New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021

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

Yes, at equivalent stage F-35 was going to be an all-singing, all-dancing, super-cruising, super-manoeuvrable, super-low cost, super-low maintenance wunderwaffe too.

Earlier I was trying to find the date that X-35 & X-32 mockups were made public, couldn't find the date (I think must have been same time as the contracts were made public in '96?) but did find a tidbit: X-35 demonstrator didn't even have a weapons-bay, there was a lot of chubbing up between X-35 & F-35 and that little omission was a big part of it.

On the other hand this allegedly flight capable airframe has stuff like a weapons-bay already & if its at the stage of doing ground tests the performance claims are presumably based off the achieved weights/structural solutions (or reasonably expected mitigations) rather than the pre-construction estimates so should be more likely to be correct than the latter.


Regarding the 8G limit: If its a max value its still more than the 7G which F-35 got limited to.
Has been alluded to earlier that if they've aimed for a 8G limit instead of 9G it should make for more cheaper/quicker engineering/notably lighter structure.
Alternatively (& opposite implication) it could be a 'while loaded' limit. As I understand most planes are severely limited in what kind of Gs they can pull when loaded up with ordnance, if this is specced to pull 8G loaded that might give it significantly more practical combat agility than other types.


Interesting that it doesn't have a permanent gun, just option for gunpacks in the central bay.
It saves a bunch of permanent weight, structure & a whole heap of performance validation stuff (I've lost track on whether or not F-35 can actually shoot its gun, last I'd heard the required work was removed from the development plans).
I think for a fighter we really have got to an era where guns aren't really needed.

Scorpius wrote: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 ))

Purchasing power parity does not work like this, sorry.

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

DSI is less effective for speeds close to 2 M and above, still it should be not synonymous that it can't. But they just said "continuous supersonic speeds", which can mean many things. At minimum, that the engine can work in AB without a relevant time limitation and airframe can handle the speeds. If it seems too trivial, F-35B/C cannot, so that is already a good selling point against them...

hoom wrote:Regarding the 8G limit: If its a max value its still more than the 7G which F-35 got limited to.

F-35A is fully 9 g capable, to be fair.

As to the gun, I can imagine the VKS will not be very willing to fly without a last resort weapon, and to lose some range for a plane with already such long legs would not be a drama. Maybe for some countries this would be more painful, but for Russia with a fleet of long range fighters available I think it would be perfectly acceptable.

One of the few "complains" that I would have is that they did not include any frontal aero device to trim the plane in supersonic flight, that would be good. But I guess they can add canards like they did in the Su-33/30 without a big difficulty, if this is considered relevant for the operational concept later on. I agree in principle a light fighter does not need to be a great supercruiser, but with the range they got, they have certain potential there. And of course, if the 8 g limitation is due to the lack of pitch authority (still unsure about this one), then a foreplane would be indeed the right thing to do.

mnztr wrote:

Scorpius wrote: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 ))

Purchasing power parity does not work like this, sorry.

PPP is a normalization factor. If 30 million is the nominal conversion rate price. Then the PPP equivalent is 75 million. Just like
Russia's GDP is not less than that of Portugal in real terms, its nominal exchange prices are not "real". It gives Russia an export
advantage to have a PPP of 2.5 (at lowest). But an apples to apples comparison requires the low export price to be scaled up
by the PPP factor.

GarryB wrote:
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.

5G planes do have EFTs, but they don't use them for combat normally, added to the fact that they are thicker in general because of the weapon bays and the current availability of more powerful engines, you have both the need and the possibility of carrying more internal fuel

As to the LTS, I guess the suspension points closer to the root will be wet, while the others are probably not. There is the additional possibility (mentioned explicitly at the presentation) of carrying tanks internally as we speculated for the Su-57. That is already a LOT of fuel.

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...

I don't think this is a point defence fighter anymore... it is quite clearly something more

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

Still unconfirmed, but I hope they are, in order to have a really autonomous strike package (maybe 1x SRAAM and 1x MRAAM per plane in a strike wing, for instance). They seem rather big for the short range ones, but maybe a cannot or other payload can demand that size and the interesting fact that such bay design has a good clearance to the front... that is not necessary if you just carry rail launched missiles on a trapezoidal suspension

The quibbling over 8 and 9 g is meaningless. No airframe is rated for max tolerable g. That would mean that pulling a "rated" 8 g
would risk catastrophic failure. So the F-35 "9 g" is more than likely a push to the tolerance limit to sell its "superiority". The 8 g
quote for the Su-75 is a more conservative one. All of these aircraft can handle over 9 g but should not be operated with such loads
to prevent their early retirement.

AMCXXL wrote:This has been developed by OAK at its own risk. In principle, VKS is not mixed in this matter, it and it is export oriented....

Su-30 was export oriented and look at it now

Also if Sukhoi actually did take the initiative on this then it's just another nail in MiG's coffin and another proof of it's redundancy and obsolescence

MiG doesn't have the balls to develop crop duster on it's own and you expect them to compete with Sukhoi? Get real, man...

AMCXXL wrote:Let's wait to see, for now this model presented today does not fly, maybe MiG also brings out a competing 5th generation single-engine. Especially taking into account the need for a STOVL aircraft for the Navy of Russia and other countries...

MiG did bring out his competing scale models and they all look like a bad joke

Those idiots have learned nothing, they even still try to peddle their two engine junk while Sukhoi is running laps around them

And don't even start with STOVL, this Sukhoi jet will be converted to STOVL long before MiG even comes up with a CGI render

AMCXXL wrote:... should start selling MiG-35...

They already started and nobody is buying, it's a lemon, time to face reality

AMCXXL wrote:I doubt very much that the VKS is interested in single engine fighters after so many decades, they are not effective in the Eurasian scenario.
They will continue to buy Su-57 beyond the 76 already ordered...

They weren't interested in Su-30SM until they were

And I think they would love nothing more than to move all two engine fighters from Central Military District to the West and replace them with affordable and capable single engine planes

Also if they really want to have those idiotic aircraft carriers they keep fantasizing about they will need this airplane

GarryB wrote:

PapaDragon wrote: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....

And in real life it's falled attempt at heavy fighter especially compared to Su-35 and only marginally less expensive to operate at a huge performance disadvantage

To say nothing of comparing operating costs to actual light fighters

GarryB wrote:Russian military gets what they need and want, they are not the USAF....

Oh yeah, just like they "need" BMPT?

They need it so hard that the Army has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid using it for nearly 30 years while UVZ has been pulling every string it has just to shove couple of dozen down their throats

Same with Mi-35 but hopefully that dog will soon be put to sleep especially after yesterday

PapaDragon wrote:Su-30 was export oriented and look at it now

Also if Sukhoi actually did take the initiative on this then it's just another nail in MiG's coffin and another proof of it's redundancy and obsolescence

MiG doesn't have the balls to develop crop duster on it's own and you expect them to compete with Sukhoi? Get real, man...

Wrong. Su-30 was Russian air defense oriented as group command post. Money shortage in Russia and F-15E debut in Gulf war push Sukhoi to remade it in multirole fighter bomber for export. RuAF start buying Su-30, when financial situation allow them and first they buy Su-30M2 in 2009 and later Su-30SM in 2012.

MiG have plans to made multirole MiG-31BM, but didn't went with it and MiG-31BM is still interceptor only.

The aircraft is created with the broadest use of supercomputer technologies. This made it possible to develop an optimal aerodynamic design, achieve high performance and conduct a full cycle of virtual tests even before the first prototype was made.

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=2&nid=553545&lang=RU

General Director of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) Yuri told in an interview with Interfax columnist Ekaterina Maltseva Slussar.

Official artwork:

I absolutely knew it.
A KS-U type aperture had to be on top to mirror the one on the belly. So id assume the horizontal coverage to be +/-90 degrees.

Aside from that, the voilure, stabiliser shape, dorso and bose secrion really paint it as a sub-species of the Su-57. No wonder they made it so Quickly.

GarryB wrote:

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.

If the export price of Checkmate is $10 Million cheaper than the export MiG-35 (based on the price of MiG-29M's sold to Egypt @$40M each), that'll put a massive dent in the MiG-35's export prospects, even if it takes another 5 years for the Su-75 to be ready.

GarryB wrote:

LMFS wrote:In fact it seems they developed with more focus on strike missions than to make a very good fighter...

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.

My point to LMFS was that the Su-75 doesn't need to be a Su-57 as that would be redundant, it'll be fully multirole just like the Su-57 but with half the payload, 2/3rds the range and with less air superiority capability.

UAC sets the task to complete tests of the Checkmate fighter in 2027

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/11956013

I will slightly dilute the discussion with a memo for fans of the Western approach to the perception of new Russian technology.
Stages of adoption of Russian equipment:
1. Does not exist, will be closed.
2. Layout, imitation, fake.
3. They will not be adopted.
4. They will not purchase.
5. They will buy, but not enough.
6.They were not used in combat.
7. You're all lyiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!!!
Check the box next to the stage where you are currently located.

I just realized why I like how it looks, it reminds me of F-8 Crusader AKA my 3rd favorite airplane ever:

hoom wrote:

Interesting that it doesn't have a permanent gun, just option for gunpacks in the central bay.
It saves a bunch of permanent weight, structure & a whole heap of performance validation stuff (I've lost track on whether or not F-35 can actually shoot its gun, last I'd heard the required work was removed from the development plans).
I think for a fighter we really have got to an era where guns aren't really needed.

I think this is kinda silly. The GSH-30 used in most Russian planes is incredibly light at 101lbs. Seems crazy to eliminate such a capability for such a tiny weight loss.

WHat are the tail air intakes for? IR masking?

Broski wrote:
If the export price of Checkmate is $10 Million cheaper than the export MiG-35 (based on the price of MiG-29M's sold to Egypt @$40M each), that'll put a massive dent in the MiG-35's export prospects, even if it takes another 5 years for the Su-75 to be ready.

$10m does not really make a big diff in fighter deals. If its 30M vs 110m..now THAT is a difference.

mnztr wrote:

Broski wrote:
If the export price of Checkmate is $10 Million cheaper than the export MiG-35 (based on the price of MiG-29M's sold to Egypt @$40M each), that'll put a massive dent in the MiG-35's export prospects, even if it takes another 5 years for the Su-75 to be ready.

$10m does not really make a big diff in fighter deals. If its 30M vs 110m..now THAT is a difference.

Final price would be dependent on a lot of factors.
Or even the way to calculate it, surely the one of Checkmate is a purely "key in hand " one.
I think that MiG-35 and T-75 could complement well one with the other as one is geared toward A2A and the other to A2G roles respectively.

mnztr wrote:WHat are the tail air intakes for? IR masking?

It's for cooling some internal equipment

Same as on Su-57