New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021

The US developed the heavy and light fighter combination with the very successful F-15 and F-16. The USSR followed that concept with the equally successful Su-27 and Mig-29.

This concept was also applied to the less successful F-22 and F-35. The Russians are now doing the same with the superb Su-57 and Su-75. Early specs show that the Su-75 will be a better performer than the F-35.

I can't see any reason why the VVS wouldn't buy into the Checkmate?

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Why would you stick these things on a carrier? May has well navalize the SU-57 then it would perform far better.

Two times better to be more precise.

This plane is 1/2 of a su-57 in every aspect.

The Su-57 is even heavier than the Su-33, which was already a bad aircraft to navalize, especially considering the Kuznestov's lack of space, both due to the width of the deck and the small size of the hangar.
For practical purposes only a dozen Su-33s can be carried on the Kuznestov and I don't think it have ever shipped more than 9 or 10 at the same time.

No, Russia is not going to build 100,000 ton nuclear aircraft carriers and also does not need them at all, in fact the US Navy itself has serious doubts about continuing with these very expensive and useless junk, and according to I have read they will be reduced in number in the coming decades.

The trend is for smaller aircraft carriers with Sky-jump and STOVL aircraft, such as the F-35B.

In this context, a STOVL version of the Su-75 or some other development should be expected for the 2030s, which is actually what was planned since 2000.

Mir wrote:The US developed the heavy and light fighter combination with the very successful F-15 and F-16. The USSR followed that concept with the equally successful Su-27 and Mig-29.

This concept was also applied to the less successful F-22 and F-35. The Russians are now doing the same with the superb Su-57 and Su-75. Early specs show that the Su-75 will be a better performer than the F-35.

I can't see any reason why the VVS wouldn't buy into the Checkmate?

sorry but not, you are trying to apply western logic to the USSR

The MiG-29 was an aviation fighter for the frontline destined to accompany the MiG-27, Su-17, Su-24, etc ...,
the Su-27 an Air defense interceptor (PVO forces) that was combined with the MiG-31 and anti-aircraft missile regiments in the Air Defense Corps

They were only "together" in an organic way, in the Joint Comnands of the High Command un Eastern Europe, and always the MiG-29 in the front (DDR, etc...) with the attack planes and the Su-27 in the rear (Poland and Ukraine) together with the troops of anti-aircraft missiles

Isos wrote:I was just answering about the perfs.

For a carrier it depend of what kind we are talking. If they have a catapult then su-57. If ski jum then this one. If they have only heli carrier then they will need a VTOL. But that wasn't the point of my answer.

Yes, but that the Su-57 is navalized, it is like that the F-22 is navalized, the trend is not going around, among other things because you need aircraft carriers twice as large and that cost 5 times more

What naval plane did the ussr have? the yak-38 (single engine)
which I wanted to continue, the Yak-141 (single engine)
that's where the trend will go. Su-33-sized planes are a thing of the past

I think there is a lot of excellent reasons to buy not just the Shah Mat but also the MiG-35 and the Okhotnik.
Post-soviet RuAF end ed up to be based mainly on heavy planes while the light (Su-25) and Light-medium (the MiG-29) were sidelined.
There were excellent reasons in the nineties and there were also in the moment of the rebirth of russian military power to concentrate on such categories of planes.
Now, in front of a successful rearmament programme Russia will enter in a new phase of direct confrontation (but also collaboration) with USA and the rising power of China for influence in the whole world.
Light medium planes have definitively a role in this new phase, both for increase the numbers of RuAF than to offer viable planes to allies, regardless of their relative size.
Having a "light" 5gen plane available will allow the top-tier air superiority Su-57 to confront directly with F-22 alone (that is actually already challenged by J-20 being produced in scores) without engaging in the impossible challenge to cope with the F-35 production numbers.

AMCXXL wrote:

Isos wrote:I was just answering about the perfs.

For a carrier it depend of what kind we are talking. If they have a catapult then su-57. If ski jum then this one. If they have only heli carrier then they will need a VTOL. But that wasn't the point of my answer.

Yes, but that the Su-57 is navalized, it is like that the F-22 is navalized, the trend is not going around, among other things because you need aircraft carriers twice as large and that cost 5 times more

What naval plane did the ussr have? the yak-38 (single engine)
which I wanted to continue, the Yak-141 (single engine)
that's where the trend will go. Su-33-sized planes are a thing of the past

What planes USN had in the seventies? F-4 and A-6 (two engines) and A-7 (one)
In the eighties? F-14A and F/A-18A (two engines)
In the next century? F/A-18 E&F (two engines)
Now it is purchasing F-35C but the total order was been FROM THE BEGINNING way inferior to the Super Hornets they would keep in service anyway.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Except this is being privately funded and the Russian Gov has nothing to do with the funding.

The aircraft is being marketed for Export, I believe Ros said they have a buyer.

So far the Russian military has no desire for the aircraft.

This is the point, the Russian Air Force already has its own aircraft according to its own criteria, the Ministry of Defense has not commissioned or financed this, beyond authorizing the development for a foreign country, as is logical

It must be taken into account that the Russian military industrial complex, in addition to supplying the Ministry of Defense, also exports. and the strategy is to have many differentiated products for clients with different needs, unlike the oligopoly of the USA that extorts the American taxpayer and the "allies", forced to swallow their scrap at the price of gold.

Now, if the development works, nothing prevents the Navy from ordering navalized or unmanned versions, since for the vanguard zone and overseas operations this plane may make sense.
It must be taken into account that the Navy Air Force must be rebuilt from 2028-2030 and it will be done according to its own criteria and differentiated needs.

AMCXXL wrote:

Mir wrote:The US developed the heavy and light fighter combination with the very successful F-15 and F-16. The USSR followed that concept with the equally successful Su-27 and Mig-29.

This concept was also applied to the less successful F-22 and F-35. The Russians are now doing the same with the superb Su-57 and Su-75. Early specs show that the Su-75 will be a better performer than the F-35.

I can't see any reason why the VVS wouldn't buy into the Checkmate?

sorry but not, you are trying to apply western logic to the USSR

The MiG-29 was an aviation fighter for the frontline destined to accompany the MiG-27, Su-17, Su-24, etc ...,
the Su-27 an Air defense interceptor (PVO forces) that was combined with the MiG-31 and anti-aircraft missile regiments in the Air Defense Corps

They were only "together" in an organic way, in the Joint Comnands of the High Command un Eastern Europe, and always the MiG-29 in the front (DDR, etc...) with the attack planes and the Su-27 in the rear (Poland and Ukraine) together with the troops of anti-aircraft missiles

There is a brilliant video series called "Wings of Russia". There the designers and people that were heavily involved in the development of these particular aircraft explain in detail how and why the Su-27 and Mig-29's came about. Basically both these aircraft were developed as a counter to the F-15 and F-16 combination - with the brief that both these designs should be "better" than the US planes. BTW both the F-15 and F-14 were developed on account of their fears around the Mig-25.

Su-27 The best fighter in the world and MiG-29 Tactical Fighter. Take-off into the Future are part of this series. Well worth it!

So no Western logic there - just Russian

marcellogo wrote:

AMCXXL wrote:

Isos wrote:I was just answering about the perfs.

For a carrier it depend of what kind we are talking. If they have a catapult then su-57. If ski jum then this one. If they have only heli carrier then they will need a VTOL. But that wasn't the point of my answer.

Yes, but that the Su-57 is navalized, it is like that the F-22 is navalized, the trend is not going around, among other things because you need aircraft carriers twice as large and that cost 5 times more

What naval plane did the ussr have? the yak-38 (single engine)
which I wanted to continue, the Yak-141 (single engine)
that's where the trend will go. Su-33-sized planes are a thing of the past

What planes USN had in the seventies? F-4 and A-6 (two engines) and A-7 (one)
In the eighties? F-14A and F/A-18A (two engines)
In the next century? F/A-18 E&F (two engines)
Now it is purchasing F-35C but the total order was been FROM THE BEGINNING way inferior to the Super Hornets they would keep in service anyway.

YES, but this is only because the F-35 is a TOTAL FAILURE, the biggest American taxpayer scam in history, a 1.7 trillion dollar scam.

The original plan of the US Navy was to TOTALLY equip each shipborne air wing with 4 squadrons of F-35s, about 44-48 ?? total.
Then the plan was each CVW would have 2 hornet squadrons and 2 F-35 squadrons.
The last thing I read abour that, was that there would be only one squadron with 14-16 F-35s and three squadrons with about 30 F-18s.

anyway Russia has a twin-engine analog of the F-18, which is the MiG-29K, maybe a MiG-35K will be made if necessary

Mir wrote:

AMCXXL wrote:

Mir wrote:The US developed the heavy and light fighter combination with the very successful F-15 and F-16. The USSR followed that concept with the equally successful Su-27 and Mig-29.

This concept was also applied to the less successful F-22 and F-35. The Russians are now doing the same with the superb Su-57 and Su-75. Early specs show that the Su-75 will be a better performer than the F-35.

I can't see any reason why the VVS wouldn't buy into the Checkmate?

sorry but not, you are trying to apply western logic to the USSR

The MiG-29 was an aviation fighter for the frontline destined to accompany the MiG-27, Su-17, Su-24, etc ...,
the Su-27 an Air defense interceptor (PVO forces) that was combined with the MiG-31 and anti-aircraft missile regiments in the Air Defense Corps

They were only "together" in an organic way, in the Joint Comnands of the High Command un Eastern Europe, and always the MiG-29 in the front (DDR, etc...) with the attack planes and the Su-27 in the rear (Poland and Ukraine) together with the troops of anti-aircraft missiles

There is a brilliant video series called "Wings of Russia". There the designers and people that were heavily involved in the development of these particular aircraft explain in detail how and why the Su-27 and Mig-29's came about. Basically both these aircraft were developed as a counter to the F-15 and F-16 combination - with the brief that both these designs should be "better" than the US planes. BTW both the F-15 and F-14 were developed on account of their fears around the Mig-25.

Su-27 The best fighter in the world and MiG-29 Tactical Fighter. Take-off into the Future are part of this series. Well worth it!

So no Western logic there - just Russian

It is one thing to make an analogy and another for the things to work the same, in fact both planes were operated for different things, even by different branches of the armed forces, unlike the USA.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Except this is being privately funded and the Russian Gov has nothing to do with the funding.

If you think that Sukhoi, UAC above and Rostec even above are putting their money and their reputation on the line without consulting with the government, well, you are free to think want you want, but they are state run companies, Rostec of them all being THE technological backbone of Russia. Do you think a guy like Chemezov does not align with Putin? Probably they talk more with each other than with their families, there is no such thing as Rostec doing things that have nothing to do with the government. These projects are covered normally by the Industry Ministry until MoD officially buys the project, Manturov did express his support to the buy by the the military, as well as other officials. But the interesting part is that everything is extra-official until the product is ready, that gives the MoD leverage and puts the onus on the manufacturer to deliver something which is real and not just happy engineering, avoiding the black hole of military procurement that the US MIC has become. Look and learn from them.

So far the Russian military has no desire for the aircraft.

There are a few things about the Russian military that are secret don't you agree? Until now we can just confirm the lack of any statement in this regard.

Compared to the SU-57 which was, for the most part, kept in the dark at this development stage this thing is being advertised and trying to attract customers.

Makes full sense, once the technologies used in this design are essentially what is already known about the Su-57. Do you think there was a disclosure of military secrets related to the Su-57 with the presentation of the LTS without alignment with the MoD?

For what Reason does Russia need a light stealth fighter exactly? none.

Because it is way cheaper than filling the VKS with heavy fighters only, or alternatively allows to grow the fleet and cover the country much better, this is national security issue not a whim. Just read the interview with Slyusar

This thing isn't designed with the 57 in mind.

Wow. It was designed specifically because the Su-57 exists, on the one hand, and the light fighter in general makes sense because there is a heavy one complementing it.

AMCXXL wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

What planes USN had in the seventies? F-4 and A-6 (two engines) and A-7 (one)
In the eighties? F-14A and F/A-18A (two engines)
In the next century? F/A-18 E&F (two engines)
Now it is purchasing F-35C but the total order was been FROM THE BEGINNING way inferior to the Super Hornets they would keep in service anyway.

YES, but this is only because the F-35 is a TOTAL FAILURE, the biggest American taxpayer scam in history, a 1.7 trillion dollar scam.

The original plan of the US Navy was to TOTALLY equip each shipborne air wing with 4 squadrons of F-35s, about 44-48 ?? total.
Then the plan was each CVW would have 2 hornet squadrons and 2 F-35 squadrons.
The last thing I read abour that, was that there would be only one squadron with 14-16 F-35s and three squadrons with about 30 F-18s.

anyway Russia has a twin-engine analog of the F-18, which is the MiG-29K, maybe a MiG-35K will be made if necessary

Just not, initial total order of  F35C was 260 for the Navy + 80 for USMC: less than the sole order of -B model for the same USMC.

Joint Chiefs of Staff didn't ever wanted the F/A-18E, it was the Navy that covertely sold them as just a modification of the earlier Hornet.
And they (the Navy) were absolutely right on this point as the USN has actually the only plane in the US that is neither a bucked of rust nor a failed project.

AMCXXL wrote:The Su-57 is even heavier than the Su-33

Unsure, since we don't have official values. But it is smaller in linear dimensions, which is the real limitation. As to its take off characteristics... they are simply impressive, and izd. 30 is not yet installed. It will be the best naval fighter... ever.

In this context, a STOVL version of the Su-75 or some other development should be expected for the 2030s, which is actually what was planned since 2000.

Seems quite difficult due to the layout. The ventral bays are in the way of any eventual vertical lift system, and the intake is very long, it does not seem easily compatible with a lifting system instead of the cockpit on an eventual STOVL UCAV developed based on it.

Yes, but that the Su-57 is navalized, it is like that the F-22 is navalized, the trend is not going around, among other things because you need aircraft carriers twice as large and that cost 5 times more

No, with the TWR and lift augmentation of the Su-57 they would not need more but rather quite less space for TO, and landing would be equal as current planes at worst. F-22 is completely different.

Now, if the development works, nothing prevents the Navy from ordering navalized or unmanned versions, since for the vanguard zone and overseas operations this plane may make sense.
It must be taken into account that the Navy Air Force must be rebuilt from 2028-2030 and it will be done according to its own criteria and differentiated needs.

You know a lot about the way Russian military is organized, but that is the present, strongly conditioned by the fall of the USSR and the difficulties afterwards, and now they are reverting past decisions, refurbishing new air bases and creating new regiments or at least bringing them back to life. One regiment of Su-57 in the West, south and East is nothing. Going forward, the Su-27, 30, and even 35 need replacement, too. And overall the VKS needs to grow, significantly. East and Northern regions are basically empty and they need coverage, while Sukhoi was smart enough to give the LTS a remarkable range. So they can have a force of Su-57 and complement it with the LTS for better coverage and less demanding missions, while the Okhotnik takes care mainly of strike missions. This points BTW to completely different operational concepts when compared to USSR, the future seems more oriented to mixed operations of manned and unmanned aircraft, maybe even in mixed regiments. What I want to say is that they will do what makes military sense, not simply apply Soviet doctrine. I would not see why they would need to limit fielding of the LTS to the VMF. They can and frequently modify composition of their regiments according to the need and specially to the availability of planes. They have already a lot of Su-34 and they keep ordering, the same with Su-35 and Su-30, they simply need more planes, and the development of the fleet based military regions will demand even more.

@SeigSoloyvov:

We disagree completely, time will say who is right and who is wrong.

The new fighter presented by Russia is one point ahead of its competitors, according to Forbes, 22.07.2021.

The Russian 5th generation Checkmate fighter has a feature that makes it more effective against potential competitors and allows it to shoot from a greater distance, Forbes reports.

The new Russian Sukhoi Su-75 light tactical fighter, nicknamed Checkmate, surpasses other fighters in flight altitude, writes this Thursday, July 22 Forbes magazine.

The aircraft is distinguished by a large wing span that increases its lift and allows it to fly higher than similar aircraft with smaller wings. As a result, the device can attack at a greater distance and height than its competitors.

"A high ceiling has obvious advantages for sensor coverage and weapon range [...]. It is not for nothing that Lockheed Martin designed the US Air Force's F-22 stealth fighter to operate above 15,000 meters".

Checkmate's ceiling could be between 12,000 and 18,000 meters, or even higher, according to Tom Cooper, aviation expert, quoted by Forbes.

The Su-75 can additionally be operated as a fighter on board an aircraft carrier, according to the magazine.

Su-75 Checkmate

Russia unveiled the prototype of the fifth-generation Su-75 at the MAKS 2021 International Aerospace Exhibition, which is currently taking place in the Moscow region.

The aircraft designed by the Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer is intended primarily for export to the countries of the Middle East, Asia, North Africa and Latin America.

With an estimated price of between 25 and 30 million dollars, the Checkmate would be the main competitor to the French Rafale, the Swedish JAS-39 Gripen and the American F-35, which are two to three times more expensive. Its first flight is scheduled for 2023, and mass production would be launched in 2025.

Yandex Translate

https://fr.sputniknews.com/defense/202107221045912549-le-nouveau-chasseur-presente-par-la-russie-a-un-point-en-avance-sur-ses-concurrents-selon-forbes/

Just to clarify if the Mod wants or not S-75...


The head of the UAC expressed the hope that the new light fighter and its unmanned version will be of interest to the Russian Aerospace Forces. He stressed that the aircraft is an initiative development, and negotiations are currently underway with the military department as a potential customer.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/11947075

If exists negotiations. Exists interest.

dino00 wrote:If exists negotiations. Exists interest.

Exactly

Kiko wrote:Checkmate's ceiling could be between 12,000 and 18,000 meters, or even higher, according to Tom Cooper, aviation expert, quoted by Forbes.

The ceiling announced for the LTS (16500 m) is somewhat low for a plane with such streamlined aerodynamics and such big wings, and is another of the parameters probably limited by the export engine. I would agree a domestic version with the izd. 30 should be capable of a ceiling higher than that, as the referred expert says.

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.

Admittedly I’m not entirely sure but a few months ago, I read the A’s internal gun was showing unacceptable accuracy and causing cracks whereas the pod used by the B had acceptable accuracy

Backman wrote:

Hole wrote:

I didn't know the bottom of the intake was canted up in the middle like that. That looks more like a big single DSI from this angle

Here's what The Drive said about it. The latest article is actually ok.

The aircraft's intake has been one of its most debated features over the last week. New imagery shows the angular ventral inlet, which wraps around the lower nose section, to share features with a diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) design, but exactly how mature Russia's take on this concept is, remains to be seen.

Yes, not only is the bottom of the intake canted up towards the centerline, but I just noticed the forward landing gear is also moved over from center to the left side.  Kinda similar to the A-10 Warthog when they had to do that to make room for its massive gattling gun.

Not sure what the reasoning is in this case, but maybe the EOTS on the right side needed more forward clearance to see and operate better?  I don't think anyone has brought this "offset landing gear" up already as I believe I have kept tabs on this entire thread lol and don't remember anyone bringing that up.  But just in case I missed it, I apologize.  The more detailed pics we see, the more cool discoveries about this thing are revealed almost on a daily basis.

LMFS wrote:I am talking about the horizontal surfaces at the sides of the nozzle:


Apart from being articulated and carefully separated from the canted tails, they appeared already at the MiG 1.44. Observe that the tails themselves have a notch at the lower side, so they don't collide with the elevators when the first are deflected inwards and the later upwards. They are literally identical to those I included in my model, so there was little doubt to me when I saw them...
They are small, but not that small, and as trimmers for the plane, for additional pitch and roll authority, redundancy for the TVC and braking they would be very useful. It just makes sense to have them.

I cannot see your images BTW, but if it was the Berkut that you linked, I know what you mean.

I can see exactly what you're talking about, now that I've looked at all the pics and really tried to pick up as much detail as possible.  Then I came across this one (that @Russian_Patriot_ posted) where you can clearly see the entry hole for the spindle that inserts into the sides of the V-stab bases from those two surfaces to not only keep them stable but to essentially allow them to rotate using those spindles.  Kinda like the pivoting point.  I hope you can see this image(s)?



Here's another great look at that offset forward landing gear.

LMFS wrote:Basically that the lack of h-stabs precludes the plane from having enough authority to turn hard enough to generate that overload... but it has TVC, and at some altitude and speed I doubt that contribution plus the elevators at the nozzles plus the intrinsic tendency to pitch the nose modern planes have cannot create enough turning load. As of now I tend to think that it may be an issue of weight limitation because of engine availability for export.

Interesting, and you know what, it actually makes a lot of sense.  Missing a rather important element in the H-stabs but at the same time, substituting that main shortcoming with other elements, each providing a smaller percentage of the needed contribution but maybe still not adding up to the required totality and falls a bit short will also affect the needed authority by just that little bit.  They actually make sense with that explanation.  Thanks for providing it; good to know.

PapaDragon wrote:

Hole wrote:...
The western and southern MD´s could need a few of these planes. Time to ressurect a few of the regiments that were axed in 2010/12.

It's Center and Pacific that should get smaller ones, those places are pretty quiet and they are not hurting for Su-57 because this new jet can easily deal with 90% of potential issues

Maybe they could park a squadron of Su-57s in Vladivostok or Kamchatka just in case but all other Su-57s should go to Western and Southern MDs

Sukhoi LTS plus all the 4 gens can handle Center and Pacific no problem

Also money saved from using LTS can be redirected into buying more Su-57s

I’m not so sure, there’s a shift in emphasis to the Indo-Pacific region in British and American planning due to the rise of China, hence this region featuring in the inaugural deployments of the HMS Queen Elizabeth CSG and USN F35Cs on the Carl Vinson. I reckon it makes sense for Russia to flex response to the Chinese and the Western allies here by basing a regiment or at least some squadrons here (at Komsomolsk or Tsentrainaya Uglovaya?) of Su57s. After all, the Chinese shouldn’t be seen as friends but rather viewed with caution.