B-b-but MiG-29KUB…
1 Like
I mean mate we know the Su-35 and Su-35S are different things but usually we just say 27M and 35, anyway nobody talks about the 27M anymore… you know, like how when people talk about the Su-30 they almost always refer to the MKI family and almost never to the MKK family
Su-27M would’ve been much clearer
There isn’t a “we” in this statement… You yourself have even mentioned it plainly as the Su-35.
According to?
Yeah… Nope.
So would T-10M-9, but I’m not going to say “Su-35 / Su-27M / T-10M-9” simply because a couple of autistic forumgoers don’t know the difference between the Su-35 and Su-35S.
No of course but when you read Su-35 you could make sure you’re talking about the same thing, because yes it’s a pitty but also a fact that most people don’t even know that the 27M exists.
When did I?
In conclusion, I get that you’re annoyed by people being unprecise but calling the Su-35 “Su-27M” would clarify it, not asking you to call the Su-35S “Su-35” though because that does bring confusion
Saying “Su-35” is unprecise and one shouldn’t use it at all
complete nonsense
let me check, worse t/w i wonder how you came up with that. sure su47 has funny forward swept wings and canards but su57 aerodynamics are much more advanced. it has fully movable vert stabs which gives a major control over aircrafts mamneouvrability. other than that it has LEVCONS which acts as LERX when stationary and when it moves can allow sufficient airflow during critical AOA. the tunnel between the intakes acts as a lifting body and the blended wing design gives it good sustained rate.
seriously, you must be high atp. only thing barely stealth about su47 is its S shaped intakes, no other facts, not other angles, leading wing edges in a position giving decent amount of reflections.
pls stop making baseless claims
4 Likes
I don’t care about what other people interpret it as long as they don’t start going on a tirade about the Su-35S. I said it for no other reason than to spitball a general idea for other people to think about… If somebody wants to mischaracterize what I said and attack my statement off of their own poor understanding of a statement I hadn’t even said, so be it.
What about it is unprecise? Once again, it’s quiet literally what the aircraft was displayed as at its very first worldwide display.
I’m so very sorry that the very clear and concise naming system of the Soviet and Russian air forces are so very specific, but the name of the aircraft is in no way unprecise.
1 Like
from what ive heard, it cannot carry the R27ER without an upgrade
and the german ones never carried it, but add that to the list of things germany has that it never used(germany sufferes or something
1 Like
From everything I’ve seen they’re interchangeable, with any fire control systems needed being the exact same for either the 27R and 27ER.
L + A model + get exported
he means the r-27er
That’s quite clear, which is why I’m making fun of the fact that it’s a second-rate export model that didn’t receive R-27ERs in the '90s.
Saying that i am wrong isn’t a argument
Advance isn’t better
i want to see a Su-57 do this intil then i remain to my opinion that the Su-47 has better maunuverbility
You not only Cut what i say but you do it for War thudner forum cloud , The fact is that the Frame which the Su-47 has gives it a slight better stealth performance i am saying if fitted with proper coating it could achive better performance
well there was a small not really well known event in germany in 1990 and after that they werent as friendly to the soviet union anymore
It’s almost as if that’s why they didn’t receive them…
Are you lost?
to say it with your own words
What?
Only if you could read what I sent next
Wow, seriously?
Does it way better than su47, only if you searched it up on YouTube for its airshow performance
As if you didn’t just reply to 1 point for the maneobrability above.
If you could read, you would’ve seen that even without the coating su57 is by far stealthier than su47, but I’ll repeat it again :-
- canted tails :- su57 - yes , su47 - no
- faceted nose :- su57 - yes, su47 - no
- radar faced upwards, su57 - yes, su47 - no(doesn’t even have it but the ones which were planned aren’t AESA that they are faced upwards)
- backward swept wings :- su57 - yes , su47 -no
- serrated edges :- su57 - yes, su47 no
- canopy designed for stealth :- su57 - yes, su47 - no
- decent internal bay storage :- su57 - yes, su47 - barely (only has 2 internal hardpoints and will need to use external hardpoints for a reasonable weapon load)
- serpentine intakes :- su57 - no, su47 - yes (this one is arguable because su57 prefers radar blockers and variable intakes for multiple reflections through ram coated intakes to reduce signals drastically, like s shaped intakes)
TLDR, su57 even without coating has far better stealth, maneouvrability too
maneuverability
| Metric | Su‑47 Berkut | Su‑57 Felon | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thrust‑to‑weight (loaded) | |||
| wet thrust ÷ combat weight | 2 × 142.2 kN = 284.4 kN ÷ (25 000 kg × 9.81) ≈ 1.16 Military WikiCNRP Wiki | 2 × 147.1 kN = 294.2 kN ÷ (29 270 kg × 9.81) ≈ 1.02 Wikipedia | Su‑47 |
| Wing loading | |||
| weight ÷ wing area | 25 000 kg ÷ 61.87 m² ≈ 360 kg/m² Airforce Technology | 29 270 kg ÷ 78.8 m² ≈ 470 kg/m² Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre | Su‑47 |
| Load factor (g‑limit) | +9 g Airforce Technology | +10–11 g Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre | Su‑57 |
| Rate of climb | 233 m/s (46 200 ft/min) Airforce Technology | 350 m/s (68 900 ft/min) Aircraft Wiki | Su‑57 |
| Instantaneous turn rate | |||
| maximum achievable turn rate | ~180 °/s Defence Cafe | Classified, but 3D‑TVC implies >150 °/s Wikipedia | Su‑47 |
| Min. turn radius | |||
| at ~180 m/s, 9 g | ~396–457 m (1 300–1 500 ft) Defence Cafe | ≈520 m (est. from wing‑loading ratio) Secret Projects Forum | Su‑47 (in tight, low‑speed turns) |
Stealth
| Feature | Su‑47 Berkut | Su‑57 Felon | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planform alignment | None—forward‑swept wings, canards and random skin‑panel angles → high RCS “lobes” Wikipedia | Yes—leading/trailing edges and serrated panel joints aligned to minimize radar returns Wikipedia | Su‑57 |
| Internal weapons bays | One bay provisioned but not faired for LO—external hardpoints used in most tests Wikipedia | Two fully faired internal bays (air‑to‑air and air‑to‑ground) eliminate pylon reflections in stealth mode Wikipedia | Su‑57 |
| RAM coatings | Limited RAM treatments on select panels—not a core design driver Wikipedia | Extensive RAM on skins, inlet walls, canopy and IRST housing, tuned across X‑, Ku‑ and Ka‑bands Wikipedia | Su‑57 |
| Engine inlet shaping | Straight‑through inlets; compressor faces largely exposed to radar Wikipedia | Serpentine inlet ducts with RAM‑lined walls and blocker grids hide compressor face nearly entirely Wikipedia | Su‑57 |
| Estimated RCS | ~10–15 m² (comparable to Su‑27 series) Wikipedia | ~0.1–1 m² (≈30× smaller than Su‑27, front aspect optimized) Wikipedia | Su‑57 |
Also remember that Su‑47 development ended around 2006, whereas the Su‑57 was still in its infancy nearly two decades later. The Berkut was ultimately abandoned because of its Soviet‑era origins—after the USSR’s collapse, the Russian military wanted a clean‑sheet, post‑Soviet design to showcase its own engineering. Even so, if you equipped the Su‑47 with next‑generation radar‑absorbent coatings, it would no longer be outmatched by the Su‑57 in the stealth arena.
| Metric | Su‑47 Berkut (upgraded RAM) | Su‑57 Felon | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline RCS (frontal aspect) | ~10–15 m² | ~0.1–1 m² | Su‑57 |
| RAM reduction potential | –10 dB to –15 dB (≈80–97% RCS cut) ResearchGate | Already uses extensive RAM and shaping | Tie on coating |
| Estimated residual RCS (frontal) | ~0.3–3 m² (best case) | ~0.1–1 m² | Su‑57 (likely) |
| Planform/edge alignment | None: forward‑swept wings, canards, exposed compressor faces all remain big “lobes” even under coating | Yes: serrated edges, aligned panels, serpentine inlets | Su‑57 |
| Internal bays & inlet shaping | One ungrooved bay; straight inlets still “see” engines | Fully faired bays; S‑duct inlets hide compressor face | Su‑57 |
So this also proves the theory that Soviet bias is stronger then russian bias.
its not correct to assume combat weight, as different planes with different engines and fuel consumption have different fuel loads and weapons.
when it comes to other maneovrability points, ill reply to it later
this value was based on T-50’s rcs patent, which only had RAM coated on intakes, IRST, inlet guide vanes and cooling vents, all other surfaces were not coated, while i believe also lacked radar blockers in the intakes.
other than that, RCS is NOT such a stagnant value, it changes with angle and frequency DRASTICALLY. the patents of t50 didnt specify any angles or frequency, without any context on the basis of actual RCS values, we cant say much.
rcs values are presented in these ways :-
(this is a simulation on su57 rcs with fully reflective surface and ram coated on similar surfaces as mentioned by the patent)
I’m casting doubt on the defense cafe source.
It says 28 deg/sec sustained turn rate @40000 feet for the SU47 (at Mach 1.0, btw), and then on the line below it says an F14 can outrate it on the deck. Impossible. If it does 28 deg/sec at 40000 then it would do much more near Sea Level. While I’m no aerodynamicist, asking one I think they’ll tell us the SU47 would be doing some ridiculous 40-50 deg/sec sustained at S.L if that number was true.
How is a Tomcat (an aircraft that IIRC can’t reach 28 deg/sec sustained at all) out rating a SU47, then?
Then, I doubt the 28 deg/sec at that altitude in the first place. It’s the exact same number that some general spoke about the F22 years ago. 28 deg/sec sustained at 40k ft. A number that the Raptor has never shown either, and is highly doubted by basically everyone (iirc it has shown 18-19 deg/sec at altitude). Most people that tried figuring turn performance for it concluded the general was mistaken and meant ~28 deg/sec near S.L.
Some lines later they say it’s a great 1-circle and not so great rate fighter… ??? With those rates you’d be smoking every fighter out there, how is it not at great 2-circle?
Then, on stealth, the 0.1-1m^2 figure on the T-50 patent is clearly written as a goal for the average value RCS. Not frontal, average. Not what they achieved, a goal.
The advantage on RAM, RAS, EW is also on the SU57 side, since it has enjoyed years of development on all of those.
Like brothe where do you want me to get that info? Do you want me to interview engineers themselves at this point? Like this is the type of shit where classified documents get leaked.
Su‑47 Berkut
- Engines: 2 × Lyulka AL‑37FU afterburning turbofans
• Afterburner thrust: 142.2 kN (32,000 lbf) each CNRP Wiki - Combat (loaded) weight: 25,000 kg Military Wiki
- Max take‑off weight: 34,000 kg Wikipedia
Total wet thrust = 2×142.2kN=284.4kN=284,400N
Weight (force) =25,000kg×9.81=245,250N
T/W (combat) ≈245,250284,400=1.16
T/W (MTOW) ≈34,000×9.81284,400=0.85.
Su‑57 Felon
- Engines: 2 × Saturn AL‑41F1 turbofans
• Afterburner thrust: 147.1 kN each Wikipedia - Combat (loaded) weight: 29,000 kg aviastar.org
- Max take‑off weight: 35,000 kg aviastar.org
Total wet thrust =2×147.1kN=294.2kN=294,200N
Weight (force) =29,000kg×9.81=284,490N
T/W (combat) ≈284,490294,200=1.03
T/W(MTOW) ≈35,000×9.81294,200=0.86.
Maximum Combat & Take‑off Weights
| Aircraft | Combat (loaded) weight | Max Take‑off Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Su‑47 Berkut | 25 000 kg Military Wiki | 34 000 kg Wikipedia |
| Su‑57 Felon | 29 000 kg aviastar.org | 35 000 kg aviastar.org |
Most fighter‑class RCS figures are given for X‑band (8–12 GHz, typically ~10 GHz)
- Lower‑frequency radars (e.g. S‑band, 2–4 GHz) will typically see 2–5× larger RCS.
- Higher bands (Ku, Ka) can be up to 20–30% smaller, but X‑band is the most relevant for fighter BVR engagements.
| Aircraft | Baseline RCS (no RAM) | Post‑RAM Residual RCS | Notes & Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Su‑47 Berkut | ~10–15 m² (Su‑27 family proxy) | ~0.3–1.5 m² | Estimated from Flanker‑class RCS; Su‑47’s forward‑swept wings & canards create large lobes DefenceHub |
| Su‑57 Felon | ~0.01–0.1 m² | ~0.005–0.05 m² | Measured nose‑on in X‑band; RAM & shaping push it into low‑centi‑ to deci‑square‑metre range Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre |