Comments on: If Looks Could Kill – The Sukhoi SU-47 Berkut

By: Sumar

Sumar — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:35:58 +0000

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.

By: Boogie

Boogie — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:48:48 +0000

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

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 23:39:31 +0000

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.

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:50:56 +0000

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

By: akdj

akdj — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:27:07 +0000

because we love blowing one another up.

By: rowan

rowan — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 02:24:05 +0000

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.

By: Rowan

Rowan — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:47:09 +0000

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.

By: Bruno

Bruno — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:03:58 +0000

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.

By: squozzy

squozzy — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 06:08:56 +0000

try agian I meant the Berkut

By: squozzy

squozzy — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 06:07:15 +0000

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

By: jim

jim — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:50:20 +0000

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

By: Rajat

Rajat — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:58:26 +0000

hello frnds…!!!

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

By: HungrySeagull

HungrySeagull — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:09:40 +0000

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.

By: Lr. R.C. Pilot

Lr. R.C. Pilot — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:01:31 +0000

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

By: Nick Ramus

Nick Ramus — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:17:22 +0000

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?

By: arussian

arussian — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:02 +0000

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..

By: Elrat

Elrat — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:56:01 +0000

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 @@@@.

By: etsosie

etsosie — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:24:32 +0000

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….

By: FlightDreamz

FlightDreamz — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 10:26:49 +0000

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.

By: Former AirForce

Former AirForce — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:08:21 +0000

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.

By: SuzzyWoozy

SuzzyWoozy — Wed, 27 May 2009 08:16:56 +0000

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.

By: SuzzyWoozy

SuzzyWoozy — Wed, 27 May 2009 08:10:30 +0000

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.

By: Arthur Borges

Arthur Borges — Sat, 09 May 2009 23:08:23 +0000

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.*

*See: english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/17-07-2008/105807-arms-sales

By: Arthur Borges

Arthur Borges — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:56:10 +0000

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)

By: Arthur Borges

Arthur Borges — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:52:59 +0000

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.

By: philonetic

philonetic — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:22:09 +0000

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 =)

By: saberhagen

saberhagen — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:13:23 +0000

“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.

By: davesh tomar

davesh tomar — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:00:44 +0000

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.

By: Ivan

Ivan — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:35:20 +0000

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.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:47:29 +0000

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.