New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021

LMFS wrote:

Trolling the trolls

BTW, I feel totally vindicated with that tail!!

Sukhoi sculpts those configuration like a greek statue.
The thing to notice is the uniformity with Su-57 in the tail, canopy shape and and triangular dorso, as well as the IRST shape.
Consistency in certain areas proves that they are confident in the design solutions they picked and thus dp not need to reinvent the wheel.
If it was a messy design, you would find different solutions for the exact same situation.

Also, the fact that the IRST is round but that other under fuselage optic is faceted proves that the long standing Opinion (in this forum) that they actually know which solution fits which situation ended up being true.

LMFS wrote:My bet, based on the checks I did, is 2x A2G sized pieces of ordnance. Say Kh-69, GROM, Kh-58 and the whole range of internal carriage weapons developed for the Su-57. But just one bay instead of 2, of course...

So 3 bays altogether, right?  That one door we see open in this pic looks surprisingly huge.  Interesting that it's hinged on that side and not the other.  But I'm sure they have their much more well informed reasons for that.

Like you said in your other post, it does appear to be more than enough room for a ventral weapons bay as well.  You calculated 4.5 meters from the end of the nose wheel well to the start of the engine?  That's very reasonable and for me, I just eye it lol and it looks plenty.  But I'll go with your numbers to be better safe than sorry.

I also would think the side doors are more for A2A weapons and ventral bay is more for A2G munitions.  Are you suggesting the opposite is what will be the case here?

 

Backman wrote:@Gomig
Yeah. How many mock ups have a functional canopy ? And landing gear doors ? This is probably a stationary test bed. To see how everything fits.

Not quite a flying prototype but certainly not 3D vaporeware like we've seen of the Tempest , Fcas and TFX

IKR, I'm a bit perplexed TBH.  I'm seeing "mock-up" quite a bit in almost every thing I read, but figured it's mostly coming from detractors but that's not exactly the case all the time.  Here's the latest example as well as using the name Checkmate as if it's completely decided lol.  

https://theaviationist.com/2021/07/18/new-image-checkmate-design/

I'm with you, though, as far as at least a stationary test bed.  Nothing so far looks like plywood and epoxy and those usually certainly don't need to be wheeled by the front gear like jets moving around from hangar to tarmac and vice versa. So far no one has been able to articulate a legitimate reason for this being a "mock-up".

@LMFS
in your screenshot, we can notice that there are radiotransparent fairings, i wonder which antennae are they used for

LMFS wrote:

Gomig-21 wrote:So 3 bays altogether, right?  That one door we see open in this pic looks surprisingly huge.  Interesting that it's hinged on that side and not the other.  But I'm sure they have their much more well informed reasons for that.

That is my guess, yes. I see nothing strange in the front door (the one for the side WB) opening that way. For the size it seems valid for SRAAM at least, but it would be very good if MRAAM are also compatible with it, they can be rail launched. Maybe the weapon can hang from the bay door and be simply released, but the clearances look minimal and the release envelope would be very restrictive I think. I don't have reliable measurements, but I don't see that this bay would be capable for A2G weapons, the side of the plane increases its width progressively from the intake so at the front, where the intake needs the most space to funnel the air into the air duct, is the place where less depth is available for a side bay. So I think it is just for thin and shorter weapons like AAMs.

Like you said in your other post, it does appear to be more than enough room for a ventral weapons bay as well.  You calculated 4.5 meters from the end of the nose wheel well to the start of the engine?  That's very reasonable and for me, I just eye it lol and it looks plenty.  But I'll go with your numbers to be better safe than sorry.

My numbers are also guesswork, based on some evidence but not 100% reliable. The engine being relatively high and the rear side of the WB needing less depth (suspension points for the armament, which demand lots of free space, go further forward) it seems to me that there should be space for a proper air duct design, going above the WB.

I also would think the side doors are more for A2A weapons and ventral bay is more for A2G munitions.  Are you suggesting the opposite is what will be the case here?

No, I agree, see above. A2G, apart from the obvious volume difference, is less flexible for being released and is normally left to fall or ejected downwards, while some AAMs can be rail launched from the sides or ejected with ease in other directions.

Atmosphere wrote:@LMFS
in your screenshot, we can notice that there are radiotransparent fairings, i wonder which antennae are they used for

Well, to be honest I don't have evidence that they are radiotransparent, what makes you think so? Of course those back-facing surfaces are very interesting for eventual radars or EW equipment, it would make sense to place such equipment inside of them, as we know from the PAK-FA's LEVCON mounted L band arrays. Those arrays have a format that would actually fit that shape quite well...

Of course there is no evidence but what made me think so is the color discontinuity that is similar to the one where antennae are hidden in the Su-57.
So i thought maybe an ELINT antenna could fit or something else.

We need 3 squadrons, at least.

LMFS wrote:That is my guess, yes. I see nothing strange in the front door (the one for the side WB) opening that way. For the size it seems valid for SRAAM at least, but it would be very good if MRAAM are also compatible with it, they can be rail launched. Maybe the weapon can hang from the bay door and be simply released, but the clearances look minimal and the release envelope would be very restrictive I think. I don't have reliable measurements, but I don't see that this bay would be capable for A2G weapons, the side of the plane increases its width progressively from the intake so at the front, where the intake needs the most space to funnel the air into the air duct, is the place where less depth is available for a side bay. So I think it is just for thin and shorter weapons like AAMs.

Sorry I'm a bit confused by what you're saying; you don't see anything strange about the side weapon door swing but you are suggesting that clearances look minimal if a rail is used to push the weapon out?  That's pretty much what I was saying.  I just think it (the weapon of choice) would have a lot more clearance to extend out with whatever mechanism/rail and eject and fire away with the door hinged on the bottom and opening downward.  The way it is now seems like once it's open, the space is limited by whatever opening is left between that door and the side of the airplane/fuselage.  But like I said, I'm the last to argue against what Sukhoi designs and sees fit lol.

LMFS wrote:My numbers are also guesswork, based on some evidence but not 100% reliable. The engine being relatively high and the rear side of the WB needing less depth (suspension points for the armament, which demand lots of free space, go further forward) it seems to me that there should be space for a proper air duct design, going above the WB.

You do a lot more accurate math work and educated guesses than my eyeballing technique, believe me! lol

LMFS wrote:No, I agree, see above. A2G, apart from the obvious volume difference, is less flexible for being released and is normally left to fall or ejected downwards, while some AAMs can be rail launched from the sides or ejected with ease in other directions.

I thought the same exact thing about the ducting flowing over the ventral bay.  Just like Gary was saying earlier when we were discussing the clearance of the nose wheel and its placement at or near the front opening of the air intake and how it would have to immediately turn upwards to make room for the nose gear to fold and tuck up in there.  Then it just has to ride up that height all the way back to the fan blades and it should clear the weapons bay as well.  

Speaking of intake, I guess one of the few things left to find out is if the intake is a DSI and if there is a bump or lump like the Boriskov model?  It has to have some way to control the supersonic air, so it will need a DSI since there doesn't seem to be any other way to take care of that tremendous airflow at supersonic speeds. But so far everything that we saw in just that one pic of the Boriskov desk model has been pretty accurately revealed in this prototype. So we should definitely expect a DSI.

Atmosphere wrote:

@LMFS
in your screenshot, we can notice that there are radiotransparent fairings, i wonder which antennae are they used for

Those actually look like moving surfaces to me Perhaps this is a non-conventional horizontal stab.

Maybe NATO will designate it the SU-75 F***ER lol .

How big is this plane? It looks pretty close to F-16 size to me. Opinons?

So relieved to see no air intake behind the cockpit canopy.

They clearly have not bothered breaking the design trying to make it VSTOL, so essentially this is what the F-35 could have been... a small lightweight fighter that is cheaper to operate than the bigger service fighter, but has modern weapons and a reasonable level of stealth and performance.

This should make it cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate so you can buy enough for them to be useful, and they will be a threat to any current 4th gen fighter or any generation of bomber or strike platform.

Amusing that it has not been officially properly even revealed yet but people here are working out how many weapon bays it has.

Because of its stocky shape demanded by internal weapon carriage and decent fuel fraction it is possible they might have implimented their planned spine mounted single missile launch positions too, so never say never.

With internal weapon bays most weapons will have pneumatic arms throwing the weapons clear of the aircraft when they are launched to ensure clean separation without damaging the aircraft bay doors or the weapons themselves as they are released.

This is Sukhois design, but I am more looking forward to MiGs design to be honest. I wonder if Yak have a horse in this race that might be a VTOL model.

BTW don't be so hard on the US strong crowd in their ivory towers, this is what the F-35 was supposed to be and it clearly isn't, so after spending 1.5 trillion dollars on that aircraft, their brand new affordable plane that was going to replace both the F-22 and everything else, is probably going to be replaced by a revision of older models... a new F-15 and likely a new slightly modified F-16... probably with more wing area and internal fuel capacity so it doesn't need those ugly conformal fuel tanks.

In comparison the Russians are showing one of their 5th gen light fighter designs which looks like it should be a good compliment for the MiG-35 over the next decade or so, but what the new Russian type will look like and how it will differ is another thing to look forward to seeing...

The new Russian fighter will have to compete with the new Turkish fighter?

The new Russian fighter may end up being the new Turkish fighter... where is Turkey going to get a 5th gen jet engine to make their aircraft work?

Ukraine can't provide that.

Ukraine couldn't make a 4th gen fighter...

This is just a stealthy MiG-21, they would be in real trouble if they tried to copy the F-35 in any way shape or form.

The F-35 is an example of what not to do... and should not be copied by anyone who does not print their own money.

In July, the Ukrainian information and consulting agency Defense Express wrote that the military aircraft, which Rostec plans to demonstrate at MAKS-21, will be a single-engine fighter - a clone of the American F-35 Lightning II, affordable for foreign customers.

When your aviation industry is up to its ears in shit, all you have to do is bark at the big neighbor

You can safely assume that you'll be getting 100% bullshit when you have to turn to a Ukrainian outlet for intel on anything Russian.

The works of a Chinese computer modeler on the dimension of the Su-57 and the new light fighter, as well as the placement of weapons and engine

When your aviation industry is up to its ears in shit, all you have to do is bark at the big neighbor

It would be so much more amusing without the quote you included, because that made it clear you were talking about the Orcs, but without that quote it is more amusing because are you talking about the Americans or the British or the French or the Germans, or as Vann suggests Finland and Japan and South Korea and Israel and all these countries with superior business skills that all must have brand new 5th gen fighters ready for display and hopeful of production that will be affordable... the way the F-35 isn't, and all other alternatives look more like vapourware than this suggested design....

I know TVC is assumed, but Is it just me or are there potential issues with TVC on the yaw axis given the engine is noticably more recessed than that of the su57?