Sukhoi S-37N/Golden Eagle Stealth Fighter
- Thread starter Sam-9
- Start date
- Status
Change the Wings Shape
very fews planes are desinged in this shape it have many disadvantages so if russians wants it to be a good plane first they have the change the wings types and the speed matter
Scorpion82
New Member
To get some facts straight:
1.) The designation is Su-47 Berkut also known as S-37 and previously known as S-32
2.) It was intended as a 5th generation air superiority fighter when it was concieved during the 1980s, while the MiG MFI was to be a multirole fighter.
3.) Both the Su-47 and the MiG MFI were built, but they were eventually classed as experimental aircraft as the RuAF found them obsolete and wanted a more advanced design with real stealth characteristics rather than a limited signature reduction.
4.) No weapons were ever fitted or integrated into both aircraft and there were no operational sensors or avionics at all available.
Result:
Speaking about them is one thing, but comparing them with operational fighters is nonsense as they never reached a status anything close to that.
1.) The designation is Su-47 Berkut also known as S-37 and previously known as S-32
2.) It was intended as a 5th generation air superiority fighter when it was concieved during the 1980s, while the MiG MFI was to be a multirole fighter.
3.) Both the Su-47 and the MiG MFI were built, but they were eventually classed as experimental aircraft as the RuAF found them obsolete and wanted a more advanced design with real stealth characteristics rather than a limited signature reduction.
4.) No weapons were ever fitted or integrated into both aircraft and there were no operational sensors or avionics at all available.
Result:
Speaking about them is one thing, but comparing them with operational fighters is nonsense as they never reached a status anything close to that.
Re:
Both aircrafts have state of the air flight characteristics which I would say no western aircraft can match. They are not obsolete simply too expensive to manufacture (in the Russian sense). Russians has a different approach on "stealth", rather than designing a specific shape, the Russians were planning to use plasma stealth. Both aircraft have some "stealth" features like the S shaped intake etc.
Full avionics are under development for S-37. The avionics is complete for both aircrafts, since both aircrafts are statically unstable in both axis, computers are used to steer them -> fully developed avionics though upgrades are underway to incorporate controls for AL-41F engines. Weapon systems are not being developed to my knowledge.
Both S-37 and MiG 1.44 were build as prototypes to enter the competition for 5th gen MFI. MiG 1.44 won but since the collapse of USSR there was no money to finish it. Sukhoj had more funding thanks to its exports and finished S-37, where as MiG 1.44 lagged a few years behind.
Both aircrafts have state of the air flight characteristics which I would say no western aircraft can match. They are not obsolete simply too expensive to manufacture (in the Russian sense). Russians has a different approach on "stealth", rather than designing a specific shape, the Russians were planning to use plasma stealth. Both aircraft have some "stealth" features like the S shaped intake etc.
Full avionics are under development for S-37. The avionics is complete for both aircrafts, since both aircrafts are statically unstable in both axis, computers are used to steer them -> fully developed avionics though upgrades are underway to incorporate controls for AL-41F engines. Weapon systems are not being developed to my knowledge.
I would say Su-30 the twin seat fighter/bomber or Su-34 twin seat strike fighter.What is the most advanced plane in russian airforce at the moment?
:unknown:unknown
Mixed it up a bit.
I believe the designation for the Sukhio FSW test fighter is SU-47 as well I have heard it designated the S-37. However if I may add my own opinion beyond this, I do not believe the FSW will provide the advantage that the Russians are looking to from this craft due to comban no longer being close range 99% of the time. Also I remember seeing sketches for a model of the F22 body being used with no tail wing. I realize that this was just a test sketch and nothing would be done beyond that but what would the possible benefits of flight without a tailwing (beyond the obvious extreme reduction of drag)?
manofpeace
New Member
I heard that Russia and India are jointly planning to produce 5th generation aircraft on sukhoi platform is this aircraft the same that we are talking about.
I would assume so seeing as this is the 5th gen sukhio. However with a FSW I doubt Russia will see the results they want from this program. I believe the idea of developing a long range multi-purpose craft is the best they could go with. Besides that the X-53 (which yes, I realize is just an X plane and will not be produced) is far better for maneuverability with the AAW than a forward swept wing would produce.
Smoke20
Yes the S-47 (Su-47, S-37) has quite a few different designations, but in press I've read it was most frequently referred to as the S-47 probably not to add to the confusion we had early on in this post.
The delta wing F-22 that many people have seen sketches and models of is a bomber version that certain individuals at Lockheed Martin are pressing the USAF to develop as a future replacement for the F-15E. It has been referred to initially as the FB-22. Will that happen probably not for at least another 5-10 years since the 15E is still a very good fighter bomber.
I personally believe that the Russian Gen 5 program will probably suffer similar problems like the JSF, in that it will see serious cost increases to meet the technological demands of customers for the light 5th Gen.
Yes the S-47 (Su-47, S-37) has quite a few different designations, but in press I've read it was most frequently referred to as the S-47 probably not to add to the confusion we had early on in this post.
The delta wing F-22 that many people have seen sketches and models of is a bomber version that certain individuals at Lockheed Martin are pressing the USAF to develop as a future replacement for the F-15E. It has been referred to initially as the FB-22. Will that happen probably not for at least another 5-10 years since the 15E is still a very good fighter bomber.
I personally believe that the Russian Gen 5 program will probably suffer similar problems like the JSF, in that it will see serious cost increases to meet the technological demands of customers for the light 5th Gen.
Hoho, you're underestimating the use of a good aero dynamics
there isn't much use of TVC without a good platform to put it on. I would also like to see the data about the reliability of the TVC systems in operation hours between main repair.
there are a couple of flight test engineers in here who might take umbrage at you oversimplifying the benefits of TVC to FSW.
FSW certainly brings greater flight characteristics to the table.
The primary reason for abandonment was the sheer cost of contemp materials when the config was under evaluation. Grumman abandoned the X-29 for that reason.
The issue is that the compound and polymers that could be used for FSW are now far more accessible and cheaper to employ. As it is though, even Sukhoi regarded the design as being too heavy for further development and that it didn't offer enough advantages in pursuing the concept for manned aircraft.
FSW missiles with TVC are another issue altogether....
New Design or More Training ?
I greatly admire and learn much from those of you who can evaluate the design and specs of fighter/interceptors. However,aren't pilot training and airtime much more important than small percentage improvements in things like military thrust, rate of climb ,number of rounds in guns , etc.?
There have been many statistics printed that state that fighter pilots are getting less airtime training than before because of the rush to get more "boom" into Afganistan and Iraq. I believe that today our men and women need more airtime than they do a "new" JSF ( in which I have little faith) or even the Raptor. As good as the new designs may be , I think that pilot training and airtime are the most important factors in the maintenance of a great air force.
Clearly we must balance new design and devlpment with the training budget. Too often we spend too much on new design and too little on airtime and pilot training.
I greatly admire and learn much from those of you who can evaluate the design and specs of fighter/interceptors. However,aren't pilot training and airtime much more important than small percentage improvements in things like military thrust, rate of climb ,number of rounds in guns , etc.?
There have been many statistics printed that state that fighter pilots are getting less airtime training than before because of the rush to get more "boom" into Afganistan and Iraq. I believe that today our men and women need more airtime than they do a "new" JSF ( in which I have little faith) or even the Raptor. As good as the new designs may be , I think that pilot training and airtime are the most important factors in the maintenance of a great air force.
Clearly we must balance new design and devlpment with the training budget. Too often we spend too much on new design and too little on airtime and pilot training.
I totally agree re the importance of pilot training. There have been countless examples of well trained experienced pilots defeating pilots with poorer training and less experience even when the latter were flying aircraft which, on paper, had better or at least equal performance. An example would be the USAF pilots in the Korean War who had considerable success flying the F86 Sabre against the MIG15. Early models of the Sabre were outperformed in a number of key areas by the MIGs but the American pilots, many of whom were WW2 veterans, were able to use their experience and training to outpoint their opponents.
Having said that I think we should presume that potential enemies will also have well trained pilots. It would be arrogant and dangerous to presume otherwise. Therefore it is prudent to also seek out any technological advantages we can with our aircraft designs to go with the best possible training.
Cheers
actually, the wings designed that way work well. elavation is not a problem and speed is also increasedwow the design and the wings are kinda odd, i dont understand how it could elavate so well like that with the wings made that way.....interesting aircraft
FSW doesn't contribute to increased speed - its a handling issue.
- Status