Do not be angry with me but this could be faked picture(it certainly looks to me), probably some 1:X scaled model of S-37 taken on MAKS show with a real tail to add credibility. Please prove me wrong with a better picture…;)

About the S-duct, why bother anyway? When F-117 came out with flat, angled surfaces, no one would say that with smooth, rounded surfaces you can achieve the same result.:) The same parallelism, only narrow-minded fools say that there is no other solution than S-duct to achieve the same results.preriod.

P.S. a question, would like to know the procedure how to change a single blade showing unacceptable damage bcs of FOD on the so called BLISK low-pressure compressor where blades are welded to disk structure. Thanks

yes it is not real, there is very strange things why the tail is sharp and focused but not the intake. Also it seems to have intake bumps but the Su-47 does not have dsi.

likely the Su-47 does not have S-ducts but Y-ducts

You`re comparing two generations of Su-17 aircraft, the Su-22M4(Su-17M4) variant was equipped with the digital CVM-20-22 mission computer and the PrNK-54 weapon system with RSDN navigation (TACAN-equivalent), what reduced pilot workload and improved navigational and weapons delivery accuracy. Not sure whether the more advanced avionics demanded to save space or weight in the nose of the fuselage, but the`ve decided to get rid of the variable nose cone and optimalizing it for high speed, low level penetration. The auxiliary intake doors behind the fixed nose cone are opened inward only.

The Su-22UM-3K double seaters were based on the Su-22M3 single-seat version lacking all that above. The variable nose cone remained from the M3 variant. The auxiliary intake doors on the both sides of nose section are opened outward/inward automatically in response to pressure in the duct. For example above speeds M1.7 the auxiliary doors are opened outward, releasing air pressure within the shock wave inside the duct and with the variable nose cone, it is capable of M2.1.

At last as wrongly assumed by colleague MSphere both single seat Su-17M4 and the double seater UM-3K feature the KLEN-PS laser rangefinder/ designator.

pretty much you could argue that these Su-17M4s were as capable as the Tornado at one point, maybe even more capable than an earlier su-24

The rest of the market has been struggling :

MiG-29 – sales to Indian Navy as well as “marginal countries ala Myanmar, Sudan, Yemen. Prospects not so good.

JAS-39 Gripen – currently exported 88 aircraft to 5 customers (includings Switzerland) despite it’s cheapness. Not a single order for 30 aircraft.

Rafale – 1 export sale to India (126 aircraft).

Eurofighter – 1 small sale to Austria and 1 large to Saudi Arabia. Aircraft numbers are same as Gripen (87 export orders).

Now compare that to the F-35.

Even older US aircraft are doing well:

F-15 – three sales to major airforces for a total of 168 aircraft (Singapore, South Korea, Saudi Arabia).

F-16 – ongoing sales to medium airforces as well as attrition replacements – Pakistan (34), Morroco (24), Oman (24), Iraq (36), Poland (48) – 166 off the top of my head in the last few years. And previously in the 2000s we had big orders from Israel (102 F-16I) and UAE (80 F-16E/F).

F/A-18E/F is the only export dud with a mere 24 aircraft sold to Australia.

I read somewhere that fighter sales are down 90% since 1990. Furthermore many smaller operators are still flying 1970-80s vintage MiG-21 and F-5 types.

Many others, especially in Africa, are out of the business of flying expensive jets.

So the Chinese don’t really have a competitive product or an an available market.

– Their old market (Africa, Albania) is pretty much non-existant except Pakistan.

– Anyone even close to the US sphere is on board for either Teen series or F-35s.

– Non-US affiliated buyers with money go for Flankers.

– Anyone else has a crowded bunch of suppliers after them – Gripen, Eurofighter, Rafale, F-15/F-16/F/A-18E/F, MiG-29, Su-27/30.

So the Chinese jets are stuffed.

I agree with many t hings but Gripen i don’t consider cheap. maybe cheap to operate for sure but its unit cost is about the same as a Flanker.

depends on what you call BVR..if you mean truly Beyond Visual Range, then it definitely is a BVR weapon, since on the best of days you will struggle to visually spot a target farther out than 15 km or so. On some days when visibility is limited, a missile that can engage a target at say even 15 km is BVR.

The supposed maximum range of the Derby is approx 50 kms, which puts it safely in the BVR category.

edited later: the picture in the post above shows a FAB placard that clearly mentions that the max range of the Derby is 50 km..should put the question of whether its BVR or not to rest.

so it should put to rest that the Bison is the easiest choice due to bvr capabilities when the F-5EM has it too.