It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Can the Eurofighter beat a Su-47 ?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 01:40 PM
From my point of view, I think that the SU-47 cannot be compared with the Eurofighter Typhoon. The SU-47 is classified as a Generation 5 fighter aircraft, hence it must be compared with another Generation 5 Fighter aircraft. I cannot agree that the Raptor is number 1 yet because it has not been involved in the theatre of war against other air forces. The assumption is made that the F-22 is superior is because in live combat exercises, it fought against F-15s, a Generation 4 aircraft with no stealth abilities.

If you want to see who is the premier air superiority fighter aircraft, the F-22 should go head to head against the SU-47 in a live combat environment. The Eurofighter the climax of Generation 4 aircraft, hence comparisons made between a Generation 4 and a Generation 5 aircraft will yield inaccurate results because the differences in the weapons and avionics.

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:27 PM
Why do you guys keep talking about can this beat that, when its clearly a whole different ball game. All these different military technologies are build to operate with each other in unison, not one on one. This isn't a boxing match between one jet and another, its describing a #ing strategic military situation.

These jets will never be used in one on one fights to solve national disputes.

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:48 PM
Just say, for example, that the right conditions existed and one Eurofighter Typhoon found itself in a one-on-one dogfight with a Sukhoi Su-47. Let's say it's an alternate reality since the Su-47 was only a technology demonstrator.

Lets see the stats:
Length: 15.96 meters 22.6 meters
Wingspan: 10.95 meters 16.7 meters
Height: 5.28 meters 6.3 meters
Max Weight: 52,000 lbs 77,162 lbs
Thrust: 13,000 lbf 18,700 lbf
Afterburner: 20,000 lbf 32,000 lbf

Max Speed: 1,550 mph 1,684 mph
Sea Level: 910 mph 1,066 mph
Range: 1,800 miles 2,050 miles
Ceiling: 64,990 ft 59,050 ft
Rate of climb: 315 m/s 233 m/s

(1) 27mm cannon w/ 150 rds (1) 30mm cannon w/ 150 rds
(13) hardpoints (14) hardpoints

The Su-47 has a much higher maximum weight which allows for much larger missile systems. This means the aircraft can be fully loaded with up to 14 long range R-77PD missiles and extra long range R-37 missiles. Being able to engage the Typhoon from further away gives it an advantage.

The Su-47 also has a higher maximum speed and thrust ratio. In addition, the forward swept composite wings give it better maneuverability at subsonic speed than the Typhoon.

The Eurofighter Typhoon's only advantage is the slightly higher rate of climb and service ceiling.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:01 AM
There is still the little difference that
A: the SU-47 is 100% unarmed; and
B: the SU-47 doesnt actually exist beside a lone demonstrator

which leads to
C: please let this thread die the death it deserves.

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by Lonestar24

su-47 fanboys. All you would need is 2 eurofighters, cause take out the one su-47 and there are none left

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:03 PM
I think a better comparison would be the X-29 vs the Su-47, they were both "X" planes.

I love the Su-47 and X-29 design, the forward swept wings is just baddest in my opinion. In a dogfight who would win? Neither, they had no armaments. I'd be interested to see how well one would manuver against a F-22 at subsonic speeds. I'd heard they are VERY agile.

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by deadmessiah

Good to see someone does their homework. The US flew the x-29 a few years before the Russians tested the Su-47, yet no one on this board ever brings up th x-29 vs anything!

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:49 PM
Yes. But the X-29 was always just a testbed. Never meant for anything but a test in aerodynamics. Whereas the Su-47 was briefly marketed as a potential fighter.

Although I suppose you could have armed the X-29 with pretty much anything the F-5 Freedom Fighter could carry.

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by allenidaho

See any hardpoints? I bet the RCS on the Su-47 was one of the reasons they put what they learned into the PAK-FA.
I just get slightly annoyed at how many people cream their jeans when brining up the Su-47, when we built the X-31 ten + years earlier. Slap a MIG or Sukhoi designation on a plane and certain people wet themselves at its supposed capabilities, and will ignore American technology and prowess.
Another argment is the 3d vs 2d Thrust Vectoring. It is an interesting subject, and one would assume the 3d vectoring on the MiG-29 OVT is superior to the 2d on the F-22. But the USAF/NASA tested 3d TVC on the x-31 and F-16 VISTA. For some unknown reason(my guess is the stealth/IR aspect) they went with 2d on the F-22.

As I said in another thread, I would love to see an updated analysis and tactics manual for ACM with thrust vectoring. None of us civilians can really know what is effective and what isnt in 5th generation dogfights, but I would be fascinated to find out!

edit on 13-9-2011 by steppenwolf86 because: fact check

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:46 PM
There are two hardpoints in the internal bay right here:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:56 AM
reply to post by allenidaho

Wow, what a payload.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by steppenwolf86

Hey, are you talking about me or the plane?

<< 1   >>

log in