The Sukhoi SU-47 Berkut - Russian Golden Eagle buy cialis viagra

If Looks Could Kill – The Sukhoi SU-47 Berkut

Filed in Aircraft 59 comments

su47 berkut The SU-47 is an amazing looking aircraft, especially while in flight. Nicknamed the Golden Eagle, the SU-47 has a reduced radar signature, thrust vectoring, advanced fly-by-wire technology, and most notably a very unique forward swept wing design. The Sukhoi SU-47 is extremely maneuverable at subsonic speeds and has a maximum speed of mach 1.6. The SU-47 can carry a variety of air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions.

Many sources try to compare the SU-47 to the F-22 Raptor. In reality, the F-22 Raptor is in a class of its own. Check out a video of the highly maneuverable Sukhoi SU-47 Berkut below.

Posted by Capt.   @   2 February 2008 59 comments
Tags : ,

Share This Post

RSS Digg Twitter StumbleUpon Delicious Technorati


Feb 4, 2008
9:36 am


Mar 19, 2008
7:16 am
#2 Prince :

Isn’t ‘Berkut’ a beautiful creation too ….

Mar 30, 2008
4:23 pm
#3 john :

I think that you should compare it with the raptor. i know the berkut isn’t as fast and it doesn’t have the stealthness of the F-22 however many sources say that Russia and not only have developed a radar which could detect it. So maybe in long range combat the berkut or firkin as it is also known could loose, however head to head I think that the raptor is in deep trouble. And if in a dogfight or in real life the Sukhoi manages to get close to the raptor the victory would be guaranteed due to it’s supreme manouverability.

Apr 19, 2008
11:41 pm
#4 Max :

The US has a plane similar to this once.

Back in the 80′s with the X-31.

Jun 2, 2008
7:52 pm
#5 John :


I live in Africa, the Culture is that of violence and poverty. Look at the news, Africans don’t want International help and when they get it they blame the rest of the world for their problems. People are generally evil beens and live life purely on their own personal selfish needs. The fact of the matter is A.) the technology has helped millions and millions, yet some still choose violence regardless. B.) And because of that, if you want peace build better weapons!!!

Unless the WHOLE world unites. Yes I do think the best thing for Africa is for the world to listen to Africa, do what the people say and leave them alone, just as they have asked.

Anyway Both SU-37 and F-22 are marvals of engineering. Very interesting to see that both sides have choosen different combat styles. It is very evident in the next generation anti-air tech.

Jun 6, 2008
10:15 am
#6 Ryan :

SU-37 is truly a unique aircraft. It just looks the part of a fighter. Sleek, aggressive, and not to mentions it’s ability to turn on a dime.

Jun 9, 2008
9:01 pm
#7 Wingless :

People misunderstand the F22 Raptor. Because it LOOK SIMILAR to 4th generation planes (it’s not a very sexy plane aesthetically) they think it’s not maneoverable. That’s a crock. It’s thrust vectored and ultra maneoverable, but with its high cost and because close-quarters dog fighting is a thing of the past you will not see American pilots pulling the same type of moves at air shows.

The F22′s avionics and sensors are bar-none it’s strongest points. In war games it is taking out 4+ F18 Hornets before the F18′s even sense the F22…

Jul 2, 2008
3:19 pm
#8 Alex :

This is truly an amazing aircraft, i mean finally the american f-22 has a match to fight now.

Jan 12, 2009
2:47 am
#9 Jonathan :

The F-22 Raptor does have vector thrusting meaning it is highly manueverable, but the Berkut is still superior in the mobilty of dog fighting. The SU-47 utilizes thrust vectoring, its swept forward wing design allows for greater lift-to-drag ratio making it easier to turn, however this is where it loses some of its engines potential thrust. One thing about the F-22 raptor is that while it can take longer for radar to detect it, the misslies it launches are instantly detected, so that range the Raptor would have to get to before the missile would be effective would be within the operational area of the berkut to take out the Raptor. Heads up the berkut wins, if they develop a stealth missile (which is hard concept due to its compact size, its hard to manipulate angles) the Raptor will then have a legitimate chance. Im not dogging the F-22 Raptor at all, but the Berkut is operationally a more practical aircraft.

Feb 21, 2009
8:35 pm
#10 Ivan :

I like your biased posts, but this is foolish. Check some performance statistics. Everyone knows that Russians produce in quality, while Americans in quantity.

Comparing 2 F-22s to 1 S-37 might be the way to go with your posts.

Feb 22, 2009
12:00 pm
#11 davesh tomar :

i like su-47 coz of its attractive design but indias TEZAS is really fifth generation fighter plane. it can easily destroyed both su-47 n F-22. so i must say india is much much superior than russia n america.

Apr 4, 2009
4:13 pm
#12 saberhagen :

“Ivan Said,
I like your biased posts, but this is foolish. Check some performance statistics. Everyone knows that Russians produce in quality, while Americans in quantity.

Comparing 2 F-22s to 1 S-37 might be the way to go with your posts.”

Ridiculous. Everybody knows the contrary. Dont look at the situation now, you (the rus) have fewer just because you dont have money, not because you focus on quality. Look back the cold war, it reflected exactly the doctrine of the two powers. CCCP always had LOTS of platform as well as personnels.

Apr 30, 2009
5:22 pm
#13 philonetic :

saberhagen and Wingless are the ones to listen to here. All you have to do is look at the spec of the 2 and know that the F-22 is in a league of it’s own, and would dominate even multiple of any other existing aircraft made to date, including the Sukhoi. The Sukhoi is a 4th generation Aircraft, the F-22 is a technological marvel in it’s own class, the one who posted the video even agrees.
I say merge their technologies. A more advanced Sukhoi(and I mean WAY more advanced) or an F-22 with a perfected inverted wing design. It’d shut everyone up atleast =)

May 9, 2009
10:52 pm

Ivan, I used to teach English to folks at Dassault (or “AMDBA” as it is known in the trade). When we spoke of design philosophies, they said (in the 1970s!) the Soviets realized that, whatever the technologies at play, you had to count on saturating your enemy’s defenses. Moreover, there was an imperative to keep it simple because the quality of draftees was low, so the aircraft had to be easy to maintain. For their part, the French opted for high survivability and high technology that forced its clients to employ French technicians, which gave Paris control over them: usually buyers of French military aircraft were only sold one month’s worth of spare parts. And without French technicians, a client’s air force might fly for even less long. When I asked about the Americans, the answer was that they were halfway between the French and Soviet design philosophies.

These comments, as noted, are now almost 40 years old and I know not what changes of attitude have intervened.

That said, the most artful, visually pleasing lines are “Made in Russia”. And this tells me something about performance.

May 9, 2009
10:56 pm

Philonetic: The spelling in your posting is “its” NOT “it’s”.

It’s = It is

“Its” matches “his” — you wouldn’t write “hi’s” as in “hi’s book and he’r pen” now would you?

(Sorry, I’m a teacher and I get upset over silly little details like this one all the time)

May 9, 2009
11:08 pm

Saberhagen, your reasoning is as nonlinear as the mindsets that made birds like the Sukhoi Flanker possible, but in this particular argument, your argumentation is a total nosedive.

Why shouldn’t we look at the situation now where Russia is the second largest arms exporter — albeit a modest second to the currently almighty USA?

Yes, Russia has “fewer” somethings which you don’t name, but who except the USA can account for half of the world’s entire arms spending all by itself? If this is an example of greatness, well, i would sooner lean towards some adjective to describe a particular pathological condition.

Finally, in a socialist economy, it was cheaper to get some jobs done manually than to automate or computerize them. Now Russia has a market economy, but still, with USD 8 billion in 2008 arm sales, it is very hard to claim they don’t have the money.*


May 27, 2009
8:10 am
#17 SuzzyWoozy :

Great opinions so far, unfortunatelly most of them are subjective (like mine below). The truth is that:
1. we don’t have the whole picture of neither Russia’s nor USA’s military strategy (we can only make assumptions more or less accurate);
2. nether SU nor F22 are “battle-ready” (SU is a little closer to that);
3. There are no tests/war game/real fights involving both planes (only analysis on paper);
4. The SU does not benefit of the propaganda F-22 has – just look to Discovery Channel and search for “The Future Weapons”, “The Joint Striker Program” etc, that praise F22/35 as the ultimate fighting machines – no mention whatsoever about SAAB Griphen, Eurofigher, Rafale, etc.
5. On the other side: there are little sights of the alleged high-maneuvrability from F22/35 (I sow only one a cobra done by F22).

The bottom line, as I see it (Arthur Borges said it also): the LOOK – which is most important for most of the readers let’s face it – is in Russian aviation.
The future may decide about the performance – I hope (like AIKPO and John mentioned) that we will never find it through a bloody war.

May 27, 2009
8:16 am
#18 SuzzyWoozy :

My country had recently joined NATO (Eastern Europe) and there is pressure to buy USA aircrafts. However, the Air Force in my country consder USA fighters the last in their preferences, after Sukhoi, Grippen and Europhighter – we will buy tough F’s, as the politics rules unfortnatelly.

I am a retired air force navigator, so I heard these opinions a lot.

May 28, 2009
3:08 am
#19 Former AirForce :

Now I see where everyones coming from and just wanted to post my own thing. One mentioned the X31, we abandoned the forward swept wing design because we did not do it right and so it was deemed a flawed design. I appreciate the Russian ingenuity in making a working fighter using this design. I honestly believe that Russia made itself a Superior Fighter, while our F22 is a Superior Fighter in it’s own right. If one could come up with an idea of combining the best qualities of the two jets it would be a scary sight. For one the Su47 is actually a bit more maneuverable due the canards located just behind the cockpit those operating in tandem with the pitch and yaw of the engines grants an amazing maneuverability, Plus the fact of the engines actually do move side to side slightly, not a whole lot but enough to enhance its ability The one flaw I see with the F-22 is the wings. Delta style wings ARE more stable but in lacking forward canards, at the same time it takes a touch longer for it to come down and pull up, i.e. what I call the caress. I am partial to both, but myself enjoy the F-16, the Thunderbirds are amazing, but I digress. I believe if we can just not neccessarily duplicate but manage to achieve the forward swept wings like the Berkut, I do believe that our jets would be nigh unstoppable. This is my belief, the forward swept wing design is an exceptional idea and if put in right, including the canards or something else that vectors will help alot with the stability issue.

Jun 21, 2009
10:26 am
#20 FlightDreamz :

I’m certain this aircraft could put on some impressive air show displays and would be very maneuverable (and hence a more than capable dogfighter). But while is the Su-47 is a very nice design, forward swept wings have been done before (see the Grumman X-29). And while it has been abandoned by the U.S. (at least for now) for high subsonic drag, cost, and not enough advantages over swept or delta designs – my main problem with the Su-47 being a “F-22 killer” is it’s lack of stealth! Even if the airframe has some stealth features built into it (which I don’t see judging by the intakes and tail alone) the external carriage of weapons completely NEGATES any stealth features. A problem shared by the U.S. Navy’s F-18E&F’s as well.

Jun 21, 2009
3:24 pm
#21 etsosie :

I like this aircraft. Also believe that this type of aircraft maybe capable of vertical landing, not take off, but landing. Use of the this type of technology can obsolete the F-35 if use of the vector thrust and airframe structure is match to allow vertical takeoff. The unfortuate truth here is that SU designers are doing more advancements then US is. In this design, the aircraft is very basic. If they perfect the vertical landing and takeoff, they may have the capability to eliminate the complexity of the landing gear system and simplify base requirements.

Think we are headed for a rude awakening….

Jul 6, 2009
1:56 pm
#22 Elrat :

Su-47 is not a real combat aircraft – it is just a testing laboratory. The real Russian fifth-generation aircraft Pak-Fa is still far away from existence. It might and might not look like Berkut. We have to wait if we of course live that long. Russian air-force is in deep @@@@.

Aug 12, 2009
10:48 pm
#23 arussian :

Being a Russian, I find myself forced to observe that Russian military sometimes produce quite nice experimental pieces while never bringing them to serial production, at least during last 20 years. So the whole discussion about comparing F-22 and this experimental built-up called Su-47 is then pointless.. It is very unfortunate. And happens also with subs or helicopters or.. you name it. So it is really a deep sh.. still..

Aug 25, 2009
2:17 am
#24 Nick Ramus :

I find both sets of technologies very important. The US will take nto account what the Russians are doing, we always have as the Russians have always copied, stole or approximated our designs. The T-34 tank was based on a US tractor chassis for instance. All nations learn from each other and vectoring and close in dogfights have their merits. US secret technologies are achieving something entirely different. Aircraft that fly 18,000 miles an hour and have no missles but projectiles that travel near the speed of light, lasers and plasma weapons. US has been seeking the new technologies while extending the old technologies at the same time.These new aircraft are flying already but they fly so fast they have not been seen only heard and contrails across the sky show that they have come and gone. I wonder what enemy we are building these air weapons? What enemies do we have that require such advanced technology in order to maintain air supremacy?

Sep 19, 2009
8:01 pm
#25 Lr. R.C. Pilot :

Maybe an enemy not from around here! ,Earth Vs. and all that!

Oct 14, 2009
12:09 am
#26 HungrySeagull :

I have seen this plane as a USA Experimental Plane that flew for a short time during testing over 20 years ago.

The Russians have built a fine fighter using our technology. Hats off to them for their new Golden Eagle Warplane.

I just hope that we are able to defeat this threat if necessary.

Interesting concept. A Russian Dog fighter versus a Powerful Super cruiser like the USA F22.

My only regret is that THEY build it, not the USA.

Nov 8, 2009
5:58 am
#27 Rajat :

hello frnds…!!!

i think all of u r forgetting B-2 bomber……..jus check it out……..n then post ur comments…….okay

Nov 19, 2009
3:50 am
#28 jim :

@ rajat…………………..what the heck does the B2 hav anything to do with this?
r u lost?

Jan 7, 2010
6:07 am
#29 squozzy :

I think trying to compare the F22 and SU37 is like trying to compare chalk and cheese.
The F22 is a 5th generation air superiority fighter with super advanced avionics while the su37 with its slower speed and the wide variety of weapons it is to carry is clearly not intended to tackle it, instead it is a 4th generation ground support and tank killing aircraft with the maneuverability to evade modern antiaircraft defences perhaps we should be comparing it to the F35

Jan 7, 2010
6:08 am
#30 squozzy :

try agian I meant the Berkut

Feb 2, 2010
12:03 pm
#31 Bruno :

Please do some research before you posted your opinions.
I do not need to augured which one is the best fighter yet the F22 or SU37. The evidences were revealed in the Iraq War. Some can make an augured that due to the pilots training. That was a poor excused.

Feb 7, 2010
6:47 pm
#32 Rowan :

People say close in dogfights are a thing of the past. WRONG!!!!! they said that about Vietnam, desert storm, and the middle eastern wars with Isreal and the arab states. the close in dogfights happened anyway. I also point out that the Russians DO have better missiles, but its a moot point since both missiles can pull 12 Gs and that is more than the Berkut or the Raptor or the F-35. They both have differing pholosophies-

The Berkut: turning, wing load, good missiles, range and it looks like a pretty bird. And lets clear up that it DOES have stealth, if not as good as the F-22s.

F-22:Super stealth, VTOL in some versions. Not very nimble but Super powerful arnament.
Internal weapons bay = biig help.
speed is relatively even.
And so u people know i am canadian so i am not biased to either nation.

Feb 21, 2010
2:24 am
#33 rowan :

OMG sorry they cannot pull 12 gs my stupid mistake. and PS the raptor also has super avionics. but remember that these two aircraft are a relatively even match. tthe planes would likely start head on, merge. then the Su47 turns around first and throws a missile. the american either dodges or jams it. at this point he is turned. then its a firing match.

Mar 4, 2010
3:27 pm
#34 akdj :

because we love blowing one another up.

Apr 14, 2010
9:50 pm
#35 Guest :

Well just had to add my too cents in this thread but the maneuverability of the F-22 is greater than that of a SU-47, for crying loud the software in the flight controls sys of the F-22 has a limiter. Why, the plane is design to pull some serious g’s in some tight banks with thrust vectoring, the plane’s structure can handle the g’s but a pilot can’t. So wait a couple of more years with uav tech and we will have pilot-less f-22 sporting some crazy maneuverability

Jun 7, 2010
11:39 pm
#36 Brian :

Su-47 isn’t actually considered any generation because it is NOT A PRODUCTION AIRCRAFT. There is only ONE in the world and isn’t it incapable of carrying missiles? The Russian’s have superior missiles. Basically, IMO, the Su-47 is the more capable fighter if it came to existence as a fighter because you can always just replace engines. If you say that speed and ranged kills are the only things that matter, that kind of thinking was pretty much what lost the Vietnam War (F-4 Phantom II’s extremely fail capabilities) and if that is the only thing that matters, then MiG-31, it can go at least Mach 3.1 and carries superior Russian Missiles.

Aug 3, 2010
2:41 am
#37 Boogie :

if anyone knows…and as a suggestion too…if u can make the SU-47 with retractable wings (as a F-14) that would really be a “Raptor” killer…extra manuverable due to the odd wing angle and then extra smooth for cruising….u can contact me at…..due pass it along to any crazy russian engineer maybe they can pull it off

Aug 3, 2010
2:48 am
#38 Boogie :

sorry that i came late to the threat, but fwy…i’ve got guys on Air Nat’l Guard (Reserve) that have beaten a F22 on their F16….so pilot training is a Must when comparing Aircrafts..other than that I do stick to my previous post…SU-47 if by someway can retract wings while cruising and have the odd angle wing position for dog fights (plus vector propulsion) …… that’s a extremelly interesting option…..due pass it along…if anyone can do it, i’d like to see it b4 damn “UAV’s” take over

Aug 14, 2010
4:35 pm
#39 Sumar :

To mu knowledge, Berkut is as stealthy as the F-35. It would at least be easier to shove a missile up the F-35s tailpipe than the Golden Eagles. And the F-35 is a duck compared to the Berkuts hawk when it comes to maneuverability.

Key stealth features of the Berkut:
All the weapons are housed internally, the engine intakes are shrouded by RAM composites, engine exhaust is ionized like PAKFA, there are two radar cancelers in each wing etc

Key stealth features of the F-35:
A much smaller weapon load-out housed internally, intakes shrouded by RAM, engine nozzles are RAM

It is available for sale to foreign powers at 125 million per copy.

Oct 21, 2010
4:41 pm
#40 Quicksilver1230 :

WTF are you people talking about ????? While this jet is very sexy It is not manuverable in comparison to the f-22… there is no thrust vectoring……and the Russians are still using 4th gen tech in there navi, enemy detection…..It’s awesome that they have nice missiles, buuuuuuuutttt it makes no differences if the f-22/35 has already launched and moved on to the next target x 4 by the the time the russian’s very nice looking aircraft can even see them….. AKA the 4-22 just took out for of your SU-47′s and oh by the way jet number five is about to deploy flares and get blown up for the mother land seconds after he realizes the f-22 was even there.

Thrust vectoring, also thrust vector control or TVC, is the ability of an aircraft, rocket or other vehicle to manipulate the direction of the thrust from its engine(s) or motor in order to control the attitude or angular velocity of the vehicle…..the SU-47 engines are static…in other words they can’t be manipulated in any way to control the angle of flight…..AKA take a look at this bird when it flys… the engines do not angle at all AKA no thrust vectoring….. NOw go look at vids of the f-22 you can evry plainly see how the engines are manipulated to thrust vector…same with the f-35′s single engine…. In closing, the f-22 has a cetain number of squadrons and there is no plan to increase this number of planes because it is TOO ADVANCED……there is nothing coming out in the next 20 years that will be able to touch it……..thus why spend 100 million on one f-22 when you can by 6 f-35s ??????

All this equals…SU-47 is very sexy….but get owned by the f-22/35/16/18/15 or one of our LAD guys with a stinger missile on his shoulder hahahahaha

Dec 3, 2010
5:14 am
#41 Chris :

Russian Arms are very good. Su-47 is very good, but some people disagree that Su-47 can be compared to F-22 Raptor just because its like 2 or 1 point off or something. Also, that one point makes a difference in so called “Generation.”

Dec 12, 2010
9:09 pm
#42 john youngs :

The Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut, IF put into production, would have thrust-vectoring nozzles on it’s engines. The plane was designed specifically for the 41F engine which has not been available in large numbers as it’s too new. So, the Su-27 Flanker engines were substituted. Right now, the Berkut is an “experimental” technology plane, but if they can increase the mach speed (it can travel faster than mach 1.6, but the Russians have intentionally limited it to 1.6 due to wing-warping issues at speeds near mach 2.0 and above. With this problem fixed, along with the newer engines, the Berkut would be an enormously effective airplane in combat; albiet the “stealth” issue in comparison with the F-22. With avionics and more specifically the detection capabilities of the software involved; along with adequate pilot training; these things will ultimately be the major determinants of who will win dogfights in these aircraft. If you “see” the enemy before he “sees” you, chances are you will make the kill (missles here). Warfare – even air warfare – is often a dicey thing. Luck often plays a role as well. There was even a Huey helicopter (a civilian “Air America” ship – the gunner doing the job with an AK-47 out the side door!!!) in the Vietnam War that killed 2 fixed wing (AN-2 Colts) planes in an aerial battle!! So just because one plane has a slightly better “this or that” does not necessairly mean one is GOING to be the “better” in a specific combat scenario. One-on-one? I’d take the F-22 Raptor, right now. Later on – say in 5 years or so? Hard to tell. Remember what Spock (Leonard Nemoy) said in a distant past Star Trek episode: “Military secrets are the most fleeting of all…!!” I have to agree with that statement. Cheers, JY

Dec 26, 2010
4:46 pm
#43 de concerned :

America is living in illusion if she thinks that she can now relax on her dominant throne of world power and allow their shortsighted congress people relegate her to trying to keep up with the Russians, Chinese and others. these others want to to take the lead and impose their believe system to all, and they are ready to do so at all cost. America should decide now it she’s tired of protecting world freedom.

Dec 31, 2010
6:10 am

I like su-47 Berkut of its attractive and loveable design. There is no comparision with any other Fighter Planes of Amarica.Russians are best in Aircraft or any armes Technology.Indians always belive on Russians Technology.Su-47 Berkut is the new generation fighter plane. Not only me all Indians belives by heart Russia is the best and beleaveable Friend of India.

Jan 1, 2011
11:46 pm
#45 michael :

the sukhoi is highly manueverable yes and it is true it is of high quality but the f 22 raptor is not only faster but better armed equipped for air supperriority with all aspect missiles which are highly maneuverable short range weapon and multi rail systems along with slamers and joint strike missiles clearly better equipped able to destroy multiple air targets at once clearly making it a better choice for air superriority while the berkut is better for strike missions

Jan 2, 2011
12:38 am
#46 michael :

also the goddamned thing doesnt have thrust vectoring and the turns are slow compared to the mach3 tail spins of the f 22 along with the above said weaponry the slammers use advanced radar locking systems basically if you fire off youre flares you still would have no hope because it will not lose its lock unless you turn your radar off then it will become a regular stinger then you can only use your flares confirming to you morons the superior f22 and f35 jsf over the sukhoi and about said thrust vectoring nozzlles you couldnt fit them on the twin engine flanker motor without having to rebuild the whole goddamned thing

Jan 2, 2011
6:27 pm
#47 Me :

lol indian 5th gen fighter is russian u stupid sucker… its just a few indian mods in it but it wont be better seen the statics of the aircraft (like: it cant reach 2500km/h)

Jan 2, 2011
6:30 pm
#48 Me :

lol. American people should stop thinking they are the best…really u think u are the best but first off the russian have better tanks, better aircraft, better aa, beter subs, and so on and so on. If russia’s economic was better they already were supority

Jan 20, 2011
12:43 am

The US built a fighter with this same ‘swept-forward’ wing design. It was essentially an F-16 with different wings, and was called (I believe) the X-31. It was a fly-by-wire design and had an integral flight computer that made as many as 30 adjustments per second to the control surfaces in order to make it stable. It did prove highly maneuverable but the stresses put on this wing configuration were immense at mach+ speed and if the flight computer failed the aircraft was virtually uncontrollable at any speed and for these and other reasons the design was never put into production. I’m certain the Russians have discovered all this too, mostly from studying our design. I have strong doubts this aircraft will ever be more than an interesting sideshow in the annals of aviation. As for the above comment by ‘Ivan’ – “Everyone knows that Russians produce in quality, while Americans in quantity.” Judging by this uninformed and obtuse statement I strongly suspect it is a comment by someone not Russian at all attempting to foment anti-Russian sentiment.

Feb 6, 2011
3:23 pm
#50 philonetic :

At the time they posted “f-22 isnt combat ready” it was already flying missions. gg.

Feb 11, 2011
2:26 pm
#51 MPankow :

I saw a lot of stupid comments by blind “republicans” here, I didn`t read the whole of them, makes no sense…
I think the comparison between the Berkut and the F-22 is pointless. F-22 exists and is operational, even if just 189 are in service. Berkut is a design study, it does not exist, It won`t be able to enter production in the next 20 years, so this is a pointless comparison. On the other hand – i saw many people pointing out scored kills in the Gulf wars. This was a bad example which just showed how incompetent are you. Versions which were encountered in the Gulf wars were the so called “monkey” versions – most of them lacked the long range radar ( all american kills were scored with long range missiles ;) ), they could not operate the Archer and lacked other features available on the Russian spec model. They were flown by pilots who lacked experience and it is not clear about he condition in which the planes were. One problem with Russian planes is the maintenance. My country operated MiG-29s and I know a few pilots who have flown the MiG, the Grippen, the F-16 ( as we were considering them ) and the Eurofighter. They said the best planes were the Eurofighter and the MiG. I saw noone to talk about pricing. The russian equipment is cheaper than american. The PAK-FA is expected to cost around $100m, the F-22 costed $150m, now around $397m ( if the news on Bloomberg were correct :) ), which puts 2 F-22s against 3 PAK-FAs. Or, said otherwise, 200 F-22 against 300 PAK-FAs. This negates a previous comment that Russia builds quallity while USA – quantity – its exactly the opposite. Noone can say which is better, history says – quantity – German Panteras and Tigers were far better than the numerous T-34s but the later won.
My personal opinion is that generaly the F-22 is the best plane available now. I do not know if they have resolved the paint issues yet. What is interesting is that the Raptor production was ceased in favour of the F-35 because there is no need of such design. However, Russia and India are developing their own version of a 5th gen, the PAK-FA which might force the US gov to reopen the F-22 negotiations with the contractors. A very nice plane with one great weakness which is the weapons it can carry. I know some US pilots were really concerned about this. Russia/India will have such a plane in 2016 or later, the first three airframes were successfuly tested but production is expected to start in 2015.

Mar 9, 2011
12:18 pm
#52 Ethan :

I think what we are all forgetting is the RANGE of these air superiority fighters. the F22 cannot be fitted with drop tanks. however if you throw the american tankers into the mix it will be able to reach further, but the tanker HASN’T got stealth and so present a huge target. Furthermore, the F22 has stealth; their missiles dont.

Apr 1, 2011
5:54 pm
#53 UFO dude :

ok this may really be out of the blue but uhmm… versus extraterrestrial aircraft
(you know, the disc shaped ufos) we (humanity) lose.

I mean… they defy the very laws of physics lol!

we should find another way to fly. not with rockets or wings. but something else… :D

Apr 27, 2011
2:08 am
#54 Ent :

Ignoring the “vapour” specification issues of an experimental design verses a highly classified USA design it does raise and interesting argument of missile versus guns and shear performance versus stealth approach. A F117 at night proved very hard to hit and no doubt a F22 will be harder. At day time it would not surprise me that something as old and basic as a MIG 19 would make life difficult for a F117 assuming that the MIG was not downed by a missile before it got into gun range. Yes I know that the F117 is a bomber not a fighter but use it as an example of stealth being a form of defence. The F35 appears to rely on stealth rather than performance so I do wonder if a cheaper high performance design would make a mess of it during the day. The F22 appears to be a mixture of stealth and performance which means it should be well placed to hold its own in both day and night with gun or missile. As an Australian I do wonder if with the F35 we are being sold hyper-ware or Raptor food.

Gun versus missile or eyes verses radar is still not resolved as radar can be jammed or neutralised by stealth plus unless the radar is in the missile the stealth aircraft is no longer stealth with its
radar on. But as proven in recent conflicts a top of line missile wins over a non stealth design, at least at petty dictator level of technology.

I believe that all things being equal on the technological development front a non stealth design will be a better dog fighter and cheaper. The question is will this give it an edge during the day or will the USA love of missile to gun will win out.

The strange effect of stealth might mean non missile lock nor long range detection so we are back to WWI tactics of patrols and plane performance. At the cost of the F22 the reversion to such tactics will bankrupt most nations so air defence would be Swiss cheese effective. I seam to remember that the Blitzkrieg was a return to Calvary tactics as tanks neutralised the machine gun’s advantage. A case of what is old is new again.

Jul 29, 2011
11:00 pm
#55 Ethan :

I know its been mentioned before but the F22 costs an vast amount of money where as the berkut does not and with Russian industry they will be able to produce many more aircraft than the americans can which turns it into a numbers game: eventually something will fail the gun will jam or the missile will hong or become a moonshot where the Russians will be able to field such vast numbers that one will bring a Raptor down. Plus the Americans may get over-confident and attack larger proportions of Su-47′s and eventually become outgunned

@UFO dude, the UN has contingency plans for Extra-terrestrial invasion

Oct 7, 2011
6:42 pm
#56 Bobert :

OK, here we go. For those fan boys of the SU-47 and SU-37 what is the single main difference between these two and the F-22 Raptor? Answer, The F-22 actually saw a production run where as BOTH the SU-47 and SU-37 where BOTH SCRAPPED. Neither the Su-47 nor the 37 will EVER see a production run. MAybe you people just like to wank to the dreams of what could of been rather then face the dim reality of what you have.

Oct 9, 2011
9:17 pm
#57 Ethan :


You cannot GARANTEE that either the Su-37/47 will never see production. Ever heard of Secrets, moron? Obviously not, because otherwise you wouldn’t make such rash decisions about aircraft production. Russia has one of the LARGEST industrial outputs on the planet. You think that in the event of war, Russia won’t just sling it into production anyway, just because they’re not producing it now, doesn’t mean they’ll never put it into production. F22 costs approximately $150,000,000 per AIRCRAFT. Su-37/47 wouldn’t cost anywhere near that. As Stalin said “quantity has a quality of it’s own”

Nov 1, 2011
5:20 pm
#58 Bigal :

Forward swept wings were abandon due to instability at transonic and above speeds. Great manueverabilty at less than 500knts, but stability is a BIG issue the faster you go. Wings have to be extremely rigid, any flexing along undesired lines tears them off. Any notion of stealth for these craft are pure propoganda. Reduced radar signatures, fine, but any useful degree of stealth, uhm, no. As far as missiles go, F22 is going to fire from your six, detecting the missile will not save you, as out manouvering a missile requires getting it on your 9 o’clock for a high speed in-turning pass. That ain’t happening from your six, where a mach3 missle hits you in seconds, sorry. As far as dogfighting, we’re only discussing daytime here, as any night WILL belong to raptors, period. Going up after dark would be suicidal. If an F22 pilot allows himself to get caught in a close-in dogfight, he hasn’t done his job, not the technique intended, however- even if he does, if he gets out of visual even once, he’ll kill you. Russians have one thing going for them, and it’s a biggie- it’s the off-bore tracking and infra-red missile system. Tried and tested on the fulcrums, this is the most lethal system for dogfighting currently in existance. Wish the US had a system that advanced. Even that advantage may be short-lived, current low-power laser systems capable of blinding any infra-red missile are already in development.

Nov 2, 2011
6:57 am
#59 Ethan :

For him to be firing at your six, he would either have to pass into visual range or go along the outside of visual range. Both of these are undesirable as passing into visual range means the Russians can get up close and personal; skirting around means it take more fuel to get into position and the Su-47 could turn into your direction which yields the same result. Also I believe someone has said this before: the Su-47 lacks much or any propoganda to it’s name where as the F-22′s is plentiful. While this doesn’t change physics, it does mean that the American military can portray it as being far deadlier than actually is

Leave a Comment

Previous Post
Next Post
Delighted Black designed by Christian Myspace In conjunction with Ping Services   |   French Teacher Jobs   |   Maths Teacher Jobs