Home
Latest images
Register
Log inDon't be too hard on these western propaganda outlets, if they ever dared to report anything on Uncle Scam's enemies in a fair and balanced manner, they'd find themselves out of a job or their funding would dry up soon after. The U.S MIC ain't paying their mouthpieces to make them (The U.S) look bad or their enemies good.Backman wrote:Aviation Week did a podcast with Steve Trimble and another guy on the su 75. They take the jet itself at face value. But the main takeaway to them is the usual BS.
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/podcast-sizing-russias-new-light-fighter
+56
Daniel_Admassu
SeigSoloyvov
slasher
tomazy
jaguar_br
tipex12
mack8
PhSt
Makarov420
x_54_u43
Scorpius
lyle6
hoom
zepia
higurashihougi
Finty
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
Atmosphere
JohninMK
flamming_python
mnztr
littlerabbit
Broski
Hole
kvs
marcellogo
owais.usmani
Lurk83
RTN
Big_Gazza
Cheetah
Tingsay
TMA1
GunshipDemocracy
ALAMO
medo
Dima
Mindstorm
tanino
GarryB
Backman
Gomig-21
thegopnik
Kiko
limb
AMCXXL
Arrow
dino00
George1
Isos
PapaDragon
LMFS
Mir
miketheterrible
Russian_Patriot_
Rasisuki Nebia
60 posters
New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021
Broski- Posts : 772
Points : 770
Join date : 2021-07-12
GarryB, hoom and Backman like this post
LMFS- Posts : 5158
Points : 5154
Join date : 2018-03-03
hoom wrote:I don't remember dates & don't seem to be able to find the thing I recall reading about rollback but some referencesto buffeting issues:Do you remember when was that?
Thanks for looking that up. I do know that they had some issues during the flight test phase, but as far as I know those were solved. They have still many more things to go, but those were already cleared as far as I know.
Actually, it's all those other projects that may give Russia reason to go with a cheaper jet in numbers so they have more disposable income to fund other projects.
Exactly, it is the amount of big and expensive to operate jets, and the continuing need for keeping increasing the fleet, that is the main reason for a smaller fighter for "most of the missions" (Slyusar dixit)
Gomig-21 wrote:You mentioned the forward landing gear shifted over to the left side in your drawing? You were able to see that with the tarp on? That's amazing and sorry I missed that! I was surprised when I only noticed it from that bottom view in @Backman's post. Awesome.
Hopefully now we'll see more pics of this beauty in natural lighting, instead of all that purple lighting effects etc.
Thank you. Drawing the outline, the asymmetry was very apparent. The best thing would be to get pictures without the distortion of the lenses, the ones that we got until now were taken very close to the plane and it makes it still a bit difficult to get a real impression of the plane.
Backman wrote:Aviation Week did a podcast with Steve Trimble and another guy on the su 75. They take the jet itself at face value. But the main takeaway to them is the usual BS. UAC has a lot of debt , this is basically a glorified plywood model. And they must find financing from a buyer to develop it yadayada. And of course , they bring up India backing out of FGFA. Yet Russia fully developed that and put it into production without India. And having India involved would have actually slowed down the project rather than speed it up.
He said even if one of these does fly, it could still be a glorified mockup that still needs to be developed. It's impossible with these guys. So now even if they rolled that thing out of the pavillion and flew it, they would still say it's a mockup that needs money. No
Then he says Northrop development a similar jet for export out of its own pocket and of course Rostec and UAC can't do that. Even though it looks like that is exactly what UAC is doing and has done to this point.
From what I can see, Russia can finance this with a buy order. That's probably all it needs. If they get an order , they can fill it. It doesn't need financing to just develop it. Even though UAE might put in some money. Because they are trying to diversify their economy. And they've put money in the Aurus car and MC-21 for the same reason.
All and all , it's su 57 2.0. They were writing that the su 57 was cancelled in the same year that it went into production.
The key thing to consider is that they, unlike normal persons, have no need for being respectable or decent. They can continue to peddle the same BS, following the same already tired framework used to smear the Su-57 and summarized in that terrific diagram of the adoption phases of Russian military HW linked some pages before and be considered total retards by anyone with a minimum of knowledge about the issues. But they are kept in place voicing their propaganda even when they have been discredited and proved false one million times.
Totally agree with the example from India, FGFA proved that today's Russia has no need to engage in ludicrous stunts to pay for their developments. When they go public with a project like this it means there is a sponsor and the design is done, at least. As anything strategic, the development of the Russian industry is not made contingent on foreign decisions.
miketheterrible and Backman like this post
lyle6- Posts : 2582
Points : 2576
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
Jesus Christ, never link directly to these shit sites. Put it in the archive first so they never get clicks, ever.Backman wrote:Aviation Week did a podcast with Steve Trimble and another guy on the su 75. They take the jet itself at face value. But the main takeaway to them is the usual BS. UAC has a lot of debt , this is basically a glorified plywood model. And they must find financing from a buyer to develop it yadayada. And of course , they bring up India backing out of FGFA. Yet Russia fully developed that and put it into production without India. And having India involved would have actually slowed down the project rather than speed it up.
He said even if one of these does fly, it could still be a glorified mockup that still needs to be developed. It's impossible with these guys. So now even if they rolled that thing out of the pavillion and flew it, they would still say it's a mockup that needs money.
Then he says Northrop development a similar jet for export out of its own pocket and of course Rostec and UAC can't do that. Even though it looks like that is exactly what UAC is doing and has done to this point.
From what I can see, Russia can finance this with a buy order. That's probably all it needs. If they get an order , they can fill it. It doesn't need financing to just develop it. Even though UAE might put in some money. Because they are trying to diversify their economy. And they've put money in the Aurus car and MC-21 for the same reason.
All and all , it's su 57 2.0. They were writing that the su 57 was cancelled in the same year that it went into production.
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/podcast-sizing-russias-new-light-fighter
GarryB, Big_Gazza, kvs, miketheterrible and LMFS like this post
mnztr- Posts : 2894
Points : 2932
Join date : 2018-01-21
SU-35 was targeting the export market at first. Then the VKS became the launch customer. This is probably done to throw off western intelligence. The reuse of SU-57 IP makes it hard for MIG to compete, this is probably why they were brought under one umbrella so MIG-41 can use the IP developed for SU-57 where appropriate.
mnztr- Posts : 2894
Points : 2932
Join date : 2018-01-21
Backman wrote:And of course , they bring up India backing out of FGFA. Yet Russia fully developed that and put it into production without India. And having India involved would have actually slowed down the project rather than speed it up.
India does not bring anything to the table other then money. Look at the Tejas debacle and their engine efforts. Billions and billions spent for something inferior to an updated MIG-21. India CANNOT remain competitive with China without buying a TON of foreign weapons. Even their primary army rifle is a licensed Kalashnikov.
Backman likes this post
Backman- Posts : 2703
Points : 2717
Join date : 2020-11-11
Did you listen to it ? Was it that bad ? I guess I didn't think it was that bad because they didn't go on bashing the jet itself. Like they do with the su 57. And the other guy did push back a little bit when he mentioned the commonality with the su 57.lyle6 wrote:Jesus Christ, never link directly to these shit sites. Put it in the archive first so they never get clicks, ever.Backman wrote:Aviation
It's just fun watching these guys spin their denial and ridiculous narratives.
SeigSoloyvov
SeigSoloyvov- Posts : 3887
Points : 3865
Join date : 2016-04-08
- Post n°782
Re: New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021
SeigSoloyvov Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:53 pm
@Iso
It's not DESIGNED.
It's got a lengthy development cycle ahead of it IF the project even gets the funding it needs. Which unless a lot of foreign backers appear, I doubt it will. Russia is busy with the 57 and 70 like you said. Plus they are talking about upgrades to the S-57, not to mention other aircraft models that need replacements.
Also, those were export versions again not domestic ones.
It's not DESIGNED.
It's got a lengthy development cycle ahead of it IF the project even gets the funding it needs. Which unless a lot of foreign backers appear, I doubt it will. Russia is busy with the 57 and 70 like you said. Plus they are talking about upgrades to the S-57, not to mention other aircraft models that need replacements.
Also, those were export versions again not domestic ones.
xeno dislikes this post
Isos- Posts : 11599
Points : 11567
Join date : 2015-11-06
SeigSoloyvov wrote:@Iso
It's not DESIGNED.
It's got a lengthy development cycle ahead of it IF the project even gets the funding it needs. Which unless a lot of foreign backers appear, I doubt it will. Russia is busy with the 57 and 70 like you said. Plus they are talking about upgrades to the S-57, not to mention other aircraft models that need replacements.
Also, those were export versions again not domestic ones.
The big lines and the overall design are made.
They need money to really develop it from foreign parteners. We agree on that. But if it hapens Russia will very likely buy its own version.
Backman- Posts : 2703
Points : 2717
Join date : 2020-11-11
I believe it IS designed. Why did we see an engine on the test stand with the su 75 exhaust tip on it a year or 2 ago ?SeigSoloyvov wrote:@Iso
It's not DESIGNED.
It's got a lengthy development cycle ahead of it IF the project even gets the funding it needs. Which unless a lot of foreign backers appear, I doubt it will. Russia is busy with the 57 and 70 like you said. Plus they are talking about upgrades to the S-57, not to mention other aircraft models that need replacements.
Also, those were export versions again not domestic ones.
The theme of the rollout was for sales. Not investors. If it was for investors and development partners , it would have been plywood in a booth off to the side. Like the FCAS and Tempest are now. No irony intended. That's just where those projects are. Russia skipped that step.
Big_Gazza likes this post
LMFS- Posts : 5158
Points : 5154
Join date : 2018-03-03
Despite the butt-hurt of some sore losers, it IS designed, and more than that it is built and is getting ready for testing 
GarryB, dino00, Big_Gazza, x_54_u43 and miketheterrible like this post
Isos- Posts : 11599
Points : 11567
Join date : 2015-11-06
They showed the official schedule with real prototypes to be build in 2-3 years and want it in production in 2027.
Hardly developed if you ask me. They just started.
And remember that those predictions avout dates are always optimistics. Mig-35 was designed in 2006 and they are still working on it. Su-57 is always delayed with the first one crashed as soon as it went outside the factory and they were supposed to have 2500 armata last year and today it is still in developement.
And this thing was developed by sukhoi with their own money. The design on computer is cheap. The use of su-57's stuff and work is also cheap since they did it before this aircraft and with money of russian gov. There is no way they keep the work and build actual prototype with no money invested.
And I still hardly considere this plane as a prototype. Just look at the picture of the belly, it is made quickly and seem to be some raw materials.
Hardly developed if you ask me. They just started.
And remember that those predictions avout dates are always optimistics. Mig-35 was designed in 2006 and they are still working on it. Su-57 is always delayed with the first one crashed as soon as it went outside the factory and they were supposed to have 2500 armata last year and today it is still in developement.
And this thing was developed by sukhoi with their own money. The design on computer is cheap. The use of su-57's stuff and work is also cheap since they did it before this aircraft and with money of russian gov. There is no way they keep the work and build actual prototype with no money invested.
And I still hardly considere this plane as a prototype. Just look at the picture of the belly, it is made quickly and seem to be some raw materials.
SeigSoloyvov likes this post
Big_Gazza, miketheterrible and Backman dislike this post
SeigSoloyvov- Posts : 3887
Points : 3865
Join date : 2016-04-08
- Post n°787
Re: New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021
SeigSoloyvov Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:04 pm
LMFS wrote:Despite the butt-hurt of some sore losers, it IS designed, and more than that it is built and is getting ready for testing
LoL no it ain't that was just a mockup model.
Prototypes aren't meant to be flying for years and that's if the plane gets the budget and entry into service by 2027 is extremely generous, there will be delays etc that is again assuming it gets the funding needed.
Nice delusions you have there tho.
xeno, Big_Gazza, PapaDragon, x_54_u43 and Backman dislike this post
Backman- Posts : 2703
Points : 2717
Join date : 2020-11-11
Isos wrote:
And I still hardly considere this plane as a prototype. Just look at the picture of the belly, it is made quickly and seem to be some raw materials.
Some people seem to think that aircraft are sculpted from wax. there is fastener lines and seams under the plane. And it proved to me that it is a real plane. Not the other way around. If it was as smooth as glass, with no seams or fasteners, then I would be suspect that it was a piece of polished fiberglass glued to the bottom.
The plane was inside the pavilion with bright spotlights and black light around. Of course you are going to see the seams that make up the belly of an aircraft. That's what real aircraft look like. They aren't bondo'd up and sanded smooth like a car body.
Big_Gazza, miketheterrible, LMFS and TMA1 like this post
mnztr- Posts : 2894
Points : 2932
Join date : 2018-01-21
GarryB wrote:
I totally agree with you but from a financial aspect a cannon is quite expensive for something they don't intend to use a lot.
The Americans made this same mistake with the F-4 Phantom... missiles would do everything, cannon were heavy and expensive and unlikely to be used so they removed them and then the war in Vietnam came up and they realised their mistake.
If, however you want to make an aircraft cheaper, removing a fixed gun frees up space and weight, but it also massively reduces maintenance because every flight you fire that gun and even flights you don't it has to be cleaned. Also in action there is always a risk of a build up of explosive gases that can cause damage or fire, and of course cannon generate significant force on the aircraft structure... firing 100 30mm cannon shells a second exerts serious force from a 6 barrel 30mm gatling gun on the MiG-27 for instance, and while the 23 x 115mm round is much less powerful firing at a cyclic rate of 12,000 rpm generates a huge amount of vibration and energy on an Su-24 and MiG-31.
Not having to clean it, not having to carry it, these are important issues for some aircraft that may not use their guns very much at all... mainly because they don't want to have to fly that close to targets on the ground or in the air.
And I totally agree... Russian aircraft guns are works of art... the Americans think their gatlings are best, but the 23mm Russian cannon has double its rate of fire and is much lighter and is gas powered so it does not need an electric motor to make it fire... saving more space and weight. The American round has a higher muzzle velocity but the Russian round has a much heavier HE payload making it more effective on target. Put a projectile in the Russian shell and you would get similar high muzzle velocities but higher rate of fire, lighter and rather more compact.
This plane is for export however and most countries will never use it in combat so not having an internal gun wont be a huge issue.
Russia already has gunpods with cannon... including pods that allow the cannon to elevate and traverse to follow targets... ie you can open fire in a dive and then pull up 30 degrees and keep the barrels on the target as you continue to fire...
In terms of fighter economics the GSK 30mm is peanuts. in money and weight. The use of recoil to power the feed, also reduces the shock considerably. I don't think the cannon requires much maint if you leave it on the plane and seal the muzzle. Pods have a history of being inaccurate and will be unstealthy. My prediction is this plane WILL be purchased in significant numbers by the VKS and it will enter service with a built in gun. With the advent of drones, guns are again essential. Maybe, however, they can design a large gun pod that fits in the main bay, and this plane can orbit the battle field while the gun autonomously blows drones out of the sky. That would be great for drone swarms. 1 round/drone.
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-06
- Post n°790
Re: New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021
miketheterrible Sat Jul 24, 2021 12:09 am
It seems that no one pointed out that the comment about debt in UAC, that all debt was actually forgiven - meaning Russian government paid it off for them. Or just outright written off.
GarryB, Big_Gazza, kvs and LMFS like this post
hoom- Posts : 2352
Points : 2340
Join date : 2016-05-06
It is though.It's not DESIGNED.
Unless they're lying this display is of a flight capable prototype built for at least ground testing, that means the structure is designed and built.
There may need to be changes from the ground testing but if as we speculate its reusing (with minimal changes) wings, tail, cockpit, main bay, engine & a bunch of the electronics from Su-57, those already were designed, tested & validated in the Su-57 program.
They'll need to confirm that it all works in this combo but as long as loads are within previously validated range they won't need to fully test those elements again.
kvs, LMFS and Backman like this post
PapaDragon- Posts : 13471
Points : 13511
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°792
Re: New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021
PapaDragon Sat Jul 24, 2021 12:30 am
Designed and built are two different things
Atmosphere- Posts : 311
Points : 315
Join date : 2021-01-31
- Post n°793
Re: New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021
Atmosphere Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:15 am
The best and most optimal place for a A2G targeting system would be in a container outside because you do not want to be carrying dead weight and volume for something that is only used partly. Especially since the signature increase is a non factor if we are talkig about ranges in which you are close enough to use optics.
For the Checkmate, i suspect the reason why it is there is simply to compensate for the lack of all round IRST vision like on Su-57. So it would make sense to use it in this form Because it doubles as an IRST.
For the Checkmate, i suspect the reason why it is there is simply to compensate for the lack of all round IRST vision like on Su-57. So it would make sense to use it in this form Because it doubles as an IRST.
thegopnik- Posts : 1825
Points : 1827
Join date : 2017-09-20
- Post n°794
Re: New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021
thegopnik Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:27 am
miketheterrible wrote:thegopnik wrote:@TMA1
But the F-35 is a small aircraft as well and is doing just fine with energy generation. The F-35 is also meant for many different roles. I know they have improved in MMIC technology, but have they put those new MMICs to work on their radar or got their size to be a little more smaller to make 1500 still fit but on a smaller radar? The only thing the source is saying using a smaller amount of modules that was on the N036, they said N036 not N036M or anything like we have a new version radar for the Su-57 that will be shared as a smaller scale. Having an aircraft with a 3m2 at 200(250 kms is the actual distance of same 3m2 target by latest fga-35 radar)kms against an aircraft that can see a 3m2 target at 200 miles or 321 kms is a major fucking difference. 321(1.1 / 3) ^ .25 the target that the F-35 would see as a reference point would be a 1.1m2 target while the fga-35 at that distance can only see a 3m2 target. I still would not want to pump out 300 of these and I think its going to be a no-brainer that EW modules being used would be the same old shit as the Su-57 but with less jamming power which is also a factor.
@miketheterrible
Where are you getting 10-15 watts? https://www.niip.ru/upload/iblock/4c8/4c89c11ae741be234a5f900b3fb41e86.pdf this was from 2015 and on pdf page 35 are stating 5 watts. The N036 is an older radar than that article. If they were mass producing these aircrafts more than the U.S. producing F-35s this would be a great idea.
The modules they are getting from are NPO Istok. They have had modules of GaN and GaAS of multiple ranges.
What they say back then vs reality now are different. 5W modules was their first back in early 2000's before they even made quad module packs to deal with the cooling.
Edit: the modules you are eluding to where used in the Zhuk AE back in 2006. Nothing said about N036.
Also, occured to me it's kind of pointless. Power delivery is key and a single jet engine may only provide roughly 7KW of power for the radar anyway. 15KW is for N036 on Su-57.
Nothing you said is confirmed yet, how do you know they are getting modules from NPO Istok are you currently KGB or a high ranking employee of Sukhoi? That N036 is by niip and nowhere has there been any news that the Su-57s current radars had their modules replaced. I am not even going to make a bet that the 2nd Su-57 will get a photonic radar, hell I will be lucky at this rate if the radar upgrade is even included in the avionics package upgrade when they have used hand me down modules from an early ass radar onto this aircraft
This aircraft is great non-western countries, buying 300 for your own country is as stupid as Poland dropping shit loads of cash on GaN AESA MMIC PACs air defenses, F-35s and m1a2 Sep V3s. I am going to replace polak jokes with vatnik jokes if they continue with a 300 purchase of these aircrafts without even bother replacing the radars with newer modules and dont say that they will if you dont have sources since the one provided currently was the only one on the radar information.
LMFS- Posts : 5158
Points : 5154
Join date : 2018-03-03
Isos wrote:Hardly developed if you ask me. They just started.
I said designed, and designed it is. If not, a prototype could not be built.
As to the predictions, look at MiG-35 if you want, I look at Okhotnik. Only LTS was designed even faster.
And this thing was developed by sukhoi with their own money. The design on computer is cheap. The use of su-57's stuff and work is also cheap since they did it before this aircraft and with money of russian gov. There is no way they keep the work and build actual prototype with no money invested.
What part of "it is a prototype" as stated by Sukhoi you did not get? Or do you simply don't believe them?
And I still hardly considere this plane as a prototype. Just look at the picture of the belly, it is made quickly and seem to be some raw materials.
That is how they tested the Su-57, what is different here? Prototypes are hand work.
Seig wrote:LoL no it ain't that was just a mockup model.
Prototypes aren't meant to be flying for years and that's if the plane gets the budget and entry into service by 2027 is extremely generous, there will be delays etc that is again assuming it gets the funding needed.
Nice delusions you have there tho.
Funny you think a random poser like you has more credit than Sukhoi
But I take note of the generous use of conditional sentences and vague statements you make now, to avoid being caught full of shit later. You don't even have the guts to make a clear prediction at least
"There will be delays" you say, what a cheeky lot you are...
miketheterrible wrote:It seems that no one pointed out that the comment about debt in UAC, that all debt was actually forgiven - meaning Russian government paid it off for them. Or just outright written off.
Good point, last year the government really gave new life to whole sectors of the MIC that were literally drowning in debt. The change has been very apparent already this year.
hoom wrote:There may need to be changes from the ground testing but if as we speculate its reusing (with minimal changes) wings, tail, cockpit, main bay, engine & a bunch of the electronics from Su-57, those already were designed, tested & validated in the Su-57 program.
Exactly, that is what testing is there for. Some people don't even seem to know what the word design means but try to school people with experience here. As you mention, in the case of the LTS the validation and test phases are even faster because many individual elements are ready, good and important point.
Atmosphere wrote:For the Checkmate, i suspect the reason why it is there is simply to compensate for the lack of all round IRST vision like on Su-57. So it would make sense to use it in this form Because it doubles as an IRST.
I don't have it for a fact that the DIRCM on Su-57 can be usable as a EOTS, do you have evidence?
dino00 and kvs like this post
Big_Gazza- Posts : 4891
Points : 4881
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia
- Post n°796
Re: New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021
Big_Gazza Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:35 am
miketheterrible wrote:It seems that no one pointed out that the comment about debt in UAC, that all debt was actually forgiven - meaning Russian government paid it off for them. Or just outright written off.
That's the power of publicly-funded State Capitalism, and why the elite capital-owners of the Western deep state establishments are so desperate to undermine Russia (and China) - to prevent either of them from categorically proving the advantages of such a system. Successful state capitalism is a deadly threat to Western neoliberalism and its endless promotion of private ownership, deregulation and free-trade for the enrichment of our corrupt elites.
hoom likes this post
SeigSoloyvov- Posts : 3887
Points : 3865
Join date : 2016-04-08
- Post n°797
Re: New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021
SeigSoloyvov Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:45 am
hoom wrote:It is though.It's not DESIGNED.
Unless they're lying this display is of a flight capable prototype built for at least ground testing, that means the structure is designed and built.
There may need to be changes from the ground testing but if as we speculate its reusing (with minimal changes) wings, tail, cockpit, main bay, engine & a bunch of the electronics from Su-57, those already were designed, tested & validated in the Su-57 program.
They'll need to confirm that it all works in this combo but as long as loads are within previously validated range they won't need to fully test those elements again.
There is more to the design phase than building a testing body, if your definition of design is "a mock-up model was built" then sure its designed but in reality, the design phase means everything thing is built from engines to electronics.
So so it ISN'T DESIGNED. If it was they would have a flyable prototype but they won't for years because they still have loads of design work to do.
I am getting tired of hearing about reused SU-57 parts.
This is an export plane, it's not going to have domestic SU-57 parts in it.
Everyone here is acting like the Russian Gov is funding this project etc and it ISN'T, the UAC also cannot use whatever the hell they want parts-wise, they have to get approval from the Gov.
dino00, Big_Gazza and x_54_u43 dislike this post
calripson- Posts : 753
Points : 808
Join date : 2013-10-26
"Big_Gazza wrote:miketheterrible wrote:It seems that no one pointed out that the comment about debt in UAC, that all debt was actually forgiven - meaning Russian government paid it off for them. Or just outright written off.
That's the power of publicly-funded State Capitalism, and why the elite capital-owners of the Western deep state establishments are so desperate to undermine Russia (and China) - to prevent either of them from categorically proving the advantages of such a system. Successful state capitalism is a deadly threat to Western neoliberalism and its endless promotion of private ownership, deregulation and free-trade for the enrichment of our corrupt elites.
The inverse of your comment is the contrived need to have "independent central banks" in the Western paradigm.
Big_Gazza likes this post
Big_Gazza- Posts : 4891
Points : 4881
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia
- Post n°799
Re: New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021
Big_Gazza Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:19 am
Piccie of the underbelly of the "75". IMHO this confirms that this is not a mockup but an actual engineered prototype, and that claims that this airframe will conduct the 1st flights is entirely plausible.
kvs and LMFS like this post
hoom- Posts : 2352
Points : 2340
Join date : 2016-05-06
The.head.of.Sukhoi.literally.said.this.is.a.flyable.prototype.So so it ISN'T DESIGNED. If it was they would have a flyable prototype
Either he is lying or it IS a flyable prototype.
They will start with ground structure tests like any other new aircraft.
You have to have a prototype built structurally representing the DESIGNED structure to do ground structure tests (whose purpose is to confirm the built structure conforms to the DESIGNED properties).
You think they make special monkey model body tubes & fins for the export S-400s?I am getting tired of hearing about reused SU-57 parts.
This is an export plane, it's not going to have domestic SU-57 parts in it.
Toned down electronics & software yes but structurally they're probably the same as domestic stuff.
We've seen photos of Su-57 in construction, there isn't some super exotic state secret construction technique going on there.
People go on about it because if they're reusing these big already validated sections of plane its a massive saving in development time & cost -> evidence supporting the claimed short & cheap development.
GarryB, dino00, Big_Gazza, kvs and LMFS like this post
Sponsored content