New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021

Nice to see the radiation warnings on the wings. Seems like there will be some kind of radar or sensor embedded there.

The only thing Im a bit skeptical on is the price. They are probably low balling it but that's marketing.

Backman wrote:The only thing Im a bit skeptical on is the price. They are probably low balling it but that's marketing.

By the time they ramp up production and with the insane amount of commonality with Su57, maybe it's achievable. Or maybe $30million is the purchase price RuAF would get it for.

Backman wrote:
And another game of looking at the intakes begins..

I wonder how much duct work is between the intake and the engine face

While we're looking at the intakes, how about that DSI bulge?  It's pretty interesting as it spans the entire width of the intake up to the center of the side of the fuselage, it seems.  Rather unusual which is another cool thing about this aircraft.  A bunch of neat surprises put together to make a rather fascinating aircraft.

That is a huuuuugeah DSI bulge! lol  Any thoughts on that?  @LMFS, what's your opinion?  Did you think it would be a bit smaller and more confined?



I have to admit, since it doesn't have H-stabs that the canted stabilators would've had more of a drastic angle to them, only because they would have to compensate for both functions, those of the V-stabs and those of the H-stabs. So finding the middle angle of the two locations would seem to be the ideal place, just from a layman's perspective, so to speak.  That would be a little more drastic than where they currently are.

But then I figured that the classic delta winged configurations such as the classic Mirages which also never had any H-stabs and relied solely on the large ailerons to substitute for the H-stabs functions.  So in this case, the same would have to apply and the ailerons would assist the canted stabilators for the H-stabs' functions, which is essentially pitch and roll.

Looking at this pic, you really see the shape of this aircraft sans the H-stabs which will probably take a little getting used to. But definitely dig it!

I think the price they quoted is to put a freeze on the Indian MRCA contest.The plane has lots of spaces for fuel and the new engine should be at least 20-30% more efficient then the RD-33 or AL31.

marcellogo wrote:

Sorry but this is NOT true.

They gave a number of 7,4 tons: F-35 is 9,5 ton.

they can trade fuel for payload and still have more range,.

Backman wrote:The only thing Im a bit skeptical on is the price. They are probably low balling it but that's marketing.

$ 30 million at the current exchange rate is about 2 billion rubles. For comparison , the cost of buying 76 Su-57s for the Russian Aerospace Forces is estimated at 170 billion rubles, or 2.3 billion per unit. I would not be surprised if the price for the Su-75 for the Russian Aerospace Forces is at the level of 1.3-1.5 billion rubles

@Gomig-21. About DSI. Yeah i dunno. Its just math. Most DSI setups have a steeper hump. I don't know enough about it


Weapons

please also note that it is necessary to take into account the conversion factor of about 2.5 for any dollar prices from Russia. So the real price, estimated at purchasing power parity for the Su-75, will not be $ 30 million, but about 75. I hope now it does not seem to anyone too small a price for a fifth-generation aircraft ))

From the right. Is that an EOTS bulge ? The black thing behind the gear

I would thank all the ones partecipating in this discussion for their contribution and even more the replies they have made to my own doubts.
That still remain... but somewhat eased thank to you.

Project is, in the sum of all its implications, just astounding: so better to get it started ASAP, even accepting some inevitable limitations than lose time and sh.tloads of money just for some marginal increase in some characteristics.

mnztr wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

Sorry but this is NOT true.

They gave a number of 7,4 tons: F-35 is 9,5 ton.

they can trade fuel for payload and still have more range,.

And it has a inflight refueling probe as well.

Gomig-21 wrote:

Backman wrote:
And another game of looking at the intakes begins..

I wonder how much duct work is between the intake and the engine face

While we're looking at the intakes, how about that DSI bulge?  It's pretty interesting as it spans the entire width of the intake up to the center of the side of the fuselage, it seems.  Rather unusual which is another cool thing about this aircraft.  A bunch of neat surprises put together to make a rather fascinating aircraft.

That is a huuuuugeah DSI bulge! lol  Any thoughts on that?  @LMFS, what's your opinion?  Did you think it would be a bit smaller and more confined?



I have to admit, since it doesn't have H-stabs that the canted stabilators would've had more of a drastic angle to them, only because they would have to compensate for both functions, those of the V-stabs and those of the H-stabs.  So finding the middle angle of the two locations would seem to be the ideal place, just from a layman's perspective, so to speak.  That would be a little more drastic than where they currently are.

But then I figured that the classic delta winged configurations such as the classic Mirages which also never had any H-stabs and relied solely on the large ailerons to substitute for the H-stabs functions.  So in this case, the same would have to apply and the ailerons would assist the canted stabilators for the H-stabs' functions, which is essentially pitch and roll.

Looking at this pic, you really see the shape of this aircraft sans the H-stabs which will probably take a little getting used to.  But definitely dig it!

Was going to comment on that. Almost seems that the nose of the aircraft itself is the bump making up the diverter less intake. Very cool. Indeed a bunch of surprises!

These things are expensive to design them redundantly. Where are you seeing the MiG candidate to PAK-FA being offered to export countries?

With future competition from Su-57 and Su-35 the market for large heavy modern fighters is not actually enormous, but tell me... have you noticed some MiG like features in certain Chinese aircraft of late? They might have stolen ideas... or essentially borrowed them, but equally they might have hired MiG as consultants regarding 5th fighter design...

No, look for radiation pattern of a single element antenna or a single dipole. That is not directional, the beam is formed by the phase difference between the different elements of the array.

It is a point beam that can be moved with phase shifting so a flat fixed AESA array might be able to scan 120 degrees instead of forward the width of the radar antenna, but the beam is a beam and not a column stream.

No, Turbine Inlet Temperature... the F135 runs incredibly hot, that is not easy and not good for the life of the engine. It is very sophisticated, but it is risky. I think it is much better to work a bit more in the airframe, so you don't need an alien engine for your fighter to look reasonably agile.

The fact it seems unable to operate in full AB for more than 90 seconds without causing damage to the aircraft suggests it is still a work in progress and nothing is really ready for it yet.

MiG-29 35 is not light fighter, it's heavy fighter wannabe

In a paring with Su-35 it is the light aircraft... the cheaper to operate model that allows you to operate them in useful numbers.

They are not seriously ordering MiG-35, they are just buying mandatory token amounts to keep MiG alive, government orders and company lobbying

If that were the case then where are all the MiG-AT aircraft? They actually could have produced it and it would have been an excellent LIFT fitting between propeller driven aircraft and the more costly Yak-130. Reportedly the Yak won because it could carry a 3 ton payload which was considered important if it was used as a light fighter if they couldn't afford anything else. The fact that the light fighter idea was stupid suggests putting the MiG AT into production might have been a better solution after all.

And we are excited for LTS because this IS the new light fighter, actual existing project instead of yet another scale model tossed away on some table in the back of the hall

This is a drive to find export customers... if the Russian AF was already interested it would be kept secret and MiG would be trying to flog their model instead.

About the same payload than Su-57??

About the same as the F-16... but never achieved in actual combat because finding a loadout to get to that weight would be tricky and a fairly significant burden to flight performance.

And probably with modern munitions a bit of over kill.

About the payload: logical for the size of the plane, a bit less than F-35, less than Rafale too. More important is, how much fuel it carries? It is useless to have huge payload capability and then needing three bags for any normal strike mission...

You of all people know when aircraft marketing the max payload and max flight range are mutually exclusive and neither is often achieved on a regular basis.

What's the max combat load?

If it's just ordinance then that's a lot for a single-engine fighter

Or does it include fuel as well?

I doubt they have anything that could match such a load unless it can be fitted with about 9 external weapon hard points as well.

Not so much, F-35 carries more than 8 t, Rafale 9 and it has an empty weight of 10 t, F-16 carries more than 7 tons

No they don't. That is the marketing department and it normally is based on the weapon pylons and positions and the maximum capacity of each... of course it could never be all carried at once...

So, the 18 t weight we were given is not MTOW but NTOW, or full fuel load most likely. MTOW probably 23-24 t

So thrust to weight ratio similar to the MiG-35... but lower drag of course.

MiG is an iconic Russian internationally-recognised brand-name that is right up there with Kalashnikov. It pisses me off to read so many clowns shitting on them due to circumstances beyond their control...

Yes, a company is either the best or the worst, there is no other alternative... in the mind of a teenager internet warrior...

Max G - 8 (strangely low for Russian plane).

An aircraft pulling more than 8g does not have a pilot on board... all humans on an aircraft pulling more than 8 g are just passengers trying to stay awake... making the aircraft lighter and cheaper makes more sense than making it heavier and stronger and able to render the pilot unconscious with every turn.

That's the price given for the VKS, foreign buyers will be paying at least $60 Million.

This is MAKS, that price is export price... if the VKS wanted this, and I am not suggesting they wont, they will likely be paying 20 million an aircraft which would be amazing because that would put it in LIFT prices... but lots of foreign orders would be needed to pay for it to be that cheap.

They already have the Su-57, no need for redundancy.

The Su-57 is a fully multirole aircraft, but they wont have thousands of them and they wont be everywhere.

In frontal aviation the previous gen fighters went in with a light bomb load and air to air missiles... drop their bombs and then loiter in the area with their missiles to take on any air threats in a swing role... there were also plenty of intereceptors tasked with attacking any enemy aircraft that were detected too. The dedicated interceptors were MiG-23s and MiG-29s, while the smaller lighter MiG-21s often had a swing role, but were supported by dedicated ground attack aircraft like the MiG-27 and Su-17 family, as well as CAS Su-25 and strike aircraft like the Fencer.

MiG were offering fully multirole upgrades of their MiG-29 and they were not interested because swing aircraft using dumb bombs and rockets are cheap and effective.

First flight 2023 What a Face , serial deliveries in 2026, this is the biggest breakthrough of this incredible project.
Congratulations for Suckoi, UAC and Roste

They make it sound like it is fully funded... wonder how many countries are going to stump up some cash to get some, and if that will effect the dates in question.

Probably because they were ordered to. The USAF is forced to buy stuff all the time.

Russian military gets what they need and want, they are not the USAF. Otherwise MiG-ATs would have been ordered and MiG-29Ms too... and probably Yak-141s...

In terms of the LTS design, the design landscape has changed with the advent of stelath.

Not as much as so many seem to think... a few EU countries have F-35s but otherwise they claim their 4th gen fighters are stealthy too...

With all the focus on radar cross section, one sure way to reduce it is to make the airplane smaller!!!

No it isn't. In fact it is the opposite... the best stealth aircraft the US has is its B-2 and it is the most stealthy because of its size and the effect that can have on redirecting radar signals in directions other than right back at its source.

A smaller plane is visually smaller, which is valuable, but look at the lack of success of Lead in fighter trainers... you would think they would dominate the airforces of the world... ironically the most widely used and successful LIFT jet fighter would have to be the F-5/T38 trainer... and most didn't get a great choice in the matter... a token cheap system you can fob off on allies when you don't think they don't need anything better... saves money I suppose...

Also tech has allowed more capability in smaller platforms.

Actually internal weapons and fuel means this "light" fighter probably has the same MTOW as the Medium sized MiG-35 at about 24 tons.

The MiG is faster and can pull more gs and probably has a slightly better flight radius, but less weapons and less stealthy presumably.

I am not sure if the MIG-29 is much cheaper to operate.

Well this new plane doesn't cost anything to operate at the moment... the MiG-29 wasn't a cheap aircraft... MiG state that the MiG-29SMT upgrade reduces operational costs by 40% and that the MiG-35 is 20% cheaper to operate than the MiG-29SMT.

If you have numbers to dispute that I would be happy to look at them, but it seems a very stupid lie to tell the Russian military because they will be able to work out pretty quickly if it is bullshit.

After all Malaysia has parked their MIG-29s and operates their SU-30.

Malaysia is not exactly a poor country and flight range is useful over water... they also had Hornets too from memory...

LTS is a shiny new object, every air force likes new toys.

Part of the reason the MiG-21 sold so well was it was shiny and new and mach 2 capable... many of the countries that bought it would probably have been much better off with Su-17s or Su-25s.

He stressed that this is an initiative development of Rostec, but the state corporation envisages deliveries not only to foreign, but also to the Russian military.

Just like the military of the Ukraine looks forward to deliveries of F-35s in the near future... except this is from the company that makes the plane and not the military of either country.

“We already have it, we are doing it for him,” Borisov said at the MAKS-2021 air show.

He explained that we are talking about a foreign air force.

In other words the UAE is getting a new light fighter built, and he hopes the Russian military will take advantage and buy some too.

I guess, it could be Iran. They have to replace a large fleet of jets and price is good. Iran could buy them in hundreds.

Iran does not have the free funds to pay for this... but would be really cool if they ended up buying some. UAE would likely object however...

Are you sure? Isn't the UAE in the process of signing a $23 Billion deal with the US for the Flop-35?

They could use this aircraft as the light cheap fighter to operate with their super heavy F-35...

You can call me crazy, but I would bet a few coins that the new fighter uses (in addition to the engine), the same wing and the same vertical stabilizer as the Su-57. Note the angles and wing tips. This is the secret of how quickly it is developed.This is the master move!

Nice pair of images that shows the space horizontally around the engine nozzles of both aircraft offer clearance for 3D nozzles... assuming the Su-57 has them the new aircraft should be able to use them too.

Checkmate aircraft prototype exhibited at MAKS will take off in 2023 - UAC

https://ria.ru/20210720/istrebitel-1742102214.html

A prototype...?

The taxiing one... I doubt its entire existence is to roll around MAKS with a tarp over it...

Range is said to be 1500km. But is it range of max distance ?

Suspect operational radius, not ferry range...

In that time they will produce flying prototype as this one will most probably be broken through static tests.

They generally have static test aircraft to test cockpit stuff that needs to work for the first flight to happen and also for structural testing that is generally done on the ground for obvious reasons.

"Our price, I hope, will be between $25 and $30 million each,” Chemezov said.

He is at MAKS trying to attract orders... so that will be the export aircraft price, which will have a bigger margin on it than a domestic model, but a domestic model might have different avionics that are not for export that drive costs up a little.

And also for this!

Nice... looks like a GROM glide bomb and a Kh-58 ARM (AS-11 based).

If the foreign price is 25/30 million$, imagine the Russian one

The Russian model might have better equipment that increases the cost, but with commonality with the Su-57 perhaps not as much as normal.

So they presented it as a quick solution to get a cheap single engine modern mig-21 but it won't be ready for years and clients may turn their eyes somewhere else or spend their money in their own projects.

From its first taxi run in about 2011 the Su-57 is entering serial production now... do you think Japan or South Korea or Britain or Turkey can get their models into serial production faster?

...2027... odds are F-35 wont be ready by then either...

IMO there was too much hurry in the resentation and they should have waited to have a flyable prototype.

The design looks mature enough to make a decent educated guess as to whether you want to take part in the programme or not... MAKS is an excellent opportunity... the next MAKs is 2023... and by that time a lot of promised new designs will have folded, but some might have had commitments made that would not have been made if they had seen this...

If France wasn't such a bitch of the US it would be interesting to see them take part in this... the British would never consider any suggestion in that direction, but Turkey might look seriously at this as an alternative... they couldn't make something that was better in less time for less money.

If it is a 30 million dollar aircraft they could buy 400 for the price they were paying for 100 F-35s, and the money they would save on operational costs means it would be a better choice going forward.

Now you can be sure China, US and europeans will put more money in their program to sell their stuff first because this Chessmate has a big potentiel if it becomes ready before their own products.

They will have to upgrade their designs to match the suggested performance of this aircraft, while likely work out some way of making their own planes better to match while also making them 50% cheaper to buy... it would be a struggle because most wont be ready before 2027 anyway.

They'll never see you you'll never get to look at an F-35 in a dogfight. Because, he will have killed you many many policies it's significant distances away and you'll never even know that it happened to you.”

Not relevant for export but those Russians have an IADS network that includes 6,000km range long wave radars that tracked US F-35s flying along the border of Iraq and Iran from Russia... that you think they will never see you is really funny dude...

I am assuming the nose size is small and the latest presentation they ever did was with fga-35 with 1000 modules giving a 250km performance range. So I am hoping its a new radar with higher performance. Even if the performance specs are close to F-35 I wont complain that much because of the costs of it and its intention for export, but the Su-57 is my king.

The biggest trap for designing and putting a light fighter into service is the demand that it has better radar and performance to the big aircraft also in service.... that sort of thing destroys their cost effectiveness and makes them even more expensive than the bigger aircraft they are supposed to operate with.

This is as late as it gets, Tempest was revealed as CGI long plywood mockup and they are nowhere near the first airframe

Do they even have an engine for it?

They gave a number of 7,4 tons: F-35 is 9,5 ton

Western max weights are normally calculations rather than actual loads... ie four weapon pylons rated to 2 tons and two weapons pylons rated at 750kgs each for AAMs... gives you 4 x 2, plus .75 x 2 = 9.5 tons, but there is no practical load out that would allow such a weight to be carried because 8 tons of actual weapons wont fit in the main weapon bay...

The Su-24 was rated in the west as being able to carry 8 tons of weapons because it had 8 weapon pylons and they assumed they could carry 1 ton each... of course it has 9 pylons, but not all can carry max weight loads because max weight loads are big weapons that take up more space...

The ventral bay is more regular and usable than that of the F-35, with better development options for new weapons like for instance the multimissile we discussed here.

The ventral bay being the same as the Su-57 means anything going in one can go in the other without modification or adaptation.

How many Kh-58/59 in total it can carry?

We have no idea what sort of external payload and configuration is possible.

Also quite a few potential customers would gladly opt for older engine in favour of saving money or buying more airplanes

An important factor, though I suspect Sukhoi want to sell Su-57s and Su-75s as a package deal which would mean commonality would be useful in terms of engines... but the Su-57 is fine with the older engines too...

If you fly faster you need more power and consume more fuel, if you carry more cargo, too, it is not so clear that you can do all that at the same time.

Actually it is certain that you can't, which I suspect is your point...

"Propaganda" is what you call specifications.

Do you think that the range numbers on the Su-57 are all propaganda too, eh?

It is important to remember that max payload might not actually be a useful actual payload, but potential... no F-16 has ever taken off with a 7 ton external payload and never will, and it certainly would not achieve top flight speed and max range at the same time.

The only thing Im a bit skeptical on is the price. They are probably low balling it but that's marketing.

If it uses wings and avionics and nose and tail of the Su-57 it is essentially going to make the Su-57 cheaper to buy simply because of spare parts and production numbers.

Or maybe $30million is the purchase price RuAF would get it for.

The describe the price in US dollars but I suspect it will be paid in Euros or Rubles or depending on the country even local currency...

$ 30 million at the current exchange rate is about 2 billion rubles. For comparison , the cost of buying 76 Su-57s for the Russian Aerospace Forces is estimated at 170 billion rubles, or 2.3 billion per unit. I would not be surprised if the price for the Su-75 for the Russian Aerospace Forces is at the level of 1.3-1.5 billion rubles

A 5th gen fighter is never going to be super cheap, but the purpose of a light one is to make it affordable to operate in large enough numbers to be useful.

Since it has a DSI, does that mean that it cant supercruise?

limb wrote:Since it has a DSI, does that mean that it cant supercruise?

The MAKS presentation said it's capable of "continuous supersonic flight"

kvs wrote:

t remains to be seen, if it can actually do what the manufacturer says it can do in its propaganda

If you fly faster you need more power and consume more fuel, if you carry more cargo, too, it is not so clear that you can do all that at the same time.

"Propaganda" is what you call specifications.

Do you think that the range numbers on the Su-57 are all propaganda too, eh?

well, the claimed qualities of the F-35 were commercial propaganda. The reality later put things in their place.

You have to understand one thing, engineers do not perform miracles that the boys from the commercial department then sell to customers, it happens in many companies, commercials sell that they can have a development with magnificent qualities in x time and the engineers then have a hard time to deliver on time and then there are failures, etc ...

it is the dictatorship of the "business schools"

There is no apparent involvement of MiG in the J-20, and aero layouts are there for anyone to use. What I meant is MiG actively selling the MFI.

Maybe they did or maybe they didn't... perhaps they wanted to keep the design secret because they intended to reuse bits of it for the LMFS design and the naval carrier aircraft twin engined version.

Yeah, but in this case and being a 5G fighter, max payload can be payload and not EFTs, because the plane is designed to operate clean and the range on internal fuel is quite big.

The fact that it is designed to be stealthy does not mean it can't carry external weapons or stores, and I would think a useful external store for long distance self deployment would be four nice big external fuel tanks to give it a decent ferry range.

In 4G fighters like Rafale, F-16 etc, it is pure BS, because the biggest part of all that payload in reality will be used for carrying huge bags with huge drag indexes that occupy the suspension points with actual high load capability.

Western aircraft are more oriented for invasions so eye wateringly long range is useful to the point where you wont often see western fighters operating without external fuel tanks most of the time.

This is a light short range point defence system... if you need to fly 1,500km and still be all stealthy then something has gone wrong...

In the current generation that has changed.

A lot of the jobs will remain the same, for which stealthiness might not even be of interest.

It is the ultimate loading capability, it does not mean it will be realistically used. Three 1500 kg bombs is a huge load and is just a fraction of those 7400 kg.

If you are hitting targets with KAB-1500s then perhaps an Su-34 or Tu-22M3M is a better choice of platform...

Four external suspension points, normally the ones closer to the wing root are capable for heavy loads and the others are left for AAM, like in Su-57.

Honestly I am surprised they didn't include the WVR missile blister in the wing for this aircraft... it actually makes more sense for this sort of aircraft to carry a good number of WVR missiles on most missions.

Those fuselage side bays would be good for R-77s...

GarryB wrote:
Western aircraft are more oriented for invasions so eye wateringly long range is useful to the point where you wont often see western fighters operating without external fuel tanks most of the time.

Nothingf like a western fighter there.
Typhoon and Gripen, as an example; are not at all "invasion oriented" in this regard.
Hence when called to such roles (mainly due to UK lapdog syndrome) they have to burden themselves with a lot of fuel tanks.