Mig-35 war thunder?

[noister]

@mm10000

Saying that i am wrong isn’t a argument

noister:

Only if you could read what I sent next

@mm10000

Advance isn’t better

Wow, seriously?

@mm10000

i want to see a Su-57 do this intil then i remain to my opinion that the Su-47 has better maunuverbility

mm10000:

Su-57 crazy flying demonstration at ZhuHai Airshow 2024

Does it way better than su47, only if you searched it up on YouTube for its airshow performance

@mm10000

You not only Cut what i say but you do it for War thudner forum cloud

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 :-

1. canted tails :- su57 - yes , su47 - no
2. faceted nose :- su57 - yes, su47 - no
3. 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)
4. backward swept wings :- su57 - yes , su47 -no
5. serrated edges :- su57 - yes, su47 no
6. canopy designed for stealth :- su57 - yes, su47 - no
7. 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)
8. 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

[mm10000]

@noister

Does it way better than su47, only if you searched it up on YouTube for its airshow performance

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.

[noister]

@mm10000

wet thrust ÷ combat weight

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

@mm10000

~0.1–1 m²

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)

[Qu_Rahn]

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.

[mm10000]

@Qu_Rahn

Those sources aren’t reliable I’m sorry to say.

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.

@noister

its not correct to assume combat weight, as different planes with different engines and fuel consumption have different fuel loads and weapons.

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

@noister

frequency DRASTICALLY

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

[Qu_Rahn]

I’m not trying to attack you, just pointing the sustained rate is too high, but yeah manuals and test data would be the holy grail.

Out of curiosity, I gave chatGPT the wiki spec sheet and asked it to analyse the turn performance based on the 28/40k/M1.0 numbers. Basically, it concluded the turning radiuswould be 694m, which requires a 17G constant pull. Extrapolating for SL performance, it gave me a 46.9 deg/sec sustained rate.
Needless to say, no F14 is out rating a 47 deg/sec SU47.

[mm10000]

@Qu_Rahn

I’m not trying to attack

You didn’t attack me and i didn’t think that, the little info we get from the military directly is distorted at least for the new stuff , i am just saying the ceiling for that kind of information is really low.

[noister]

@mm10000

2 × Lyulka AL‑37FU afterburning turbofans

you took lower powered engines for su47

my point is its not fair to compare t/w on basis of gross weight / mtow

su57 empty weight is like 18 tonnes while su47 is unkown (but likely higher)

other than that su47 doesnt has any weapons while su57 does, so its weight is bloated

@mm10000

Saturn AL‑41F1 turbofans

i was considering the t/w with al51 which are installed on some of the su57 prototypes and is going to be applied on new su57 this year. 167kn thrust per engine

@mm10000

29 000 kg

thats full load, idk why a su57 will dogfight a on 100% fuel and average a2a missile payload.

9000kg max fuel load.

@mm10000

Wing loading

againt, weight issues as i told.

@mm10000

Instantaneous turn rate

anything with tvc and a decent FM can do crazy turn rates, even more than 180 degrees you mentioned.

@mm10000

at ~180 m/s, 9 g

kind of random soruce, its just speculations for these.

@mm10000

Engine inlet shaping

i think you put it opposite, su47 has full serpentine intakes iirc, su57 uses partial serpentine intakes with variable ramps and radar blockers.

@mm10000

Most fighter‑class RCS figures are given for X‑band

i know but no where its stated its for X band in the patents.

when it comes to variation to frequency, the simulation which i reffered has this too :-

su57 with closed IRST comes quite close to f35 in terms of RCS.

@mm10000

• Higher bands (Ku, Ka) can be up to 20–30% smaller, but X‑band is the most relevant for fighter BVR engagements.

theoretically this is correct, but due to stuff like screws, improperly maintained RAM, scratches and other irregular surface which X band EM waves couldnt reflect reliably(and are not considered in models for simulations), Ku and Ka with smaller wavelength does, so practically the RCS is larger in these bands.

[O_Warrior0]

Put it in to suggestion

[Perma_frost]

Aint this abt the Fulcrum series of aircraft n not the flanker series why are people arguing about the Su-27M, 35, 35S, 47 and 57.

Anyways, id personally like to see jets like the 9.13S, 9.15, 9.31, the MiG-29M/M2 before (in case or the 9.13S, 9.15, and 9.31) or alongside (Like the MiG-29M/M2) the MiG-35 :D