Talk:Sukhoi Su-47/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

The 303.8kN and 284kN thrust values are for both engines COMBINED! The MiG-31 has two D30F-6 engines of Tu-134 vintage design, each one 155kN powerful and about two 18-wheelers thirsty per hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Whichever engines are the most powerful in Russia at the time of the order. Current price of one is $70-110 million but that could change with newer engines Zalgo 07:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Zaku^Talk 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)

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)

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)

The wings give it better subsonic performance, and it can carry external tanks Zalgo 06:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft

Is F-22 really comparable one? F-22 is serial air superiority fighter, while Su-47 is experimental concept-proofing aircraft. F-22 is stealth-optimized, while Su-47 has no internal weapon bays. F-22 is not intended for dogfight, while Su-47 is... --jno 09:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Counterstatement to the above: Remember that the F-22 is one of the Fastest and most maneuverable fighters in the world (currently) and due to those facts, it can dogfight better than any 4th Gen Interceptor or ASF. Blueteamguy 9:23 AM US/Canada Mountain time, July 2, 2009

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))

I say the X-29 because it has a very similar foward-swept wing configuration w/ canards, the only difference being that the '47 still has traditional elevators on it's tail, which it also has. Blueteamguy —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 2 July 2009 (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)

I agree with the above comment. If you are talking simple maneuverability, then the Su-47 may win out. However, how much does min/max speed/maneuverability count in a "dogfight" when you have platforms with over-the-horizon kill and independent targeting capabilities? I've heard alot of criticisms concerning the maneuverability and radar reflective capabilities of the F-22. True, its not perfect. But it just has to be good enough. Increasingly, the deciding factor in fifth-generation dogfights is not the aircraft, but the avionics that it caries. As it stands, the F-22 can paint the target, fire, and leave without the target even realizing that they were in range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.209.136 (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Avionics wise many Russian aircraft can do the same. Comparable means similar radar, maneuverability etc etc Zalgo 07:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand most of this discussion. The S-37/Su-47 was a technology demonstrator that tested forward swept wings, composite structures and the like.... exactly what the X-29 did. That is this aircraft's only peer, not any fighter. We don't compare the X-29 with a combat aircraft, nor do we compare the X-31. They were both technology demonstators. Until Russia builds more than one of these aircraft, it is silly to compare it to a combat aircraft. - SidewinderX (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Max speed is false!

The Berkut's listed M2.34 max speed in the article is pure bullshit. The Berkut has a well-known Mach 1.6 limit imposed, because the forward-swept wings suffer excessive vibrations at higher speeds. Looks like such wing design cannot be made solid enough, even if carbon-carbon construction materials are used. Probably that was the reason why USA discontinued its X-29 programme. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

According to specs, the X-29 has a single engine dry thrust of 16,000 lbf (71.2 kN), while the Su-47 has a thrust of 83.4 kN (18,700 lbf) on each engine without AB, with AB - 142.2 kN (32,000 lbf) each. How come it has the same max speed as the X-29, when it has about triple it's dry thrust? And where do you got that info about the speed limiter to 1.6 Mach? --85.95.78.2 (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not as simple as just looking at thrust. Empty weight is also 3x greater than the X-29, which means if it has about the same aerodynamic characteristics (reasonable assumption,) it will have the same max speed. Then there are other issues, such as thrust dropoff vs. speed and altitude, structural limitations (which may be dominant in a FSW configuration,) etc. But it looks like the article has since been corrected and properly sourced, so not much of an issue. Marimvibe (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

X29 is not made of the same material as the Berkut, inferior construction and avionics made it hard to control, the FSW problems have been solved. With the prototype engines (304kn) it can maybe achieve M1.8 but those engines were put in just to see if it would fly and did not have afterburners limiting them to 186kN. The Lyulka engines give it many times that thrust (284.4kN) for the production speed of M2.3. What is this about weight? That should not even enter into the equation, only aerodynamics matter. Su35BM is heavier and gets double the speed, plus it is aerodynamically inferior to the Su47. It stands to reason that when Berkut gets the engine upgrade it will have either equal or superior speed to Su35BM, not lower. Zalgo 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a production aircraft, talking about it's potential top speed in a combat configuration is pure speculation. I doubt you are an aerodynamicist or aircraft performance expert, and if you were, it would be original research. Neither or which has a place in this article. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as why I brought weight up, weight has major aerodynamic implications. The production of lift directly causes drag, so less weight means less lift and less drag. Also, wing loading is a major consideration for maneuverability and drag - simply put, a heavier aircraft needs a larger wing to maintain maneuverability, which means more skin friction drag. Wave drag is also impacted by the size of the aircraft. Think of it as a scaling factor for drag - if you take an aircraft and make it 2x bigger, drag increases 2x, so you need 2x the thrust to achieve the same speed. That's where the assuming similar aerodynamic characteristics caveat comes into play. Just pointing out that thrust isn't everything.

But like SidewinderX mentioned, it doesn't really matter for this article. What does matter is that the sources that give top speeds don't agree with each other except where they have the same text, and when I go to a reference book I own, it shows a third speed (1190kts/2200kph/1370mph/M2.02.) So far as I can tell, Mach 1.6 comes from the X-29, M2.35 comes from the Su-27 family. Sea level speed seems to be consistent (though the Mach # was wrong.) My vote is for removing max speed at altitude unless good sources exist. Better to have no information than misinformation. Marimvibe (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Cockpit Section

I don't think the 60° recline figure is correct. It is more likely 30°, as is that for the F-16. As far as the reclined position being of limited value, it is repeated on the only 5th generation fighter currently in production so it is obviously of some value.--SEWalk (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Name?

I have some of the Ace combat games, and it has the exact same plane, but they call it the S-37. Is this a coincidence, or isthe name is fake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.124.10 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "S-37" was an early designation, and has since been changed to Su-47, possibly to avoid confusion with the Su-37 Flanker-F. Vicarious Tendril (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was my original thought. I just needed someone to clarify —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.120.168 (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The S-37 designation was actually used twice - I've added a referenced note to help prevent confusion. --Hrimpurstala (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thrust-to-weight ratio

It says that the ratio is higher loaded than empty (Thrust/weight: 1.18 when fully loaded,1.15 when empty). I can't see how this could happen, thus i guess it is wrong?! Duff06 (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What is Dry Thrust??

An explanation of what dry thrust is needed. This is found under the Performance section by the way. I searched both the American Heritage Dictionary and Wikipedia but couldn't find a definition. So, please include a definition of this somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.10.18.42 (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Dry thrust is thrust without using afterburner. What concerns me more is "thrust/weight=1.18 when fully loaded,1.15 when empty" It is against nature that fully loaded (means 15 tonnes+) plane has better thrust/weight than empty (much lighter). It is like whats more? 1/10 or 1/20? => 1/20 is more. Also I wonder why to count thrust / weight ratio is always used fully loaded weight (how to count whats loaded weight??? full fuel tank and weapons?), but USAF F-XX planes do not use loaded weight to measure thrust / weight. I sense some conspiracy against Russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.229.176.125 (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

There is excellent evidence that plasma stealth works. You are already on Wikipedia, you might as well check it out. "Get back to us when some of the aircraft that have it have performed in combat" I'm sorry, WHAT? Zalgo 06:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth Read the wikipedia article on it. It hasn't been deployed and probably doesn't work. There are too many problems to get around, like the amount of energy required for a continuous stream ect... - Heaney555z (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the controversy here, personal attacks are never called for. If you disagree with an editor, please talk with civility. Thank you. EW_ikist^Talk 18:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, edited as appropriate... - Heaney555z (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Speed of Su-47

Since when did the Su-47 demonstrated a speed of Mach 2.4? Sounds like some sort of BS fanboyism to me. And Mach 2.14 at sea level? Oh please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.183.214 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There's the additional issue that the Mach, km/h, and mph in this claim don't match. At sea level, 870 mph (or 1,400 km/h) is Mach 1.13. Combined with the fact that the citation link goes to a page that no longer exists, this needs to be revised. 71.254.71.134 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Number of Su-47s built

How many berkuts were built? 1 or 4? I can't see the source that confirms that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.43.31 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Weapons?

The article lists a pretty exhaustive weaponary list for this aircraft... is there any evidence that this aircraft ever carried, or was provisioned to carry, any weapons? If not, I suggest we get rid of that section in the specs. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I second that. The prototype was indeed apparently used for testing internal bay equipment (added to the design recently). It was also apparently offered as a fighter at one point. However, the aircraft as built was never intended to carry a warload into combat (it is a technology demonstrator). At a more fundamental level there are a number of reasons to think that the payload as listed is highly inaccurate and wouldn't reflect a production version (had it ever been built). So, I'd recommend removing the information and using a better source. --Hrimpurstala (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As noted, it was a demonstrator - but it was intended, at least on paper, to be easily 'upgraded' to combat status - or at least Sukhoi ran that flag up the pole to see if anybody saluted during the lean times of the mid-90s, anyway. It's likely that there were provisions for hardpoints (per the discussion below), although it would have to be researched to find out if there were actually any test-firings of anything done versus the armament load being strictly on paper. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think a proposed weapons list is pointless in an unarmed demonstrator aircraft.Flanker235 (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Speculative Information

First off I am a new user and this is part of an assignment for a communications course. So, I have some suggestions to improve this article. My first suggestion to improve the quality of this article is the removal of these dead links from the list of references: 2. Russian Aviation Page: Sukhoi S-37 Berkut (S-32), and 4. [1].

In the Maneuverability section of the article there is a necessary citation missing for this statement, "Like most other fighters with fly by wire controls, the Su-47 achieves some of its high maneuverability through relaxed stability." I suggest that this statement be removed from the article until a proper source can be located, as I did not find in any of my research, data that states relaxed stability is responsible for the Su-47's significant maneuverability and should be considered largely speculative.

In the Cockpit section there are also two statements in need of citations, the first statement is, "Pilots, however, claim that the cockpit gives them poor visibility due to poor design." Statement 2, "This reclined seating arrangement was first used in the American F-16."Again these statements should be removed from the article and until proper sources are found these statements should be considered speculative.

The removal of the two dead links from the Resources section and the removal of the speculative statements in the Manueverability and Cockpit sections until new reliable resources are found will largely improve the credibility and quality of this article. Appeters (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

suggestions for editing page

I am new to Wikipedia. I am posting this critique for a class I am taking in college. This response is in addition to Adams.

The Design and Development sections defy Wikipedia pillar number two. Pillar two states that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and that all material needs to be verifiable as accurate by citing authoritative sources. These sections do not have a single source cited. During my limited research I found these identical statements in many websites, but none of these had sources that I could readily verify.

The Development section also had 2 links to other Wikipedia pages that do not exist. In the second paragraph the page “Tsibin LL” and “bending moments” do not exist.

I believe that there are verifiable sources out there, but I do not have access to them at this time. I suggest that these sections be removed if no credible sources are found. I also suggest the 2 linked page references be removed or those pages be added. Bakejr (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Does China air force interested to purchase Sukhoi PAK FA?

Once China air force purchased, China will have J-20, J-31, J-18 and Sukhoi PAK FA, four kinds of fifth generation jet fighters! Don't you think so it is an advantage over Taiwan air force?219.151.153.124 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hard points

I don't think the Su-47 has 14 hard points, I've looked at the number of hard points on other aircraft and the biggest number I got was 12. What source says 14?--Brainiack16 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it probably has 0 hard points. As much as some editors here want you think otherwise, this was a demonstrator aircraft, much like the Grumman X-29, not a combat aircraft. -SidewinderX (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

actually 14 hard points exist. just one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-35#Second_modernization

14 is kinda standard for future russian fighters. but anyway, this is just a prototype. imo 0 hardpoints too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.155.239 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 09:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sukhoi Su-47. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060213192427/http://aeroweb.lucia.it:80/~agretch/RAFAQ/six5th_5.html to http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/six5th_5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060213192427/http://aeroweb.lucia.it:80/~agretch/RAFAQ/six5th_5.html to http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/six5th_5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Definition of thrust to weight ratio and an unreliable source.

The edit Special:PermanentLink/913783721#Specifications_(Su-47), replaced a thrust/weight ratio entry with two specifications supposedly from Jane's all the World's Aircraft 2000–01 which are incorrect by definition since they have units.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sukhoi_Su-47&diff=prev&oldid=913783721

One is supposed to use editorial discretion and apply common sense. If information supplied is plainly wrong, then it should not be included. If the information is supplied in a mistaken form for which the fix is obvious, then fix it before inclusion.

If a source credits Robert Waston-Watt rather than Robert Watson-Watt with work on WWII radar one should correct the spelling. That's just editorial judgement combined with common sense. Same with this. By definition, thrust to weight ratio is a ratio. That means it's defined as a parameter which is a dimensionless pure number. Any source suggesting anything else is, by definition, wrong: either by mistake or design.

I do wonder what the actual entry in Jane's actually is: Jane's is a serious bit of work, but according to the edit Jane's provided thrust/weight as 0.009 kN/kg or 0.0119 kN/kg. Editorial judgement and common sense suggest that would have been a bit silly when 9 N/kg-f and 11.19 N/kg-f make much more sense. Also, providing an aircraft thrust/weight ratio to three or four significant figures is highly dubious practice by definition since aircraft weight and thrust are generally not able to be specified as well as that—that's another matter of common sense.

There is also the problem that the edit provided two figures labelled as follows:

• thrust/weight=0.009 kN/kg (0.918 lbf/lb) max
• thrust/weight=0.0119 kN/kg (1.213 lbf/lb) normal

That is also by definition incorrect. The ratio 0.918, supposedly maximum thrust/weight according to the edit, is smaller than the ratio 1.213, supposedly normal thrust to weight according to the edit.

Applying common sense and a bit of background knowledge, I'd guess the intended meanings are maximum take-off weight and normal take-off weight but I can't be sure.

So I've corrected the good faith edit of thrust/weight ratio which repeated an obvious mistake in an otherwise reliable source, and modified max and normal in line with what I think the book probably stated.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Disposition of prototype

After a brief search I can't find any information regarding where the aircraft is now or when its last flight may have been. Anyone able to locate anything? The article currently has a mix of present and past tense, if no one objects I will go through and make it all past as I don't suppose the aircraft is still flying. Retswerb (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The last time they displayed it was during the MAKS-2019: YouTube. It's probably still stationed in the Gromov Flight Research Institute (see the External links section) and it's unlikely they still fly it. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice find. She definitely looks a little worse for the wear. Retswerb (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

New photo update

Hello. I just switched one of the photos in the "gallery" section with the main photo because I thought that photo in the gallery was better and more like other main fighter jet photos on Wikipedia. 73.230.178.114 (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)