New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021

Backman wrote:I see a few bumps on the underside that could be an Eo complex. Even if its a computer graphic, they wouldn't show this if it didnt have it.

This was either computer graphic or a model picture. It's on the right side of the front wheel and the picture I give was from the right side, so it should be in front of front wheel and it is not that small, considering the size of front wheel doors. Also on the picture you could see, that front wheel doors and weapon bay doors are not real and they are closed. It's not from this plane, we could see now preparing for MAKS. Anyway, not all prototypes wear all sensors, what we could well see with Su-57 prototypes, only those for last stage for combat testings are fully equipped with them. It will get it, when it will be time to get it. At the early stage it is not needed.

Whatever it turns out to be next week this is a really top grade piece of PR, up with the best in the World.

Not something the Russians are really known for, especially when combined with some really aggressive trolling. Great stuff.

Doubles all round for that team.

Perhaps the Russian proposition to the Indians -" you can keep building cannon fodder for the Chinese or take a 3 generation leap with aircraft design by licensing this beauty. "

Maybe they can call it the Ostryy in Indian service .lol

Isos wrote:]

Is it me or does that look like a heavy duty front suspension?

Interesting light unit of the truss. Expect some demanding lightwork at the launch.

ALPHA PROFILE 1500, the most powerful moving head spotlight. It features a unique framing system that allows extremely precise and versatile beam shape control (patented), making this light the most suitable for the most demanding lighting sets.

George1 wrote:Russian 5th-gen light single-engine fighter
Chinese FC-31,
American F-35
South Korean KF-21 Boramae

Yes, there is a completely rational reason for it:


Said so, we already have ascertained that there are elements of this new plane that make it VERY different from all them.
Most obvious is that it have not an horizontal tail plane.
Second one and IMHO of almost equal importance is that it had a different intake. beginning BEFORE the cockpit, the front wheel and the EOTS/FLIR lodging.
That's is quite important as certainly such a solution would free up space to put bomb and missile bays on the side of the planes .
The same placement of the engine slightly upward the fuselage center is probably related to the same need to free up spaces for such bays.

Main tactical limitation of not russian stealth planes seems me exactly that : F-22 and J-20 are tailored for a standard A2A only load.
F-35 can carry larger bombs but with only 2 bays also final capability is not much better (and in case of B version in even scarcer).

Atmosphere's predictions for the rabies infested comments About the airplane :

The bread and butter:
Just a copy of F-35/ borrows from F-35
MIG bureau bad
The avionics will be shit

Some toppings:
The engine nozzle one more time
Mocking the maturation roadmap

I take it that the big deal of one of the aerodynamic designs of the NGAD is no horizontal stabilizers correct? Apparently the artwork of this aircraft is showing that as well. Interesting.

marcellogo wrote:
Yes, there is a completely rational reason for it:

In Quantum Mechanics you always have some scatter back to the source, no matter the angle. Total angular reflection is a classical
approximation. It's not the 1950s and weak signals are not equivalent to zero. Also, the Mig-31 is a long range interceptor with a
speed greater than any F-22 and F-35. It is not worried about US naval radars or the radars on the US carrier based aircraft.

Another weak point in this video is the treatment of radar installations as being in the same horizontal plane as the aircraft. That
sort of BS thinking is why the F-117A was shot down over Serbia. Approximations need to be quantified and justified and not just
asserted. All of this parallel plane fantasy is useless when the F-22 and F-35 bank to turn anyway.

Isos wrote:

That pic makes you think a little bit, because of the ventral intake which appears wide open, where is that forward landing gear going to tuck into when it's retracted?  You can't see much inside right now, but I would suspect that the bottom of the inside of the intake slopes up drastically right after the opening edge in order to create an enclosed space for the retracting gear and wheels and mechanism to all fold and tuck into.

kvs wrote:
In Quantum Mechanics you always have some scatter back to the source, no matter the angle.   Total angular reflection is a classical
approximation.   It's not the 1950s and weak signals are not equivalent to zero.  Also, the Mig-31 is a long range interceptor with a
speed greater than any F-22 and F-35.    It is not worried about US naval radars or the radars on the US carrier based aircraft.  

Another weak point in this video is the treatment of radar installations as being in the same horizontal plane as the aircraft.   That
sort of BS thinking is why the F-117A was shot down over Serbia.    Approximations need to be quantified and justified and not just
asserted.   All of this parallel plane fantasy is useless when the F-22 and F-35 bank to turn anyway.

It's a 10 minute video on internet, not some university lessons in which every facet of the very complex issues regarding Stealth would be resolved.

He has however published many other of such videos on the same argument in which it treat also the points you are making.
This one video was however spot on about the obvious fact that AT A FIRST LOOK most stealth planes look quite similar.

Well, Su-57 doesn't look as any other of such planes and I would bet than even this new one would seems different from others once fully revealed.
Looking it from the flank is more than enought to note how muchit is different from the Flying Brick when it come to aereodynamics and lenght.

Atmosphere wrote:Atmosphere's predictions for the rabies infested comments About the airplane :

Do not even try, these retards can devise stupidity which is beyond what any sane person can imagine.The last I have read is a claim that this will replace the Su-57... I mean, a normal person can be stupid in 1 or 2 dimensions, but these clowns manage it in a n-dimensional way, it is extraordinary

Gomig-21 wrote:That pic makes you think a little bit, because of the ventral intake which appears wide open, where is that forward landing gear going to tuck into when it's retracted?  You can't see much inside right now, but I would suspect that the bottom of the inside of the intake slopes up drastically right after the opening edge in order to create an enclosed space for the retracting gear and wheels and mechanism to all fold and tuck into.

Yeah I thought that too. There are two options I guess: either we don't see well enough, because the picture sucks big time, or it is a mock up and they are not giving enough details about certain key layout features. That would make it likely that we will not get too much info about the bays either, as we still don¡t even have it for the Su-57...

The best detail IMHO is the tapered fuselage towards the wing, though I don't quite think the real design will be like that, because the transition he makes generates lots of differently inclined planes which are not good for RCS. The dimensions are really f**** up. The intake proposal is interesting but I am not convinced, it makes more sense that it is placed a bit backwards and does not protrude to the sides.

I didn't notice it much till this pic. But the verticals wrap around the back of the engine like the YF-23 does. This is easier to do with 1 engine. Its a heat shield and protection for the engine.

LMFS wrote:

Atmosphere wrote:Atmosphere's predictions for the rabies infested comments About the airplane :

Do not even try, these retards can devise stupidity which is beyond what any sane person can imagine.The last I have read is a claim that this will replace the Su-57... I mean, a normal person can be stupid in 1 or 2 dimensions, but these clowns manage it in a n-dimensional way, it is extraordinary

It cannot be under estimated how bitter and insulting these bastards are. WTF is their problem.

I just checked F-16.net and yeah. Living in an alternative reality. Simply delusional. And yet they don't have much of anything to say about the J-31. But when this aircraft is unveiled, they won't shut up about it. These are the kind of people who aren't worth having technical arguments with. They are arguing in bad faith. You cant have an honest conversation with them.

There is only 3 pages on it on F-16.net. Here is some lowlights:

For a looong time I've been thinking the Russians must be working on something else, that Su57 can not be more than an interim aircraft.

Anyway, this proves that going ahead with the Su-57 was a huge mistake!

And they wonder why we pour on the scorn for their F-ups. I wouldn't scorn them as much if it wasn't for their petty shit.

Judging by these lines, I doubt this will be a DSI intake. Which is good IMO. Non DSI might be a factor in why it doesn't need horizontal tails. And why the F-35 and J-31 have them.

From Paralay board

It may be combined, like in the PAK-FA. The IRST at the nose is for air combat, for strike you need down-looking EOTS

Like the MiG-35 with top of nose IRST (for air to air targets), but also downward looking IRST on the engine position for ground targets and looking backwards...

I love speculations but it's best to wait till July 20.

I live in New Zealand... I have to wait till the 21st...

Their lack of self sufficiency when it comes to military innovation drives them to be so bitter towards Russia, while they quietly queue up [most likely] as the 2nd and 3rd customers of the Su-57 after Algeria.

And it is sad because it is so unnecessary... making good stuff is hard... or everyone would already be doing it... what is good for Russia might not be good for any other country and vice versa... to tell if a Chinese product is good or not you need to know what it is for and it needs to be used against an opponent that tries to defeat it before we can tell for sure if it is any good.

The Russians made lots of changes to most of the gear they took to Syria for testing... but it is how you achieve good gear.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, commenting on the incident with the British destroyer Defender off the coast of Crimea, said that if colleagues do not understand what Russia's borders are, then “we can bomb”. Meanwhile, the British ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office for a tough demarche.

The really odd thing is that the Royal Navy thinks the waters are Ukrainian, but the Royal Air force does not seem interested in taking shortcuts across Ukrainian airspace in the Crimea...

Meanwhile, earlier the British authorities made a statement that the destroyer of the Royal Navy allegedly did not enter Russian territorial waters and was not fired upon .

Something video footage of the incident and reports by civilian reporters on the British Navy ship contradicted...

So just to be sure the journo is a little retarded for stating optical radar, when it looks like the F-35 EOTs? Use of words matter.

By optical radar they mean IRST/ EO targeting pod for ground targets.... ie Thermal imager and IRST and likely magnified optics and laser range finder/target marker/marked target seeker etc etc...

Reminds me of MiG SKAT UAV, anyone remember that situation and how it turned out?

Yes... exactly... the MiG-SKAT clearly lost the competition to the S-70 and so it was revealed first to try to get export sales and financial support to develop it... and it failed, while it is the S-70 that is going into serial production in a few years time.

MiG can't even supply MiG-35 even after 30 years, expecting them to supply it's replacement is realm of fantasy

The MiG-35 they are supplying is current state of the art and is only ready for production now... look at the Typhoon and Rafale and F-35 and Gripen... none of them entered service fully operational and fully capable ready to go out of the box... the early model Typhoons are being retired now because it would cost more to upgrade them to the current useful standard than to build a new plane.

I think most (including myself) expected something smaller, more along the size of the F-35 probably just subconsciously.

If they wanted cheaper then smaller makes sense, but then as I said... a small cheap 5th gen fighter is not attainable... a larger aircraft has more capabilities and potential for development and growth... it makes more sense to take a medium plane and make it simpler and cheaper, than a small plane like a LIFT and make it bigger and more capable as a light fighter.

Oh we don't have to have an insufferable discussion about them, I just thought of it since the last one they came up with was just terribly insulting, and so it makes one wonder about this one.

They called it Felon because it stole their thunder... like the Su-27 vs the F-15 they had a benchmark to beat and they beat it...

Can we conclude it's called the Checkmate by Rostec & Sukhoi, or does Checkmate refer to something else?

A declaration of victory... the F-35 has folded and the F-15 is being put back into production to try to fix their problems... then Russia says checkmate...

HATO would not use Checkmate as a name because it breaks their naming convention rules...

That 30 sec trailer is better made than most contemporary Russian movies

When they have sold a few planes out of this maybe a Russian Top gun could be produced with lots of eye candy...

That pic makes you think a little bit, because of the ventral intake which appears wide open, where is that forward landing gear going to tuck into when it's retracted?  You can't see much inside right now, but I would suspect that the bottom of the inside of the intake slopes up drastically right after the opening edge in order to create an enclosed space for the retracting gear and wheels and mechanism to all fold and tuck into.

S shaped intake?

For the landing gear wheel retraction but also belly and side mounted weapon bays....

When I see the intakes come up past the wing level on some speculation about the intake designs I think of this:



Which is supposed to be the MiG-41... but obviously it does not have enough intake area for a high speed aircraft flying at high altitude.

It is like a 5th gen MiG-21 really.

The extreme forward intake would suit VSTOL and the engine at the back moved into the fuselage closer to the cg would further support that, but talk of commonality with the S-70 is hilarious after chats with LMFS about how the S-70 is a flying wing brick that could not be used for an unmanned fighter... a light 5th gen fighter would need to be able to manouver hard because that is its reason for being, though after the enemy airpower has been dealt with then it would become a bomb truck with external weapons of course.

The twin wheel nose wheel suggest that despite being a light aircraft it should be able to carry a heavy payload or a lot of fuel when needed (heavy for its size obviously).

Heavy undercarriage would also be useful for operations from short air strips or carrier aircraft decks.

I did enjoy the trolling of the British... nice work... as a "light" fighter it would need to have a full swing role capability like the MiG-35 with its air to air optronics and its air to ground optronics built in for air and ground targets to be engaged if needed.

Backman wrote:From Paralay board

Difference is that in the real one the intake is not just ventral but encompasses also the upper part of the fuselage with its maximum width at the junction with the wing.
The main difference with the "5 gen Mig-21" Garry B posted is however that intake margin is not straight vertical but goes inward to merge itself with the wings.
The fact that such junction have two different angles above and bottom the radar dome seems me to exclude such plane being just a model or a non flying prototype as one can reach such design finesse just making the thing fly.

@backman

Not trying to be funny but it seems F-16.net is a little better than secretprojects, because it seems that in secretprojects the staff getting involved are pointing it more to a 4th gen while F-16.net at least compares it to an F-35 which they say is a 5th gen. Along with another staff member and users thinking they will sacrifice production numbers on Su-57s or halt it for this design while Yuri's intention of the Sukhoi department is different which he favors orders for the Su-57 more and lets not forget the Su-70s either. So ironically the most pro-US aviation board gave at least better compliments to the shit going on over there last time I checked.

Atmosphere wrote:Atmosphere's predictions for the rabies infested comments About the airplane :

The bread and butter:
Just a copy of F-35/ borrows from F-35
MIG bureau bad
The avionics will be shit

Some toppings:
The engine nozzle one more time
Mocking the maturation roadmap

Dont forget:
Russia is poor so is begging indians
Only a prototype wile 700/1000/2000/20000 F-35s
20 years behind engines
20 years behind Aesa

Looking at what we have I think the intake does extend upwards towards the front of the cockpit. The bottom of the intake also seems to be quite close to the bottom of the nose.

Any idea the length of the wings, bigger than F-35?

So this should be it. It is a dirty hack, but I hope it is clear enough, despite the asymmetry caused by the picture not being taken exactly from the front. I think removing the tarp will completely change the visual impression we have now about the plane:


BTW, the "hump" after the canopy visible in the frontal view and the high position of the engine are clear signs of a weapons bay below the air duct. Also the opening of the landing gear doors supports the weapon bays opening to the bottom and not to the sides of the belly. The forward position of the intake and the very long fuselage indicate it is placed before the engine. I hope I am not wrong, this would be a very important design feature. The frontal section seems to be seriously smaller than that of the F-35, I guess Paralay and the rest of the Russian boys will dissect that to the minimum detail.

dino00 wrote:Any idea the length of the wings, bigger than F-35?

I saw some measurements saying 12 m wingspan, definitely more than the F-35A. I have not checked that in detail, but it seems indeed to have relatively big wings. Probably supercruising is not the most relevant requirement

EDIT: I am actually starting to think that the nose wheel is not in the middle of the plane but displaced to the left (form the pilot's PoV), with the EOTS at its right, as we saw in the last post by Rostec. Makes sense, to leave more space for such system, which normally is not specially small.