Talk:Sukhoi Su-37/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early talk

Linked Globalsecurity article states 3-D thrust vectoring. If anyone claims Su-37 is 2-D, please provide source.--AndrewKerr 28 June 2005 05:39 (UTC)

11 SEP 2005 Cleaned up and removed speculative content. We need to treat all data from aircraft not in production to the demonstrated and documented performance. Speculating from prototypes, even from production prototypes, is very imprecise. Actual performance of a production model might differ. --Vmaxxed 28 June 2005

Rectified the NATO codename. The Su-37 is not the Super Flanker, it's the Terminator. The Su-35 is the Super Flanker. Stealth 20:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody who knows more about the -37 than me correct the weapons station bit? 12 sta doesn't =12 weaps; recall triple ejector racks (unless the Russians don't use them...) Trekphiler 00:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Crosby's handbook on fighter aircraft says the same thing about 12 weapon's hardpoints. I assume maybe 12 AAM and maybe an assortment of bombs if in F/B mode on multiple weapon racks. I also would guess that if a SU-27 family were to carry ground ordinence it would be on one of the designated ground attack models with the side-by-side seating arrangement. --themp731

NATO designation 101

After watching the movie Stealth tonight I decided to look up what the public knowledge is on the Su-37. Sure enough, some guy saw the same movie and changed this article to reflect the fictional name that he heard. "Terminator" starts with a T and is therefore not a NATO designation. All fighter aircraft start with an F in the NATO designation system. In the beginning the Soviets did not assign names to their aircraft. The NATO designations came about so that allied NATO nations could quickly identify missiles, aircraft, and subs without language barriers being a problem. So names were chosen by placing each type of vehicle/unit in a category that described it's role and each category was assigned a name with a common first letter. F=fighter, B=bomber, H=Helicopters, and C=transport (think "carry"). Some don't fit easily in any category so there is an M category for Miscellaneous. Most M aircraft are recon birds if my memory serves me right. Also reconnaissance craft are often made from bomber and transport platforms but get a new M designation anyways. Now, I'm not an OOB guru but I do know that they didn't break the mold for a Flanker variant. And that is exactly what the Su-37 is. I think there are almost a dozen variants. As for the "Super Flanker" title...not sure. I don't think that is an official NATO designation but rather a nick name that just gained momentum when they introduced one of the newer variants.

I'd add, prop F/B were 1-syllable, jets 2; so, Tu-4 Bull, Tu-95 Bear & (retrospective) Yak-11 (I think) Fang. Recce birds did fall in the "M" category; I think "C" was "cargo". I doubt Super Flanker is official, more of a military writer usage; ditto Terminator. I'm unaware of any official Sov/Rus names; if somebody is, I'd love to see them added! Trekphiler 00:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as my memory goes, the "Super Flanker" title is generally used to describe the Su-35, a modernized Su-27. Considering plane variants are commonly named the same (as in the case of the MiG-29K (carrier), OVT (2D vector-thrust demonstrator) and MiG-35 (supposed variant with under-cockpit canards), one would expect that the entire series of Su-27-spawned jets should all be called "Flanker" - or, "Crane" ("Журавлик", Zhuravlik) as it's known in Russia. However, that's not entirely correct since the Su-34 "Fullback" (again, with the more common designation "Platypus") is a Su-27 derivative, yet earned its own designation. Russian design bureaus and the VVS (airforce) do not have a unified naming system - but somehow the names proliferate, either started by pilots, air crews, or the ground troops whose lives have been saved by those same planmes. The name I submitted, "Terminator", isn't a true NATO reporting name. As a fighter, as you suggested, it would have a name starting with "F". However, the name had been there much longer than just "Stealth" the movie - I recall seeing the Su-37 listed as "Terminator" nearly four years ago on various airforce photo and data sites. If it doesn't cause a problem with the remainder of the editors of the article, it'd be a good idea for the article to retain the "Terminator" name as well, if only to prove that NATO designations aren't the only names given to an aircraft. Stealth 02:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit: The list of Sukhoi has it as Flanker-F. Updating the header paragraph for consistency. Stealth 22:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know the source of the name 'Terminator' before using it. Proving that NATO codenames aren't the only names used is not a good reason to use something from a movie; besides, 'Crane' would be a much more appropriate name to do this with. I have multiple reference books with the Su-37 in it, but none reference it as the Terminator (they do mention other unofficial nicknames, such as Viper, Beagle, Berkut, and Myria.) One website that looks official does not make a name noteworthy enough to use. Marimvibe 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of "Terminator"... I haven't seen it used anywhere but in Ace Combat and Stealth, not in a single reference book. Zaku Two 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that NATO designations aren't the only names given to an aircraft, it's also true that NATO designations are the only names that matter. Like it or not, they are the standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.249.77 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Su-47

It has been suggested that this article be merged with the Su-47 article. I personally do not agree, and think that we should make sure the correct choice of action is taken. I have given a message to the user who has suggested this action, saying that I believe he meant to suggest merging the S-37 article with the Su-47 article (which has already been done) but he has not responded yet. The name of the user is Brianski for reference. LWF 23:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. It seems the notice was removed while I was writing this comment. How's that for timing. LWF 23:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The su-37 and su-47 are entirely different planes. What must not be confused with the su-37 is the s-37, which is the prototype of the su-47. Starcraftmazter 11:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would the Su-37 be merged with the Su-47? Two different planes, a totally new page like Russian test fighter planes would be needed. Gecko1 7:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In Fiction Section?

To solve the issue of random idiots adding sentences about AceCombat 04 or Stealth, maybe we should add a section about the Su-37 in fiction. Something like this:
AceCombat 3: Playable, cockpit removed and replaced with fictional COFFIN system
AceCombat 04: Playable, operated by Erusea's elite Yellow Squadron
Ace Combat 5: Playable
Ace Combat Zero: Playable, operated by the Belkan Air Force, including Gelb Squadron
Lethal Skies 2: Playable
Stealth: Featured as hostile aircraft; fictional two-seater version

If no one comments on this for awhile, I'll just add it myself. For now, that random reference to AC04 is gone. Zaku Two 23:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No fiction whatsoever. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Popular culture. All Ace Combat references will be removed on sight. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There are just no notable fiction appearances for this aircraft. --Mmx1 01:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the appearance in Stealth is pretty notable. --Skyler Streng 04:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh, Stealth was such a bomb that I wouldn't consider it notable. Zaku Two 21:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it was still a big budget Hollywood movie in which the Su-37 plays a fairly serious role. Modern Russian aircraft (or any military equipment for that matter) are practically never portrayed in Hollywood movies, especially to this extent. While Stealth wasn't a good movie, bombed, and very few people have seen it, I still feel the appearance of the Su-37 in the movie is notable enough to be included in this article. --Skyler Streng 23:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not notable. If we allowed badly done fiction, these pages would be overrun with Ace Combat references. A notable movie role is F-14 in Top Gun or A-6 in Flight of the Intruder. I just went through this discussion with regard to RAH-66 and Inedible Hulk... not doing it again and I will revert the addition. Doubly so because it's a fictional appearance of what is essentially a semi-fictional aircraft (a cancelled prototype does not make an adversary to a shitty CGI Jessica Alba vehicle). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Badly done fiction is all a matter of opinion. However, fiction is not needed in this article. 65.3.200.230 16:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

HOTAS section

Suggest comments on the Arrow and Eagle for HOTAS be moved to the HOTAS page itself; seems the more logical place, and don't really fit here. Marimvibe 15:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No 3D TVC

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flankers_pages/tailbooms.htm http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flankers_pages/su-27_variants.html

• Su-35 no TVC.
• Su-37 2D TVC!
• Su-30MKI 2D TVC!

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flankers_pages/tailbooms_files/jetpipe_05.jpg

Service Ceiling

28,000 meters or 59,100 feet? Not only are those figures very far apart, a 28,000-meter service ceiling is ridiculous. Is it supposed to be 18,000 meters? 69.12.155.64 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparable to F-22

I'd say the USAF thinks so, given that it's used videos of the Su-37 as a tool to gain funding for the F-22. Probably the closest aircraft in maneuverability to the Su-37 is the F-22, and the Su-37 is available for export sales (if anyone wanted some) and was developed with production in mind, unlike technology demonstrators.

I will not get into an edit war on this, but I will put the F-22 back in the list in a week or two if no one actually chooses to discuss this. Marimvibe 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a thorny issue, but I think the Su-37 falls into that middle ground between the conventional capability of the Su-27/F-15 and the strategic capability of the F-22 which makes it hard to classify. Yes its far more capable than the Su-27/F-15 class, but despite supercruise, supermanoeuvrability, TVC, glass cockpits and other upgrades, it doesn't have many of the capabilities/characteristics to make it comparable to the F-22 (Data fusion, stealthing, datalinking etc). Plus given the rapid development of the Su-30 (particularly the Su-30MKI development), the 37 may not be the most advanced aircraft that's of (closest) comparable class anymore. Bobbo9000 30/07/07 (12:20pm GMT) (Just a disclaimer, I'm not pro-F-22, I'm an Su-37 fan but this is an analysis. Keeping my opinion as seperate as possible)

I think that the flanker-series was more for the prestige. I do think that Flankers (especialy the Su-35/37) can kill any us aircraft (including the F-22) in dogfight under equal terms, but I think that was just the Russians' point. In terms of strategic use most US aircraft are intended to be used in the battlefield and have many co-oops and other tactical advantages including stealth and operational range via supercruise. (not an edjucated PoV I must admit)

Dude, sign your entries ^^ (Bobbo9000)

I belive that the F-22 is comparable to the Su-37. I must admit I am also a fan of the Su-37, but I think it should be listed. But, on the F-22 article the Su-37 is not listed as comparable. Noha307 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mock Dogfight?

Can anyone confirm this section with a source? I am skeptical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaddamInsane29 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The info about the dogfight is in the book: The complete guide to fighters and bombers of the world, by Francis Crosby —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badger Brock (talk • contribs) 08:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There are several places Mikhail Simonov can be quoted. There are several books of modern military aircraft of the world, also one called, I think, Modern Fighter Aircraft published in 2002 (One of the books in the series is Called Modern Bomber Aircraft, green cover, plus there's a compilation), although don't quote me on the exact details as I haven't got the book close by. Plus he was quoted in Air Forces Monthly, again, I don't have the exact date, but I'm positive it was before june 2002. I'll hunt down the copies as I know my hearsay doesn't do anything to confirm this quote. (Bobbo9000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.159.5 (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cockpit

Maybe HOTAS alone does not warrant a separate section on cockpit/ ergonomics, but the importance of this aircraft as a whole certainly does. I was trying to use existing detail to create something as a starting point. There is currently practically nothing. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could add a general cockpit description, e.g. canopy design, type and angle of ejection seat, type of control stick, throttle location, HOTAS details, types of displays, how does pilot interact, etc etc? Just an idea. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Service Ceiling

Someone has already brought this up, but from the specifications on global security the service ceiling in meters of the su-37 should be around 18,000 not 28,000 meters. 28,000 meters is about 95,000 feet. When i changed the article in july, BillCJ undid it, while he probably has much more knowledge on the subject than i, i have checked the specs on the sources specified in the article and have used a calculator to determine that according to the conversion numbers on wikipedia, the cervice ceiling in meters is 18,000m.

"all weather?"

Design and development.

Um, how many other military fast jets, exactly, are not "all weather"? The only justification for singling out this capabiltiy as a `special feature' seems to be the radar, but there are no details about this, not even a name, and the description of the Su-27 radar, on which this radar was a major improvement, gives no clues. Or does it have a dedicated "weather radar" like the Tu-95? Or do other Russian fast jets only fly on sunny days? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of day only/fair weather fighters. Mainly older Russian aircraft before the MiG-21. ProtektYaNutz (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, It looks like the above page is almost direct translation of Russian Wikipedia page (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%83-37) on SU-37. The first significant difference that grabs my eye is that in Russian text there is no appeal to "all weather". Instead of this word Russian page includes the word "многоцелевой" (literally multipurpose). Second of all, it is "created on the basis of SU-35" and not SU-27. Even if it is, by analogy, derived from SU-27, SU-35 is a chronologically and technically closer to SU-37. It is essentially correct that both SU-35 and SU-37 is the next generation of fighters; for they contain a percentage of lithium-aluminium. I think that, in fact, this is one of the most significant differences, whatsoever. It looks like, selling SU fighters the Russian Army wants to spare some money for the development of another project. In the authoritarian regime that was so successful at proclaiming the unity between the army and the people there should be some other plans concerning the army's at least performatively-fictional development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.120.32 (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Probable False Statement

What is the source for this statement? Without looking it up I am about 90% sure that it is incorrect. "The Su-37 also stores a radar in the tailcone of the plane that allows it to fire missiles behind the plane." If no reliable sourcing is provided, then I suggest that this sentence be deleted. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone feels like discussing this, I will make this change on Friday. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to just add a {{fact}} to the statement, and give it a week or so to see if someone can find a credible source for it. The whole article needs to be cited better too (only has two cite now). - BillCJ (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well this is a known fact that has been going in the industry with the SU-35 as well. But the real question surrounding it all which is cloudy is if it made it into the real aircraft, I did some googling and several sites do mention this feature however it may be just a thing on the paper for now, I will have a look around. I do however know that this was mentioned in the SU-35 section of real world information in an old school game manual, however that was again taken from another book, I will see if I can find that manual and check what sources they used for those facts.

194.117.188.230 (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just thought it was kind of odd that the "stinger" is relatively similar in size to that of the Su-27 and all that one holds is chaff, a parachute, and possibly flares (although I cannot remember at the moment if flares are actually in it.) ProtektYaNeck (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"I do however know that this was mentioned in the SU-35 section of real world information in an old school game manual," - I think that was ATF Gold, I remember it too and it isn't in one of my reference books. If anybody happens to have a 95-97 era copy of Jane's All the World's Aircraft handy, I'd think it it would be in there. Marimvibe (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Both the Su-35 and the SU-37 (And most, if not all the Su-30 series AFAIK) have the rearward facing radar in the tailcone, however, as far as I can tell trolling through the many pages of the internet, articles of the Su-27/30/35/37 series, the rearward firing missile concept was intended at one point, but supposedly discontinued due to lack of funding in the mid to late 90s. There's no evidence that this concept is still being pursued in the Russian aviation industry or that it was intended to be more than simply a "proof of concept" technology. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC))

should we post about the accidental crash?

I came in and saw it accidentally crashed. Should we post what the cause is? signed by: Ferrariguy1000 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Where has the picture for this gone? Since we had a picture, I see no reason why we should no longer have one -Googlevictim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.145.131 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Price?

Price in $ is insane, Su-35 had est. cost ~50 million. As only two demonstrators were ever built, it was never for sale.

I believe it would be better to remove that price value unless relevant source is added (or add information that value was reached by calculating development costs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.229.176.125 (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)