter, which would be quite the leap. Every source I looked at on google put the thrust of the D-30F6 as much lower (about half), so it seems like the entry was just a typo.

You have to check first: which trust is listed? Normal, Maximal, Take-off, or AB (listed in order of growth)? --jno 12:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any video footage

The f-35 JSF has video footage of it going into STOVL. Is there any footage for the SU 47 doing a performance which distinguishes it from the rest of the pack? For example what the f-35 does cannot be imitated by any other aircraft in the world (you can actually see the exhaust twisting into and out of shape) Would the SU 47 do something which makes it unique maybe spray its assailant with Masala?

Due to it's FSW and 3d TVC, the su-47 can do stunts which even the mig-35 isn't capable of. Unfortunately, there isn't much...if any video footage of it, mainly because it's not meant to be a production fighter for the Russian air force. It's just a conmetitor to the mig 1.44 for the PAK-FA. Starcraftmazter 11:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NATO Reporting Name

I can't believe NATO is giving this beautiful and lovely aircraft the shiv with the name 'Firkin'. Am I the only one who thinks this does not give the Su-47 justice? - RPharazon 00:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It must be at least seven times as good as a firkin (that would make it a butt, of course!).
So I guess it must launch missiles of beer and vodka? - RPharazon 02:14, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
The NATO reporting names are supposed to be derogatory; the Tu-22 was originally named 'Beauty' but was changed to 'Blinder' (whoever decided to call it 'Beauty' definitly had a sense of humour!). - Aerobird 02:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they just had a really weird plane fetish lol! Starcraftmazter 14:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but I don't find Flanker or Fulcrum derogatory. Now, Fagot and Fishbed on the other hand... Well, we can't call it the Berkut. For those who haven't noticed, fighters are given names that start with F, bombers names that start with B, et cetera. Perhaps if you sent the boys at NATO a nice list of suggested names, they would listen. (USMA2010 01:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC))
As a further expansion, NATO nicknames of former soviet aircraft are a single syllable if the aircraft is prop powered (cub, coot, bear) and two syllables if the aircraft is jet powered (fulcrum, backfire) Kob zilla 09:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stealth

Internal mounts, people, internal mounts. Like the MFI, this one has the russian plasma stealth mechanism installed so it's hidden from the radar - which is much more efficient than the USAF solution. Stealth 09:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't have a "Russian Plasma Stealth" mechanism installed, that is something that the Russians are working on right now, but haven't been able to create to put on aircraft yet. [[User:zeroyon] 7:38 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually you're wrong. It has entered production last year (2005), and is now on more than one aircraft, [b]operational[/b]. Su-47 has no internal bays, specifically to give it stealth that I know of, like the mig 1.44 MFI has. This plane, and the PAK-FA which it is the basis for are designed for maneuverability, and you can't have maximum maneuverability, if you're fat with internal bays for everything, plus there's no point, as plasma stealth is by far the best. Starcraftmazter 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
There's no reliable evidence that "plasma stealth" works at all, let alone being "the best". Get back to us when some of the aircraft that have it have performed in combat. BobThePirate (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PAK FA

http://paralay.narod.ru/pakfasu.html

Sukhoi PAK-FA dedicated page (in russian)

http://www.vpk-news.ru/oldversion/article.asp?pr_sign=archive.2003.01.0301_06_02

Early name of PAK-FA program is "I-90" ("fighter of 1990s"?)
Tactic-technical requirements was issued in 1998 (corrected in April 2001)

http://airwar.ru/enc/fighter/s37.html

exhaustive story of S-32/S-37/Su-47 (in russian)

http://www.take-off.ru/asp/page000015

Sukhoi's draft design of 5th gen fighter was completed in November 2004. First flight is planned before end of 2007. Dimensions of the new aircraft are "bigger than MiG-29 and less than Su-27". The engines selected are AL-41F1. New phased array radar by NII-Pribor. Serial production is planned for 2010..2012 at KnAAPO.

http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2006-01-20/6_jsf.html

New AA missiles by GosMKB "Vympel" named fater Toropov will be ready for serial production in 2010..2012 and are intended for use on "5th gen aircraft developed in PAK-FA program".
New multi-spectral (radio & optical) information awareness system. Partly implemented on a Su-32 mockup.
New glass cockpit by NPTs "Technokomplex" partly implemented on Su-35.
Flight tests of "russian JSF" are planned for 2008 (by M.Pogosyan). This will shift production to 2015.

http://legion.wplus.net/news/5th2002.shtml

The order to initiate the "PAK-FA" project was signed 10 January 2002.
Sukhoi S-37 has won the competition. MiG MFI 1.44 has lost.
The "Berkut" was declared as "5th gen fighter prototype".

http://lenta.ru/articles/2005/11/21/fighter/

New names in "5th gen" project: I-21 and T-50. The first on seem to belong to MiG, while the last one - to Su.

--jno 15:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


CONTRADICTION:Article on Sukhoi Su-47 suggests continued Indian involvment with majority funding coming from its coffers whereas Sukhoi PAK-FA says Indian help has been withdrawn-If that's so why hasn't the project been cancelled.... who's funding the program?

US dollars spent on Russian oil ;) (Deng 16:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
  1. PAK-FA is not equal to S-37
  2. Are you sure Russia has no money alone?
--jno 14:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Russia has lots of money which it gets mostley from exports, and the biggest cash cow is oil. So it is selling natural resources which acounts for around 40-60% of the budget revenues and useing this money for many reforms such as child care, education and other things and also the military is getting some vitamin injections, the russian economy is to complex to explain atleast for me in a few lines (Deng 17:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Designation sequences

I don't get the idea of this seq. Someone included civil and aerobatic aircraft in it. But the seq of MiG fighters does not include MiG-8. Do we need any constant idea of such a sequences? --jno 12:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

MiG's have a special designation sequence: there are only odd numbers, so the so-called MiG-8 cannot exist. unplugged 22:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did you found this??? Odd number mean just a fighter aircraft, while even numbers for bombers, recce, transports, etc. With well known exceptions from this rule (like Tu-95, An-225, etc). Obviously, MiG have fighters as the main product line. But they have built a few non-fighter airctaft (MiG-8, MiG-110) as well. As for "non existent" Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-8 - RTFM! --jno 09:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Official Soviet/Russian aircraft designations are odd numbers for fighters, and even numbers for everything else. There are exceptions of course, the Su-25 (wrong sequence) and An-124 (manufacturer's designation) for instance. (The 'Bear', despite being better known by its Tu-95/-142 factory designations, was (at least originally) the Tu-20).
It should also be noted that many of the Sukhois' designations are the manufacturers'; the -32, -33 (IIRC) and (releveancy!) -47 are all not Russian military numbers, but rather were applied by the design bureau, distinct from their own internal designations. Confused yet? - Aerobird 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Folks, maybe it'd be better to get it back to the old-good "S-37 Berkut" name? AFAIK, it is the only officially assigned name of the aircraft. --jno 11:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it until Sukhoi itself or some other source says it's NOT the Su-47. I've seen this aircraft being called the Su-47 all over the place, and S-37 would probably confuse some people. It's as if 2 different American planes were called the "F-15" and the "F/A-15". There's a difference, but it would confuse people. So, basically, keep Su-47.
  1. Sukhoi is dead and cannot protest.
  2. The rationale is: the aircraft never entered service and hence cannot have such a name.
  3. The only name officially announced by the OKB was "S-37".
--jno 16:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparable aircraft

Is F-22 really comparable one? F-22 is serial air superiority fighter, while S-37 is experimental concept-proofing aircraft. F-22 is stealth-optimized, while S-37 has no internal weapon bays. F-22 is not intended for dogfight, while S-37 is... --jno 09:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing experimental about the su-47. The su-47 is a production fighter. FSW work, it has 3d tcv and other advanced tech. It doesn't need internal weapon bays because they deteriorate the ability of a fighter, and instead of needed them it uses plasma stealth. Starcraftmazter 11:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The S-37/Su-47 started out as an experimental aircraft, with the capability of being productionised. Presumably it's now 'on the market', it will be interesting to see if there are any takers.
I honestly wouldn't say that Berkut is comparable to Raptor. The F-22, Eurofighter and (presumably) the MiG 1.42/1.44 are a 'tier one' of the current-generation fighter aircraft; the Su-47 would be on 'tier two' with Rafale, Gripen, the Chinese J-10 and (just barely) Super Hornet. - Aerobird 02:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me, or are people glorifying the F-22? F-22 isn't so superior, and Su-47 is not inferior. --Steven 01:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
S-37 comes in a different category while F-22 is in another. I want to know on what basis Aerobird has put S-37 in the same category of Rafale and Gripen and claims F-22 to be superior. This entire concept of comparable aircraft section is stupid and is more to do with nationalism than fighter aircraft. --Spartian 18:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The only sensible reason why there is the section is for people to find fighters of similar era of time, not which is more superior to which. That is a personal comment/opinion, and should not be on an encyclopedia.--Steven 21:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, nope. THe Su-47 and MiG 1.44 are entirely experimental. If I recall correctly, the 1.44 project was recently scrubbed, probably due to lack of funding. The Russian military right now isn't in a good way, per se. They can not even afford proper upkeep for a disturbingly large portion of their equipment. The last thing they're going to be doing is starting production of an experimental fighter. (USMA2010 01:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC))
The above is a highly opinionated comment, and such thoughts should not influence a Wikipedia article so to speak. --Steven 04:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
As opposed to your highly opinionated cheerleading?

[Unindent] This is rather an odd discussion. Inasmuch as the F-22 is a 5th-gen fighter, the only comparable Russian aircraft is the PAK-FA. Also, when we list "comparable aircraft", it is more relevant to match production aircraft with production aircraft (which PAK-FA is intended to be) rather than technology demonstrators (which the sole S-37/Su-47 was). As if that wasn't enough, the Berkut is a forward-swept-wing aircraft and thus has few, if any, peers at all. I recommend removing all but the X-29 from the list of "comparable" aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing here is 'Comparable Aircraft' has come to mean 'Which aircraft could equal/take on'. This is a growing problem that I think needs to be addressed. 12.210.215.90 (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just to clear up

There is NOT going to be plasma stealth on the Su-47. This is because the method is purely experimental and not really tested. Also, it would be way too big and complex for a next-generation fighter like the Su-47 to be used effectively, or at all. I think that just coating the Su-47 in RAM and using its current shape to its advantage would be fine. Especially for a dogfighting-centralized fighter like this. - RPharazon 15:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish, there's nothing experimental about a technology which entered production last year].
Starcraftmazter, can you please provide us with a quote for this statement? --jno 07:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have a feeling that I know this guy from somewhere. Over on the FileFront forums, there was a kid named Nesh_reanimator who would hang out and rant about how superior Russian military tech is. Granted, the lingustic skills of Starcraftmazter are definatly greater than Nesh's, but the ideology is quite the same. - Starcraft, you have to provide us with a link to this information. Technology doesn't enter production mind you, hardware does. No new Russian aircraft have entered serial production for a while now, so "plasma stealth" could not have been introduced last year. (USMA2010 01:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC))
No new Russian aircraft...: Modernized Tu-160 did. If it can be considered "serial" at all :-) But Be-200 and Su-30 are better examples of relatively new serial aircraft. --jno 09:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. JFYI: Su-34, Mi-28, and Ka-52 are ordered for serial production to 2015. See respective articles for source quoted. --jno 10:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video

[1] This is a video of the Su-47 in action at an airshow. I'm not sure about the copyright status of this. Could this be added to the links of the article? 8472 17:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I can propose this [2] movie... --jno 12:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macross Plus

The Su-37 and Su-47 look NOTHING like anything in the series: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/macross.htm So, I'm removing that

The YF-19 from the Macross Plus series looks extensively similar(the version in fighter mode).

http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/plus/yf-19.htm

It's really a stretch to compare the Su-47 to that... the only similarity is forward swept wings. The only aircraft from anime even the slightest bit comparable to it is the FFR-41MR/D Mave from the Yukikaze OVA. Zaku Two 21:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture

I'm starting to think we should just get rid of this section. None of the appearances are notable, and anonymous editors add Ace Cruftbat crap to it so frequently. ZakuTalk 01:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth (not much I think) I totally agree. I said this on a user talk page a few moments ago...
Not that I was invited to this discussion, but I don't think any of that pop culture junk should be in the article. How could it possibly matter what was in this or that game or novel or whatever. Frankly, I'm surprised that junk lasted this long. Military aircraft isn't my area so I'm content to leave it to those who have more interest. But if it were in a firearms-related article, I'd ice the whole section in a heartbeat. A fantasy world has no bearing in reality except for very extraordinary circumstances (e.g. Dirty Harry's .44 or James Bond's PPK). To my mind, the acid test is whether or not a complete layman would make the connection. Reading what's there now, and being a layman in military aircraft, I say none of it belongs. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Already done. The comments made on my page convinced me to remove it.--LWF 05:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joint development with India

This fighter platform is a joint development of India (HAL - most likely) and Russia (Sukhoi). This fact does not come out in the main article. Here is a link (http://www.indianexpress.com/story/21678.html] to a newspaper article confirming this.

The article does not refer to the Su-47. It refers to the PAK-FA, which will not be the Su-47 (as was one time believed). Askari Mark (Talk) 21:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internal Fuel

The range listed for the Su-47 seems far too high. I believe the amount of fuel the Su-47 carries is rather limited when compared to typical combat aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.179.95 (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)