Sukhoi LTS "Checkmate" #2

TMA1 wrote:I feel you gomig.

Yeah bro, it looks like the gaddang UAE is going to be the first customer of this piece of honey, thanks to @LMFS's articles he posted a few posts back.  When they showcased the Checkmate at the Dubai show in 2021 and then went right to the US and said we want something like 50 F-35s and they have to be loaded, just like when they ordered their 56 F-16E Block 60 with every single possible bell and whistle which freaked out the apartheid state.  But hey, at the time, they weren't being too bullied by the zionisist, at least not like they've become post Obama and so when Sheikh Zayed Al Nahyan asked the orange baboon for 60 F-35s and he said "yes, absolutely no problem", then Pompeo started doing backflips and summersaults and went into cardiac panic attack because he knew Hitler the 2nd excuse me, Bibi Netanyahu was going to be calling the red phone within the hour and then what was Pompadour going to say to the real boss who runs America?

So what did the brilliant Sheikh Zayed Al Nahyan do?  Not only did he go to France and sign a $19 billion contract for 80 Rafale F4s (the latest tranche) with a massive weapons package that includes probably 300 SCALP-EG cruise missiles as well as the MICA IR & ER and the NG when it's ready which is soon plus of course, supposedly the best A2A missile out there ATM in the Meteor, 12 Airbus H225M Caracal military helicopters and an unspecified number of NEON UCAVs that will be commanded by the Rafale DMs (2-seaters) lol talk about sticking it up the US' bunghole and to add insult to injury, Sheikh Zayed has also undoubtedly signed this contract with Rostec & Sukhoi for the production samples of the Checkmate that are in the article posted by @LMFS.  No doubt about it whatsoever!  Damn Arabs we're (well, not me exactly but the GCC ones) are rich but they're not stupid rich like some think they are.

New video I just saw has some neat info and CGI footage.

GarryB wrote:

Gomig-21 wrote:Carrier or no carrier, the GoMiGman wants to see this thing FLYING, and FLYING VERY SOON, and FLYING CIRCLES around anything it encounters and forget about finding some Arab Sheikh from the UAE or Saudiya or Qatar or even prince Henry himself to finance it.  Let's get it going, fellas, LET'S GOOOOOOOO!!!

This is just fan art though,,, there is no way it could have those two engines using the same tiny air intakes... adding that extra engine would require much much bigger air intakes to work.

A dorsal air scoop that operates in VSTOL mode that opens when the aircraft is taking off or transitions to the hover might work, but it is clearly not there so I say this is fanart.

Oh it's definitely fan art.  But where do you see 2 engines in either of those pics, ma man?  The top one looks like they butchered the nozzle to maybe make it look like it's flaming out but he botched it big time.  The 2nd one looks a bit pudgy if you ask me, but I still don't see a 2nd engine.  I am 57 and eyesight is on its way no doubt but there's no way I could be missing a 2nd nozzle in either of those pics.

Speaking of tiny air intakes, also from one of @LMFS's links. check out this image and the view of the intakes.  It shows splitter plates on the bottom on the intake most likely for boundary layer diversion with exit openings somewhere further in but does is show some form of bulbous shaping to the fuselage right at the two sides of the intakes, as if some form of divertless intake combination?  

This is the kind of stuff that impresses the hell out of me, these great (not so little) innovations that are superb, just like the levcons I stroked about on the Su-57.  This intake is another revolutionary evolution in fighter design.



BTW if anyone hasn't read the articles that @LMFS posted, do yourself a favor and read them especially the one about the lack of horizontal stabilizers and just having the canted all-movable rudders and its positive effects on the aircraft's stealthiness and lessens its drag which ironically explains why the YF-23 was stealthier AND faster than the YF-22.  Some terrific information.

Russia needs a single-engine jet fighter. It does not have to be high volume, but it will serve as an experience accumulation platform. The fixation on two engines
is a fetish. It's OK but the thinking is zero-sum. Russia can afford the Su-75. The problem is that there are too many monetarist maggots in the Russian government
whose full time job is to convince the government and Russians that Russia is poor and weak.

Russia build thousands of single engine jets in the past. We all know them (MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-27, Su-7 and Su-17 to name a few).

The decision to concentrate on bigger jets with two engines was made more than 20 years ago.
A few things changed since then, the most important one is the "new" confrontation with NATO.
A few hundred Su-75 based in western and southern Russia wouldn´t hurt the defence against
those Neo-con led morons.

So what did the brilliant Sheikh Zayed Al Nahyan do?  Not only did he go to France and sign a $19 billion contract for 80 Rafale F4s (the latest tranche) with a massive weapons package that includes probably 300 SCALP-EG cruise missiles as well as the MICA IR & ER and the NG when it's ready which is soon plus of course, supposedly the best A2A missile out there ATM in the Meteor, 12 Airbus H225M Caracal military helicopters and an unspecified number of NEON UCAVs that will be commanded by the Rafale DMs (2-seaters) lol talk about sticking it up the US' bunghole and to add insult to injury, Sheikh Zayed has also undoubtedly signed this contract with Rostec & Sukhoi for the production samples of the Checkmate that are in the article posted by @LMFS.  No doubt about it whatsoever!  Damn Arabs we're (well, not me exactly but the GCC ones) are rich but they're not stupid rich like some think they are.

Without good air defence drones and missiles will be destroying those Rafales and weapons on the ground very easily.

Even more easily now that everyone saw how good a drone of 20000$ can be when armed with a 50kg warhead and 1500km range like the geran 2.

Such drones will kill the concept of fighter jets.

Russia needs a single-engine jet fighter. It does not have to be high volume, but it will serve as an experience accumulation platform. The fixation on two engines is a fetish. It's OK but the thinking is zero-sum. Russia can afford the Su-75. The problem is that there are too many monetarist maggots in the Russian government whose full time job is to convince the government and Russians that Russia is poor and weak. wrote:

We need to realize that our desires are not Russia's desires. Frankly speaking I wouldnt blame Russia if they didnt buy the SU75. The SU75 is just below the class of Jets that Russia wants to transition into (Some very advanced hardware esp the PAK-DP).Its going to be that Russian jet with Israeli electronics and Chinese parts plus Indian avionics once exported.. Its the F35s cheapest nightmare. It really does nothing for Russia that the Su57 doesnt...

Swgman_BK wrote:We need to realize that our desires are not Russia's desires. Frankly speaking I wouldnt blame Russia if they didnt buy the SU75. The SU75 is just below the class of Jets that Russia wants to transition into (Some very advanced hardware esp the PAK-DP).Its going to be that Russian jet with Israeli electronics and Chinese parts plus Indian avionics once exported.. Its the F35s cheapest nightmare. It really does nothing for Russia that the Su57 doesnt...

It is a decent frontline attack aircraft which can sort of replace the Su-25. But it really needs some kind of stand-off air to ground weapon. Perhaps a fighter launched version of the Krizanthema or LMUR.

Let's go this way...
If these EU retards and recipients of the American transgeneder penis, whom Tsavo Lyon calls "allies", are going to buy the overpriced F-35, then maybe the Russians should do the same with the Su-75.

Why would the Russians bother and expose their Su-57 over Kaliningrad or over the Black Sea, when they can do the same with this plane.
The Poles, Norwegians and Finns (probably not France and YES Germany but in small numbers), as well as other servants from the EU, will pour a lot of money into the American MIC for the F-35 aircraft, and the USA will leave the NGAD for itself again.

As far as I can see from the writings in the media, the Su-75 gets everything the same as the Su-57, but in a smaller package; one less engine, probably a smaller radar (certainly not 5 radars like the Su-57), so it's a great plane over the Baltic or Black Sea.
And while the EU countries will pay a fortune for the F-35, the Russians will get the planes for their VVS at a relatively low price.
All things considered, that might not be such a bad idea.

Isos wrote:Without good air defence drones and missiles will be destroying those Rafales and weapons on the ground very easily.

Even more easily now that everyone saw how good a drone of 20000$ can be when armed with a 50kg warhead and 1500km range like the geran 2.

Such drones will kill the concept of fighter jets.

Nah. they'll just cover them with old used tires, that's all.  

It's not like they don't have hangars for any of them, or an early warning radar network with a sophisticated ADS.  They're even developing a huge new weapons industry and leading it is a company called EDGE which is producing all sorts of incredible new precision glide bomb kits (similar to JDAMs but even better as they can be launched off any platform type by simply using a tablet and doesn't rely on GPS or any of the aircraft's avionics systems for guidance), A2A & A2G & cruise missiles as well as a plethora of other weapons.  Yesterday was the last day of this year's Dubai airshow and there were some incredible exhibits of new weapons from almost every manufacturer including this UAE-based co. Drones were a huge part this year's show for obvious reasons including anti-drone weaponry.  

It's ironically hilarious and so predictable that for every newly innovative and revolutionary weapon created, almost the same exact effort is put into creating one that counters it.  

Manned fighter jets "might" become a thing of the past, but I highly doubt fighter jets are going away anytime soon.  

Besides, the point was that they stuck it to the US by making that purchase and by all indications, it's almost a certainty that they'll be the first foreign customer of the Checkmate.    

And how great is that name?  Now NATO will be forced to use it instead of coming up with another one of their own insulting silly 'codenames'.  Too bad Sukhoi didn't think of doing that for the Su-57.  They should've called it the Berkut and not the Su-47.

Maybe MIG could start from the beginning developing it as a naval fighter, in order to reserve a dedicated niche

I keep telling people you can have a cheap fighter with two engines... the F-5 is a perfect example, and the MiG-29M and MiG-35 are intended as low operational cost fighters to be the numbers aircraft to fill gaps when operating larger aircraft.

I very much doubt the Russian Navy would accept a single engined deck carrier fighter so the carrier fighter has to be a twin engined aircraft, but making it rugged for heavy landings on short strips actually makes it good for modern wars because it is better able to operate from motorways and rough air strips.

Don't see two engines as being double the maintenance... new engines should be low maintenance anyway... two engines just means you can get more power into the aircraft.

The MiG-29 with two 8 ton thrust engines... the alternative would have been a single Su-27 engine which means just under 13 tons thrust... 16 tons is superior even if the engine weight is bigger with two engines.

My opinion is that the Su-57 should replace ALL aircraft currently in production including the Su-34.

Sounds a bit excessive, there is nothing wrong with their Su-35s and the Su-30s are getting upgrades to Su-35 standard and equipment... these are potent aircraft and Russia is an enormous country so just having low numbers of large expensive aircraft is not going to give you good coverage.

Essentially you are saying your cops are 7 foot tall but you only have 6 to work all of Moscow...

What is the purpose of the S-70 but to replace the Su-34 ?

Actually the S-70 will likely work with manned aircraft for different roles... with an Su-57 it could fly high and launch long range AAMs at targets threatening them, or it could fly into enemy airspace and record all the radar stations that light up and missiles that get fired at it so the Su-57 can start destroying air defence platforms just inside enemy territory. For the Su-34 it might carry high speed anti radiation missiles or glide bombs again to hit any ground targets that try to engage the Su-34 on its mission. It might also carry medium and long range AAMs to engage enemy fighters trying to stop the aircraft.

The Su-30SM should be the first on the kill list, and if the US is already producing the F-15 again, then the Su-35S should remain on the production lines - at least until the end of this decade.

The Su-30s will eventually be two seated Su-35s with the same engines and radar etc etc so they can operate on the same spares and components and support and the maintenance is the same.

The West, that is, the USA, has not started to develop a new attack aircraft, so neither should Russia.

Didn't you start this post by saying Russia should not try to copy the west?

Kudos to the Su-25, it has done a very good job in its operational career, but it is time to move on.

Adding the radar and sensors they are putting on the Ka-52M and the Mi-28NM and the new missiles and rocket launchers and weapons I would think upgrade options for the Su-25 would be enormous and straight forward with much of the systems already developed for the helicopters.

Linking tank crew commanders with helicopter and CAS aircraft seeing what they see via their optics and radar and being able to mark targets and where friendly forces are should revolutionise their ability to smash problems on the front line... especially f the Su-34 is logged in and can deliver 1.5 ton glide bombs to really shift the terrain around.

In total; 350 heavy fighters, 150 interceptors and about 200 to 300 light fighters. Everything else can be taken over by drones and kamikaze-drones, the development of which will especially progress in the future.

Normally light fighters are two to one with heavy fighters so 500-600 single engined light 5th gen stealthy fighter to harrass enemy forces over the front line...

Oh it's definitely fan art.  But where do you see 2 engines in either of those pics, ma man?  The top one looks like they butchered the nozzle to maybe make it look like it's flaming out but he botched it big time.  The 2nd one looks a bit pudgy if you ask me, but I still don't see a 2nd engine.  I am 57 and eyesight is on its way no doubt but there's no way I could be missing a 2nd nozzle in either of those pics.

Eh?

Talking about this image:



Engine one being original engine where the tail is and second engine being rotatable vertical lift engine whose engine intake is just behind where the front wheel is when it is retracted. It is a tiny engine but the engines the Yak-141 used as lift engines were very small and sat vertically behind the cockpit.

Russia needs a single-engine jet fighter. It does not have to be high volume, but it will serve as an experience accumulation platform. The fixation on two engines
is a fetish.

I would say the opposite... single engined aircraft are the fetish. If you can make a plane that is small but has two engines that is as cheap or cheaper than a single engined fighter then the twin engined aircraft makes more sense.

The hilarious thing is all the people demanding a new single engined 5th gen fighter reject the MiG single engined 5th gen light fighter model out of hand... without really knowing very much about it... it seems only Sukhoi single engined fighters can be considered...

Russia can afford the Su-75. The problem is that there are too many monetarist maggots in the Russian government
whose full time job is to convince the government and Russians that Russia is poor and weak.

The whole concept of a light fighter is a cheap fighter to allow larger numbers of aircraft to be used without costing too much like a fleet of Su-57s only.

Whether the aircraft has one engine or two does not actually matter, it is the price to buy and the operational costs and of course the number that crash in use because there is only one engine.

A few hundred Su-75 based in western and southern Russia wouldn´t hurt the defence against
those Neo-con led morons.

Except the Su-75 wont be ready for operational use for at least another 5 years bare minimum... the cheap lighter aircraft is already in production and low rate service and is called the MiG-35 which everyone ignores.

We need to realize that our desires are not Russia's desires.

If they wanted cheap and numbers then they could have had 150 MiG-29Ms in service by now, but they clearly wanted performance too, so I suspect they have decided they really want to wait till the 5th gen light fighter is ready for testing and its costs can be assessed realistically to decide whether their numbers aircraft will be a 4th gen fighter in the form of the MiG-35 or 5th gen fighter like the new MiG or Su-75. Any new engine and radar they develop for the new fighter they can fit to the MiG-35 as an interrum upgrade.

10 ton thrust engines or perhaps even 11 or 12 ton thrust from an RD-33 sized engine would be interesting on the MiG-35... especially if thrust vectoring versions are used... and of course new radar and new avionics and systems...

It is a decent frontline attack aircraft which can sort of replace the Su-25. But it really needs some kind of stand-off air to ground weapon. Perhaps a fighter launched version of the Krizanthema or LMUR.

Lightly built fighters have never done very well in the CAS role... too fragile.

And while the EU countries will pay a fortune for the F-35, the Russians will get the planes for their VVS at a relatively low price.

Honestly even an Su-35 would be overkill against F-35s, and far cheaper... Su-35s are about 50 million a pop which is half the price of an F-35 just to start with and don't require 50-60 maintenance hours for every flight hour.

Nah. they'll just cover them with old used tires, that's all.

It's not like they don't have hangars for any of them, or an early warning radar network with a sophisticated ADS

Missiles will go through hangars like a hot knife in butter. You can expect a drones with a hardened warhead and a booster for a final attack to pierce into the hangar too.

UAE have a small territory, they can't use a strategical deapth to hide their planes further away like Russia or Saudi arabia. Such country are easy to overwhelm.

GarryB wrote:
Eh?

Talking about this image:

Ah, I thought you were talking about the two pictures I had posted, my bad.  I thought I was going blind for a second there but sounds more like senility instead!

GarryB wrote:Engine one being original engine where the tail is and second engine being rotatable vertical lift engine whose engine intake is just behind where the front wheel is when it is retracted. It is a tiny engine but the engines the Yak-141 used as lift engines were very small and sat vertically behind the cockpit.

Yeah the F-35's entire forward lift fan & rotating nozzle combination is the exact duplicate of the Yak-141.  IIRC, that's what actually got it past the X-32 in the JSF competition.  The X-32's lift ducting from that gaping pelican intake sucking up recycled hot air from the vents created overheating issues and, in some cases, caused engine popping especially closer to the ground where it would suck in even more of the wicked hot air from the vents.  The Harrier had similar issues in the early stages of its production.  But you brought up the Yak-141 and it reminded me really that the F-35B's entire VTOL operating system is identical to that of the Yak-141 which was developed in the late 80's IIRC and that little engine in the front being the same as the forward lift fan in the F-35B would pull cooler air from above the aircraft negating those overheating issues in the X-32B.  

But speaking of the X-32's gaping pelican intake, notice any similarities to a certain new Russian prototype?  




 
Obviously the pelican's is gigantic by comparison, but in general the Su-75 seems to be following in the same lines as the X-32 including the absence of the H-stabs.  Great payback as far as I see it.

Isos wrote:
Missiles will go through hangars like a hot knife in butter. You can expect a drones with a hardened warhead and a booster for a final attack to pierce into the hangar too.

UAE have a small territory, they can't use a strategical deapth to hide their planes further away like Russia or Saudi arabia. Such country are easy to overwhelm.

Wait, weren't you saying how it would cost 5,000 euros to build a quick cheap hangar to protect an IL-76s from the Urkrainian drones?  

All the Arab countries mostly have hardened shelters for their aircraft and just because there is a phantom threat out there, doesn't mean you don't go out and buy as much of the best of what you think will protect your country, strategic depth notwithstanding.  I always tell these people running these countries they should hire us because we have all the right answers to all their problems.  Not sure why they never listen to me?  

How the hell did we get here anyway? lol. My only point was that the article on the start of the production samples most likely has to do with the UAE and that it will most likely be the 1st foreign operator of the Su-75 Checkmate and how it got there was probably because it was denied the F-35.  They seem to think the next best thing out there is between the two aircraft they seem to have purchased, at least one we know of for sure which is the 80 Rafales with the NEON UCAVs and the other appears to be the Su-75.

Everyone everywhere is facing threats doesn't mean they don't shore up their military and air force and BTW, the UAE has bases in several countries and looking to expand even more.  They have something up their sleeves the way they're going on this military venture and shopping spree.

Yes I said it.

Light hangars can protect against drones. But not against something that has a hardened warhead coming at mach 1 or mach 2, designed for destroying hangars.

GarryB wrote:
Eh?

Talking about this image:



Engine one being original engine where the tail is and second engine being rotatable vertical lift engine whose engine intake is just behind where the front wheel is when it is retracted. It is a tiny engine but the engines the Yak-141 used as lift engines were very small and sat vertically behind the cockpit.]

Same fan art with an elevated plane should explain it better perhaps?

A light fighter in the hi-lo mix is there to provide persistent, round-the-clock air cover without burning your heavy fighters. The bulk of the capability is provided by the heavy fighters the light fighters you just really need to have jets in the air at any given moment.

A good light fighter is not only cheap they have to be easy to maintain. Two engines running is two engines that need maintenance.

And the lethality of modern IADS as they are, stealth is an absolute requirement so you can't really get away with legacy light fighters nowadays. All they're good for is target practise.

If this plane really has a maximum take-off weight of up to 18 tons, then with the "izdeliye-30" it would be a beast.
It is difficult to know if this refers only to the gross weight, but even if it is, that mass is still 4.47 tons less than the F-35.
It takes 400-500 meters to take off, the range is up to 2800 km, and the flight ceiling is 16500 meters...
Supercruise speed; the highest supercruise speed is not less than Mach 1.8...
The effective dispersion area is 0.001 square meters. m.



https://topcor.ru/21065-nuzhen-li-novejshij-su-75-vks-rossii.html?yrwinfo=1628687648613463-10310027887565255300-sas3-0767-15b-sas-l7-balancer-8080-BAL-2729

... and now go and find some 15 cubic meters for fuel tanks What a Face

Use the technology developed for the TARDIS.
Plane is much bigger than it looks from the outside.

It is a decent frontline attack aircraft which can sort of replace the Su-25. But it really needs some kind of stand-off air to ground weapon. Perhaps a fighter launched version of the Krizanthema or LMUR. wrote:

It carries less ordnance than the Su57 to start with. Its really gonna be like a F35 but cheaper.. You know its not gonna be super special when Russia offers to work with external partners. Russia has a way of beating Americans with something half the price and with 90% of the tech which is what the SU75 will do (At least the price, Tech not so much, the SU75 might be innovative in some aspects)... The Pak-DP is entirely secret and Russian. Its gonna be Russia's F22. There are no plans to export that one. Its built strictly to the MoD requirements. No other Airforce could possibly support it or maintain it like Russia is going to in 2036 when it enters production..

And while the EU countries will pay a fortune for the F-35, the Russians will get the planes for their VVS at a relatively low price. All things considered, that might not be such a bad idea. wrote:

Unfortunately, whilst this is true for Russia (Su75s are expected to cost the MoD $40-60 million a piece with the whole weapons suite IF the MoD placed an order) it isn't true for external customers (The SU75s intended target market). The Su75 is likely gonna cost $110 million a piece with the full weapons package (Still a bargain considering you have to pay $120 million for a F35 alone before the AIM120s and all other Jammers and electronics are added at which point you easily pay $180-220 million a piece for your F35).. But whilst its a bargain, its gonna fit in with certain air forces that can almost afford a F35 but cant (Indian Airforce, Vietnam, Iran, Egypt, Brazil etc).. The lower budget ones it was made for just wont afford to buy 1(Uganda, Ethiopia, Algeria, Iraq etc). For 10 SU75s you could get almost 30 Su30SMs in their latest export configuration ($30 million for a SU30SM without the full weapons package and jammers, it rises to $50 million once those are added.) And I bet you most would be SU75 buyers are looking at that instead (Africa and less wealthy sides of Asia). I heard that it was considered to have Zhuk-AEs (AESAs used on Mig29s and their derivatives) redesigned for a new Su30Sm variant in the future (Not the SM-2, that only gains AL41F1s vs the AL31s and keeps the same archaic PESA). I can bet you many African countries are looking for this..

Missiles will go through hangars like a hot knife in butter. You can expect a drones with a hardened warhead and a booster for a final attack to pierce into the hangar too.

UAE have a small territory, they can't use a strategical deapth to hide their planes further away like Russia or Saudi arabia. Such country are easy to overwhelm.

The key is to punish that sort of behavour, so first of all stopping any shipping going past that is supplying oil to the countries that are going to attack you and steal their oil, secondly invest in decent modern air defence systems... Pantsir, TOR, SOSNA, even missile systems like Kornet-EM with HE warheads are good for use against small aerial targets. And thirdly discover where these drones are being launched from and destroy that location with ballistic missiles like Iskander and new export missiles with three or four times the range now the INF treaty is gone.

Of course the planes themselves would be useful in the latter case too of making any country attacking you pay a price that makes others not want to try.

Ah, I thought you were talking about the two pictures I had posted, my bad. I thought I was going blind for a second there but sounds more like senility instead!

All good. I make mistakes myself often enough to not walk around with a T Shirt saying I am god....

Plus looking at the image again I only just noticed the pink outline showing the main engine nozzle pointed down for VTOL.

What does have me perplexed is the fact that the forward engine is not aligned vertically for vertical lift, which makes me wonder if the installation allows its use in forward flight.. or if its engine exhaust is angled for vertical lift and possibly can be shifted for forwards thrust too, but that would add a lot of complication.

Yeah the F-35's entire forward lift fan & rotating nozzle combination is the exact duplicate of the Yak-141.

Not as far as I know... I am sure Mir and Alamo will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the core problem with the Yak-141 was that the lift jets... amazing as they are... they are tiny and only about 300kgs each and put out the same power each as the engines in the Su-25 (each). The problem is that no matter what surface you operate on jet engines directing their thrust down onto the surface reflects the engine blast back up to the belly of the aircraft, meaning belly mounted weapons are a no no. You also need screens to stop that hot air flowing forward into the main air intakes because that air is hot and most of its oxygen has already been consumed so if it goes in the main intake and goes to the main rear engine you will lose thrust because the fuel wont burn so well because of the lack of oxygen and the air is already hot and thin so the volume of the air going through is reduced... remember this happens when you are close to the ground in hover mode where you really don't want to lose main engine thrust... for takeoff you accelerate forward so the chances of hot air going in the front air intake is low but when landing you slow down by angling the thrust forward which angles the air spillage forward too... which is where your main air intakes are. Maybe an auxiliary air intake on top of the tail for landings and takeoff might have been the solution.

I believe the solution the Americans envisaged was to get rid of the lift jets and replace it with a large diameter fan that was powered by the main rear engine... that means the airflow is oxygen rich and cold and dense so it offers good thrust force that can go in the front intake and you can cover the belly with weapons as long as they are not in the way of the large fan or the undercarriage.

The problem with the fan is that it is huge and it takes up an enormous amount of room, and needs empty space above for the air to come in and below for the air to flow through so it is a big chunk of the aircraft you can't use for anything else really. Part of the problem with its size is to do with aircraft shaping... most supersonic aircraft have a sort of body shaping... sometimes called the coke bottle shape that reduces drag and makes supersonic speed more practical... the fan prevents the F-35 having a good F-16 like shape so despite having an enormously powerful engine it does not accelerate well and it is not particularly fast.

Other factors are important too of course... the F-16 is a mach 2 only plane because it has a simple air intake. If they added half a ton of complexity to the air intake it easily has the engine power to go mach 2.2-2.3, but they wanted to make the plane simple and cheaper and didn't think the extra speed would matter enough.

So selling engine technology to the Americans led to them making the F-35 the way it is. It was Yak technology that allowed them to create a thrust vectoring nozzle that could handle the full power afterburner thrust of that very powerful engine. Remember the Harrier never had an afterburner.

In many ways that technology enabled the F-35 to go forward and for Yak to make a bit of cash which they likely spent on the Yak-130, so they will be happy.

Looking at this design it does not appear that the front engine is connected to the rear engine... perhaps the front engine is electric and sucks/blows cold air which is vectored downwards with nozzles and it is horizontal to not take up much room but still share the airflow through the normal air intakes of the aircraft.

Or, as I said it might just be fan art.

The problem with a two engined Su-75 like this is that two engines in a VSTOL design reduces safety rather than increases it because failure of either engine during landing will likely lead to the loss of the aircraft.

But speaking of the X-32's gaping pelican intake, notice any similarities to a certain new Russian prototype?

But notice the American intake is larger in area because it is sucking in air for two engines in the hover (where airspeed does not assist air flow into the intake).

Large aircraft like the Tu-22M3 have suction relief doors to allow more air to get to the engine at takeoff when the forward speed of the aircraft is slow, so it s like breathing through a straw... putting holes in the straw near your lips allows more air to flow into your mouth.

The obvious question is why have such a long "straw" in the first place, and that is because when the aircraft is flying at 10km altitude and is moving at near top speed that straw reduces airflow nicely... in fact the intake edges narrow to further reduce the amount of air going into the intake and reaching the engine slower than it went into the intake.

Obviously the pelican's is gigantic by comparison, but in general the Su-75 seems to be following in the same lines as the X-32 including the absence of the H-stabs. Great payback as far as I see it.

The X-32 was sabotaged from the start and I think they just used the money for the programme to work a bit more on stealth for their other projects.

Remember just because an aircraft loses a competition does not make it a bad aircraft... it just didn't meet the requirements of the time.

The Mi-28 lost to the Ka-50, but later it won the role again and was put into production... Kamov had argued that a single seat attack helicopter was possible if the systems were automated enough and their Shkval system was pretty interesting for the time. A pilot in an Su-25 didn't need a second crewman so why should a helicopter they argued. Of course flying at low altitude in a helicopter is a full time job at night so they decided their helicopters needed two crew so we got the Ka-52.

Helicopters are safer operating at night.

Wait, weren't you saying how it would cost 5,000 euros to build a quick cheap hangar to protect an IL-76s from the Urkrainian drones?

Actually the best defence would be 10,000 aircraft shelters where you can move aircraft between shelters so the shelter they went into might not be the shelter they are in and wont be the shelter they leave... and of course proper air defence systems... but buying fighters from Russia you might as well by air defences to protect your investments.

Ironically with Su-75s being 40 million dollars each the Europeans could do more financial damage to them by blowing up any AH64s they operate which cost more... or their Chinooks which are almost double that price... It is ironic that the most valuable targets are sold by the west...

They seem to think the next best thing out there is between the two aircraft they seem to have purchased, at least one we know of for sure which is the 80 Rafales with the NEON UCAVs and the other appears to be the Su-75.

Ironically by the time they have Su-75s their air defences might consist of AI controlled suicide drones that operate on their airfields destroying any potential threat including birds.

Light hangars can protect against drones. But not against something that has a hardened warhead coming at mach 1 or mach 2, designed for destroying hangars.

Light interconnected hangars to stop drones and confuse the enemy regarding which hangar they need to hit, and air defence missiles and guns and drones to stop those supersonic threats.

Same fan art with an elevated plane should explain it better perhaps?

Interesting, so I am guessing they feed air from the main air intakes which are likely bigger on that model, so do they have a flexible nozzle for directing the air downwards for vertical operations... it would be far enough forward from the centre of the wing (presumably the centre of gravity of the aircraft)...

A light fighter in the hi-lo mix is there to provide persistent, round-the-clock air cover without burning your heavy fighters. The bulk of the capability is provided by the heavy fighters the light fighters you just really need to have jets in the air at any given moment.

Once your big more capable fighters have cleared the skies of the enemy aircraft the smaller fighters can fly around finding targets on the ground and dealing with them...

If you look at how aircraft are actually armed in real combat... a couple of bombs... dumb or guided that are precision delivered and these days a guided glide kit makes the plane even safer.... usually four air to air missiles... two medium or long range and two short range, and an anti radiation missile if a radar lights you up... with every aircraft carrying that it does not matter if 10 radars turn on because when 6 of you launch ARMs at them they will quickly turn off and your MAWS will pinpoint their location so drones and recon aircraft and suicide drones can all start heading for those locations. Of course some of you might accelerate and climb and release a few 250kg guided glide bombs to hit those other radars too.

Sweeping the battlefield with your AESA radar and IIR optics pods and sending the data to platforms on the ground is useful too.

Two engines running is two engines that need maintenance.

When an aircraft is down for maintenance you can have two teams working on two engines so it wont take a lot longer.

Certainly different engines require different levels of maintenance, and the engines for single engined fighters tend to be rather more powerful than engines designed for twin jets. This means the single engines are often more expensive to buy and to operate... even more significantly in a single engined design where the maintenance wont be the same as for that same engine in a twin jet aircraft. the consequences of losing an engine in flight in a single engined aircraft are rather more dire than with a twin engined aircraft... so maintenance would be more conservative and thorough.

And the lethality of modern IADS as they are, stealth is an absolute requirement so you can't really get away with legacy light fighters nowadays. All they're good for is target practise.

I don't like to suggest it but I suspect many of the Russian aircraft that have been shot down have probably been friendly fire... they did change the organisation of the air defence forces...

If this plane really has a maximum take-off weight of up to 18 tons, then with the "izdeliye-30" it would be a beast.

I would say most of the time it will carry internal weapons only which means it will not be carrying its full payload potential so not only will it be lighter than that most of the time but internal carriage of weapons means low drag because no external weapons or ordinance.

You know its not gonna be super special when Russia offers to work with external partners.

Well cooperation with India on the Su-30 actually made the Su-30MKI much more expensive because they wanted expensive French and Israeli components that ramped up the price. In this case though, this is the UAE working with Sukhoi... and I suspect they wont want foreign gear in the aircraft simply because of the risk of sanctions... the UAE made the Pantsir a great system and spent the money to make it a much better system than it could have been. Hopefully they will do the same with this fighter.

Some Su-75 customers might want other gear from other makers but they will have to pay for that themselves, but that will of course ruin the low cost feature of the aircraft so I suspect no one is going to be that stupid... but sadly I could be wrong.

Russia has a way of beating Americans with something half the price and with 90% of the tech which is what the SU75 will do (At least the price, Tech not so much, the SU75 might be innovative in some aspects)...

Very true, but with the F-35 they could make the Su-75 out of pure gold and it would still be cheaper... the American MIC is just taking the piss now and don't care how obvious their greed has become. The Pentagon seems to have decided the way to deal with thieves is to throw more money at them and it is not working in the taxpayers interests.

Part of the problem is that Pentagon officials retire to jobs in the US MIC so of course they ignore theft because that is their retirement nest egg they are protecting.

The Pak-DP is entirely secret and Russian. Its gonna be Russia's F22.

The US and west have no equivalent to the MiG-31/PAK DP, because they don't have large numbers of bombers and cruise missiles threatening their borders 24/7.

The development of scramjet engines means cruise missiles with sufficient ranges that don't have ballistic paths so ABM systems are not effective, become rather interesting and the US and west will have to develop an interceptor able to deal with large numbers of threats at one time.

Unfortunately, whilst this is true for Russia (Su75s are expected to cost the MoD $40-60 million a piece with the whole weapons suite IF the MoD placed an order) it isn't true for external customers (The SU75s intended target market). The Su75 is likely gonna cost $110 million a piece with the full weapons package (Still a bargain considering you have to pay $120 million for a F35 alone before the AIM120s and all other Jammers and electronics are added at which point you easily pay $180-220 million a piece for your F35)..

The prices bandied around for the Su-75 are the export costs and they were saying 40-50 million per aircraft and less than $10K per flight hour in maintenance... which is a fraction of the price of the F-35 in every regard. I am not sure Russia would get it a lot cheaper, but the point is that it will massively undercut the price of the F-35 and Rafale and Typhoon and any new 5th gen fighter they might get into serial production... this aircraft is all about arming the rest of the world to make the colonial white west less able to bully other countries.

But whilst its a bargain, its gonna fit in with certain air forces that can almost afford a F35 but cant (Indian Airforce, Vietnam, Iran, Egypt, Brazil etc)..

They mentioned an impact on F-35 sales but they talked about a modern 21st Century MiG-21... an affordable modern fighter that anyone can afford that is actually stealthy. (as stealthy as anything else really).

The lower budget ones it was made for just wont afford to buy 1(Uganda, Ethiopia, Algeria, Iraq etc).

The IMF will likely bully any country that owes it money not to buy it but even poor countries should be able to afford it if it is politically acceptable.

For instance New Zealand wont be allowed to consider it. But Argentina might to defend its territory if you understand my meaning.

For 10 SU75s you could get almost 30 Su30SMs in their latest export configuration ($30 million for a SU30SM without the full weapons package and jammers, it rises to $50 million once those are added.)

Adjusted to the correct prices you can reverse that... you can get 30 stealthy 5th gen light fighters for the price of 10 Su-30 heavy 4th gen fighters... bargain.

And I bet you most would be SU75 buyers are looking at that instead (Africa and less wealthy sides of Asia). I heard that it was considered to have Zhuk-AEs (AESAs used on Mig29s and their derivatives) redesigned for a new Su30Sm variant in the future (Not the SM-2, that only gains AL41F1s vs the AL31s and keeps the same archaic PESA). I can bet you many African countries are looking for this..

There was an article not that long ago that stated that their Su-30s would be upgraded to Su-35 standard with all the same stuff... radars, IRST, engines, etcetc... to reduce costs and improve commonality and simplify support and maintenance and reduce the numbers of different aircraft and radar and systems they have in service.

There is nothing archaic about PESA... for most of the 1980s and 1990s the PESA radar in the MiG-31 was the most capable radar in an aircraft... bar AWACS types.

ALAMO wrote:... and now go and find some 15 cubic meters for fuel tanks
Sorry to spoil the game

Didn't you notice those stealthy conformal tanks? Besides those lift engines act as "sniffers" - sucking up polluted air particles and converting it into combustible fuel and excreting the "waist" as pure oxygen. Sorry patent pending

To Garry...

A few days ago it was announced that with afterburner thrust "izdeliye-30" engines would give the maximum power up to 17.5 - 19.5 tons. With the latter figure, that engine would reach the power of the F135-PW-100.

If the maximum take-off weight of the Su-75 was 18 tons, it would be the same as for the MiG-29.
And this also means that one "izdeliye-30" engine would have to power the Su-75 aircraft, which has a nearly 50% lower maximum allowable take-off mass than the Su-57.
What is the truth, time will tell.
The F-35 has a gross weight of 22.4 tons, and the largest takeoff weight is 29.9 tons. Even if for the Su-75 mass refers to gross weight, I think that the maximum permissible take-off weight would not exceed 23 to 24 tons. So a much lighter plane with an equally powerful engine.

It may be better to spend resources on the cheaper Su-75s over the Baltics and the Black Sea than on the Su-57s, since the NATO countries in that area will have nothing but single-engine F-35 fighters.
The Norwegians won't get NGAD, the Poles won't get NGAD. The UK won't get it either.
And since those NATO slaves, the Finns, are planning to buy over 60 F-35s, then a certain number of these planes should be placed against them.

Podlodka77 wrote:To Garry...
It may be better to spend resources on the cheaper Su-75s over the Baltics and the Black Sea than on the Su-57s, since the NATO countries in that area will have nothing but single-engine F-35 fighters.
The Norwegians won't get NGAD, the Poles won't get NGAD. The UK won't get it either.
And since those NATO slaves, the Finns, are planning to buy over 60 F-35s, then a certain number of these planes should be placed against them.

Honestly just having a good IADS and nuclear Iskanders solves all of those problems, though having extra aircraft to finish of whats left would not hurt.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Honestly just having a good IADS and nuclear Iskanders solves all of those problems, though having extra aircraft to finish of whats left would not hurt.

Why would nuclear iskander be needed? Noone is threatening Russia with nuclear weapons

And the Americans will not trade their own cities for Helsinki or any other NATO state

This is why France has its own independent nuclear deterrent, its well known in Europe that Washington will not use nuclear weapons on Russia for eastern European countries

So conventional weapons are sufficient to beat limitrophe states , against F35, Su35 and s400 with AWACS is enough