SU-47 Opinions

[snowsub]

SU-47
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/
russian site
http://berkut.aircity.org/interface.php

Apart from looking good, I was just interested in subsimmers opinions on this aircraft. though it does remind me of the futuristic looking planes you'd see in cartoons etc
http://berkut.aircity.org/galerie/12.jpg
http://berkut.aircity.org/galerie/9.jpg
http://berkut.aircity.org/galerie/22.jpg

Is it just and outdated design from the end of the cold war and will have limited to no use in modern day
Is it relevent and would it have any chance against say the F-22.
Or are they both obselete in modern times and struggling for relevance?

I notice it's more for sub-sonic fighting than supercruise etc.

Is it going to be russian money well spent?

Snowsub.

[CCIP]

Looks aside, a lot will depend on what's under the hood.
There'a various rumors in regard to that.

I don't think it'll be a match for the F-22 in the modern battlefield, but it might well be the next best thing. Again, provided that what's under the hood isn't same old. :hmm:

[PeriscopeDepth]

I don't think it's worthwhile for the RuAF...

If they can export it and make a few bucks, well, they need a few bucks. And yes, it sure do look purty.

PD

[Gorduz]

why are the wings that way? anyone care to ellaborate?

[Konovalov]

It would be nice to see this in Lomac that's for sure. :yep:

[Kapitan]

according to what i heard it has a top speed of mach 2.7 and isnt very fuel efficent it has the same range as the F/A18E super hornet but on the plus side its more monoverable than any previous russian fighter including the Mig29 and is said to be more monverable than the F15 or F16 because of its forward swept wings.

NASA had ago at it but they couldnt get it to work project X-26

[Type941]

Well, first I think cost wise it's much more efficient than the F22. I would guess you can have 5 Sus for the price of one F22, but who knows for sure!

Also, I heard the russians are very heavily into milking the most of the engines, and they are building new models that they fit into all the old planes as well, thus making the upgrade to newer fighters better.

the X22 is such an old design, if I'm not mistaken, it's been around for 15 years, and only now they are making it. So how modern is it REALLY anyway!

And looks wise, it does look quite dated design, but I want to say 'classic' as it just sounds better!

[TLAM Strike]

why are the wings that way? anyone care to ellaborate? From the 1st link posted:

The swept-forward wing, compared to a swept-back wing of the same area, provides a number of advantages: higher lift to drag ratio; higher capacity in dogfight manoeuvres; higher range at subsonic speed; improved stall resistance and anti-spin characteristics; improved stability at high angles of attack; a lower minimum flight speed; and a shorter take-off and landing distance.

[Torpedo Fodder]

why are the wings that way? anyone care to ellaborate? From the 1st link posted:

The swept-forward wing, compared to a swept-back wing of the same area, provides a number of advantages: higher lift to drag ratio; higher capacity in dogfight manoeuvres; higher range at subsonic speed; improved stall resistance and anti-spin characteristics; improved stability at high angles of attack; a lower minimum flight speed; and a shorter take-off and landing distance.

But they have drawbacks as well: at supersonic speeds they don't provide lift as well and have stability problems, and they also produce a much higher RCS than conventional wings, making them a bad idea for aircraft that are supposed to be "stealthy". It's unlikely that any production fighter in the forseeable future will have FSW; There is currently no indication that Russia's next-generation PAK-FA fighter program will use FSW.

the X22 is such an old design, if I'm not mistaken, it's been around for 15 years, and only now they are making it. So how modern is it REALLY anyway!

The YF-22 prototypes first flew in 1991. The production models first flew in 1997, and while they may appear similar to the YF-22, they are in fact very different aircraft.

And looks wise, it does look quite dated design

How so?

[Type941]

if you take the wings and put them like they 'should be' (:)) - than it's very similar plane to all the other ones russia made in the last 30 years. If compared to the YF22 the surfaces look very different, etc and in general its american counterparts seem to look more 'edgy' and modern. I like the look of the new SU, esp. in black, though, but it's by no means a revolutionary looking as the F117 or even the YF.

[snowsub]

I remember reading in the manual for F22 TAW (so not to be taken as gospel) that the design for the F22 started back in the late 70's early 80's?

Wondering when the Su started development....

Also on not being stealthy, I'm not sure the cost is really worth it.
I've heard the Jindalee Over the Horizon Radar can easily pick up the B1 Stealth Bomber, basically cause it bounces the radar of the statosphere "down" onto the plane negating the stealth.
Although Aust being allies of the US, the USAF doesn't have to worry until some other contry develops it
http://www.baesystems.com.au/site/page.cfm?u=351
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindalee_over-the-horizon_radar
http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm

[kiwi_2005]

She looks a beaut!

i hope some modder makes this plane into a mod for
LO:MAC (lock on).

[Etienne]

How do you get range from an over-the-horizon radar? Do they have some mean of constantly measuring the height of the reflecting layers?

It was a huge problem with Decca and Loran positionning system...

[bradclark1]

I've heard the Jindalee Over the Horizon Radar can easily pick up the B1 Stealth Bomber, basically cause it bounces the radar of the statosphere "down" onto the plane negating the stealth. How can bouncing radar unstealth a stealth plane?
Can you even get a return from a bouncing signal? Can a signal even bounce? Not a radar tech but it sounds kind of hokey.

[Skybird]

Stealth is not only material and electronics, but also flight profile, and surface angles (trying to reflect radar energy into direction where a transmitters can't pick up the reflections). The angle to which a stealth vehicle is exposed to radar also is important. Usually radar paints a normally flying plane from front, side, rear, and stealth planes are optimised to be very much invisible from these aspects. But if they get painted directly from below or above, their visibility increases immensely. Don't know how much visible they become. But to think of stealth capability as complete invisibility to radar, no matter at what angle the stealthed object gets hit by radar, is a myth. that stealth bombers are also very much invisible to let's say AAA radar in target areas that they release weapons on (means: flying overhead of target) is because many radar system are not capable to emit directly overhead.

My source: a Luftwaffe electronics technician who is working on Tornados.

[Gorduz]

Sounds plausible to me. EM waves can just as waterwaves reflect as a result of atmospheric conditions (ala themal layers in the water). If one made a system thats able to analyze a wave sent upwards, then reflected downwards to hit the plane. Then reflected upwards and downwards to the radar again it should be no problem to detect a stealth plane. Now the problem is how to seperate that wave form all the others, but in theory it should be possible.

[bradclark1]

But wouldn't a bounce cause a return/hit. Thats what radar is isn't it? Signals bouncing off an object.

[TLAM Strike]

But if they get painted directly from below or above, their visibility increases immensely. Don't know how much visible they become.
http://www.thefreeimagehosting.com/Uploads/Images/4442554187500f-117-nn1.jpg
We talking target acquisition visible. Remember that F-117 over in Serbia? Where the Serb air defenses were using radio signals or radar signals set to long wavelengths bouncing off the F-117 to detect, track and kill it with an old as hell SA-3.

[XabbaRus]

The SU-47 is just a technology demonstrator with no plans to put it into production as a fighter.

The NASA project was the X-31.

It looks cool but the Russians have figured there are better ways.

[snowsub]

:down: Bumber if they don't start productionon it.
Whenever I read about next generation planes that's the design I imagine...
Ow Well


Semi OT

Stealth Aircraft not Immune

Edinburg is also linked to a third Jindalee transmitter and receiver at Alice Springs, which has operated as a JORN test site since 1993. McElroy says the Jindalee radar is very difficult to jam because of the way the signal is propagated over the ionosphere. "It can also detect stealth bombers, which are not designed to defeat the characteristics of Jindalee's high frequency radar," he said.

Stealth aircraft, such as the US Nighthawk F117A, are designed with sharp leading edges and a flat belly to minimise reflections back towards conventional ground-based radars. However, Jindalee radar bounces down from the ionosphere onto upper surfaces that include radar-reflecting protrusions for a cockpit, engine housings and other equipment.

Group Captain Hockings says stealth aircraft are coated with special radar absorbing material to avoid detection by conventional microwave radar. But the Jindalee radar uses high frequency radio waves, which have a much longer frequency than microwave radar. "Unless designed to be stealthy to both microwave and HF radars, (stealth) aircraft would not evade detection by JORN," he said.

taken from the 3rd link

and...
JORN has two high frequency ("high frequency" in the context refers to high frequency radio between about 3 and 30 MHz, far lower than most other civilian and military radars that operate in microwave frequencies) radio transmitters at Longreach and Laverton. Each put out a 20 kilowatt signal. The signal is bounced off the Ionosphere and is received at the Longreach and Laverton. The system allows the Australian Defence Force to observe all air and sea activity north of Australia to distances of 3000km. This encompasses all of Java, Irian Jaya, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, and halfway across the Indian Ocean.

The JORN system is so sensitive it was able to track planes taking off and landing in east Timor 2600 km away. It is also reportedly able to detect stealth aircraft; aside from the fact that most stealthy aircraft are optimized for defeating much higher-frequency radar from front-on rather than low-frequency radars from above, JORN is reputedly able to detect aircraft wake turbulence. Research is proceeding into using JORN to detect missiles, in cooperation with American missile defence research


And since "it was built by RLM Management in partnership with Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Lockheed Martin, Telstra, BAE, Tenix, Marconi_Company. "
I'd say LM and BAE involvement in it give's it cred in detecting stealth, although I'd bet they are looking at trying get around even this type of detection.

Food for thought
Snowsub

[Wim Libaers]

The SU-47 is just a technology demonstrator with no plans to put it into production as a fighter.

The NASA project was the X-31.

It looks cool but the Russians have figured there are better ways.

X-31 was the thrust vectoring test platform.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-009-DFRC.html
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-31/

X-29 is the one with the forward swept wing.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-008-DFRC.html
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-29/

[XabbaRus]

Ah that's right, thought I'd got them mixed up..

cheers