SU-47 Opinions

snowsub · 12-16-05, 07:43 PM

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

Is it just and outdated design from the end of the cold war and will have limited to no use in modern day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 · 12-16-05, 08:24 PM

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 · 12-16-05, 08:29 PM

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 · 12-17-05, 10:36 AM

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

Konovalov · 12-17-05, 10:49 AM

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

Kapitan · 12-17-05, 10:58 AM

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 · 12-17-05, 11:05 AM

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 · 12-17-05, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorduz

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

From the 1st link posted:

Quote:

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 · 12-17-05, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorduz

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

From the 1st link posted:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Type941

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.

Quote:

And looks wise, it does look quite dated design

How so?

Type941 · 12-17-05, 01:51 PM

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 · 12-17-05, 11:45 PM

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/Jindale...-horizon_radar
http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm

kiwi_2005 · 12-18-05, 01:12 AM

She looks a beaut!

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

Etienne · 12-18-05, 10:30 AM

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 · 12-18-05, 10:53 AM

Quote:

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 · 12-18-05, 11:17 AM

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.

12-16-05, 07:43 PM	#1
snowsub 中国水兵 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Moreton bay Posts: 286 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	SU-47 Opinions 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 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. __________________

12-16-05, 08:24 PM	#2
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	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: __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

12-17-05, 10:36 AM	#4
Gorduz Engineer Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Norway Posts: 210 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	why are the wings that way? anyone care to ellaborate? __________________ 21. MTB skv. Attacks without warning.

12-17-05, 10:49 AM	#5
Konovalov Ocean Warrior Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: High Wycombe, Bucks, UK Posts: 2,811 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	It would be nice to see this in Lomac that's for sure. __________________ "In a Christian context, sexuality is traditionally seen as a consequence of the Fall, but for Muslims, it is an anticipation of paradise. So I can say, I think, that I was validly converted to Islam by a teenage French Jewish nudist." Sheikh Abdul-Hakim Murad (Timothy Winter)

12-17-05, 10:58 AM	#6
Kapitan Sub Test Pilot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UK + Canada Posts: 7,130 Downloads: 77 Uploads: 7	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 __________________ DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/ Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/ Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/

12-16-05, 08:29 PM	#3
PeriscopeDepth Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 1,894 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	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

12-17-05, 11:05 AM	#7
Type941 Ace of the Deep Join Date: May 2005 Location: U-52 Posts: 1,270 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	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! __________________ Sink the Bismarck SH3 Movie

12-17-05, 01:51 PM	#10
Type941 Ace of the Deep Join Date: May 2005 Location: U-52 Posts: 1,270 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Sink the Bismarck SH3 Movie

12-17-05, 11:45 PM	#11
snowsub 中国水兵 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Moreton bay Posts: 286 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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/Jindale...-horizon_radar http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm __________________

12-18-05, 01:12 AM	#12
kiwi_2005 Eternal Patrol Join Date: May 2004 Location: Aeoteroa Posts: 7,382 Downloads: 223 Uploads: 1	She looks a beaut! i hope some modder makes this plane into a mod for LO:MAC (lock on). __________________ RIP kiwi_2005 Those who can't laugh at themselves leave the job to others.

12-18-05, 10:30 AM	#13
Etienne Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 695 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	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...

12-18-05, 11:17 AM	#15
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,649 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.