New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021

miketheterrible wrote:
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.

Why would a jet engine be limited to providing only 7KW of power? These engines are massively powerful and only limited by the generating equipment that is chosen for them. It does impose a parasitic drag on the plane and the more capacity = more weight. But you can drive a 1MW generator with these engines and still have lots of power. More likely 150-200 KW would not be an issue. Packaging and weight are much greater considerations. The F-16 has about 60KW of power generation for example, and it is quite an old design, its probably been increased quite a bit. The F-35 has a massive 240KW of generating capacity.

Isos wrote:
You are right. But my point is that I don't beleive they will produce this fighter in 2027 like they say.

This one is less challanging. Most of the delays with newer Russian systems are software related. The combat system on destroyers, and on the SU-57. Even the F-35 had a lot of issues with this. Since this new plane is essentially using SU-57 systems, it will be much easier and quicker as the code only needs to be tweaked. The actually physical plane is not that difficult, and the engine will be ready in time since its also from the SU-57.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:@Hoom

I believe they said they will have flyable prototypes within 2-3 years, the never said if the model we saw can fly it really doesn't change much, you can get a giant box to fly with wings and enough trust.

If it was flyable that implies a great deal of testing was done and in that case, more prototypes would not take 2-3 years to make.

As this model would need to fly in order to gather data on what needs to be changed.

This is also a marketing campaign to attract investors, so I'll take what they say with a grain of salt.

You still feel the need to hedge your bets and plead skeptical even if one flies relatively soon. Which you yourself seem to think is a possibility.

With this mentality , you will plead skeptical all the way to production. And you are hardly giving Russia any more credit than the alphalbet soup of go nowhere projects out there. TFX AMRC Tempest Fcas et al

Do you think FCAS will agree on a plywood model before 2025 ?

According to Wiki first flight "after 2025" then introduction in 2040






[th]National origin[/th][th]First flight[/th][th]Introduction[/th]

France GermanySpain

Planned after 2025

Planned for 2040

I got a feeling that Turkey will not only buy a large amount of Su-75's in the near future but also sign a local production & ToT deal with Russia and apply the technologies acquired to their non-existent 5th generation fighter program. They don't really have a choice anyway since the few countries that could help them (the U.S, China) won't and the rest that would (Ukraine) can't help at all.

Backman wrote:

And with this picture dies the idea that missiles cannot be closely be packed inside the internal bay (which was one of the pro-2x R-77's per bay arguments.).

@LMFS
>I know it has an IRST function included, but I have not read nay mention to its use as an EOTS, in fact the Su-57 has a pod for this. If the 101KS-O was a full blown EOTS it would make sense to install it in the LTS instead of developing something new don't you think?

Then pardon me, i thought you meant electro optical targeting system in the literal sense.

GarryB wrote:Funny how the Air Force is in many ways the opposite to the Navy where the Air Force makes sense to develop and build the bigger aircraft first, and then look at scaling them down to make smaller aircraft, though not true for trainer aircraft which are also needed, while the Navy will focus on small ships and work their way up to bigger more capable ships...

True, it is completely different because they are different types of products, built in a completely different way. A fighter is serial produced, ships are not. The way to get a cheap light fighter is to have a ready to use box of systems and technologies and, even better, an existing assembly line, and this was done with the PAK-FA, which was the high priority project for the Russian military. What they are doing now is just leveraging all that work, actually in a way never before done (to my knowledge) in recent aerospace industry.

This plane sounds like it is fully funded, and the reuse of most of the bits and pieces from the Su-57 means it should be easy to make and indeed production could reduce the costs of making Su-57s because the wings and vertical tails for instance can be made in larger numbers and the cockpit looks the same.

They said they have a customer, yes. A state run company is not going to do this without previous alignment and green light from the government, some people clearly have drunk too much koolaid to let their brains work...

As to the production of the Su-57: I agree, this will pay for already incurred in investments in the Su-57 and reduce payback times, which is great for UAC and for the Russian state. But even more than that: fighters are not produced in thousands or millions, so the development costs and the investment in the production facilities weights significantly in the flyoff cost of each unit. So, by directly using even fuselage pieces from the Su-57, the LTS simply cancels the investment needed to produce them. These are the ways a significant reduction in sales prices can be achieved, I think it will be very interesting to follow where this leads.

I rather suspect this is more about trying to get more customers involved early on... especially ones that might make other choices like Rafale or Typhoon and or course MiG-35 that might actually want a real 5th gen light fighter instead.

It allows the state to avoid patronizing the project and taking responsibility for its success. It is too easy for UAC to hang that weight on the government, that is why all these projects start the same way, with as reduced a commitment from the state as possible and every effort being made on foreign funding being secured before purchasing is contracted.

Even with two engines the MiG-35 is probably going to be cheaper than this new plane, but I don't see them as being in competition... much as I don't see the Su-35 being in competition for the Su-57... they compliment each other and would work better together than having a fleet of one or the other.

MiG-29M is already more expensive, but the prices will be forced down from now onwards.

Not really. The paradigm they applied was to take existing products and give them a max makeover to correct as many of their problems and issues as possible while at the same time working on the next generation from scratch replacement model that in this case could share technology later on.

Sukhoi themselves named the export market as one of he two main drivers behind the Su-35, the other being what you mention. So the argument actually has merit. For every single project, the government encourages the companies to go find foreign funding and make money for the country, that is their freakin' job.

The barrier between a design on paper and a model that flies and can therefore be tested is really a case of assembling pieces and shapes to make them work... they have essentially taken one engine off the Su-57 and shifted things around to create a design and they seem to have done a very good job.

There is no "design on paper" anymore, we have a multidimensional model of the plane where essentially any physical characteristic of the plane can be tested and complex multivariable interactions can be simulated. This is no interior design, this is an extremely complex dynamic system and it is not about rearranging the furniture. When they build the prototype, they know already how this thing is going to perform in complex environments. That is the whole point behind digital engineering.

My discussions with LMFS (member not plane programme) seem to have centred around his view that a single engined fighter will be more manouverable and much cheaper, but that normally included canard control surfaces, which this design clearly lacks... I rather suspect this is a simple cheap numbers bomb truck and missile truck... which is all it really needs to be. I still think a MiG-35 will have better manouver performance and will certainly be faster and the suggestion it can carry 5 missiles internally suggests the front side mounted bays carry one missile each meaning the main bay carries three missiles... which is not a huge amount, but this is a numbers plane, not an arsenal plane... its virtue is it can reload over and over again and is around in large numbers.

Yes, knowing that some additional control surface will improve the authority of the plane, lifting characteristics and supersonic performance is easy, but knowing how Sukhoi can meet a defined cost goal is not. When they go this way it means several things IMHO:

- The required authority and performance goals are achieved
- Cost and weight are saved, which helps make the plane viable with the available propulsion options (no izd. 30 by now)

I think the VKS will buy and they will get a more capable version, with izd. 30, 9+ g structure and internal cannon, UAC themselves talked about the single seater and unmanned versions as their proposal to the military (exactly as I argued in the past if you remember). In case it is deemed necessary, they can include foreplanes or any similar additional aero feature along the chines, I see no big issue there, and increase aero performance. Maybe for the naval version, for instance. But that is not fundamental. If the economic case makes sense for VKS, Sukhoi will do the necessary modifications.

I still have no reliable data about this plane (Paralay's model is a bit raw yet and I have not bought the outstanding 3D model already available). But for what we know, TWR with 12 t empty weight and a izd. 30 (domestic version) would be 1.5, while MiG-35 is something like 1.4 from what we know. Cross sectional area of the MiG-35 is also not smaller. It is not easy to say with certainty, but I don't expect this plane to be worse than a MiG if the 8 g limit is (hopefully) removed. The wings are indeed very big, so lift should be already outstanding, as derived from the stated STOL capacity. And with the same thrust and lower cross sectional area and weight, it should not be worse in sustained turning. But we will see, it is soon still.

I suspect what he is trying to say is that it is designed but still a long way to go to get to serial production and service.

One does not seem to know what the word design means, the other is a troll. It is that easy.

The Su-57 was taxiing in about 2011 with 2020-2021 to get into serial production...

First flight 2010. That means that it was designed well before that. The cheap sophistry here consists in suggesting that, as long as there is need for redesign, the plane is not "designed". That allows these sore butts to complain open endedly about the plane never being finished. Which is, BTW, what happens with F-35 right now, but we know that having any sense of decency is not an issue for these gentlemen.

Making predictions without all the facts is blind gambling.... something I never do if I can help it.

Yeah, I am not talking about you. This retard is openly stating that the plane is not designed, which is blatant trolling, since the UAC has said it is. But when foreseeing what will happen in the future, he is too coward to be concrete and keeps everything wrapped in conditionals and innuendos. The golden rule for proving your understanding is right is to take the risks and try predict future developments. He just states obvious crap ("if there is financing", "if it is developed", "there will be delays") which is totally self evident, and use it as proof of him being "the adult in the room" for some less experienced users. He is a disingenuous PoS.

Some prototypes are designed for structure tests, but are generally broken in the process so are not used for flying tests... you test the structure before you fly the plane but the structural test models have the same structure as the flying models so you can see if it is safe to fly the flying models... structure test models don't need cockpits or engines...

This is not destined to destructive, ultimate design limits structural testing. But that does not mean that you can do a test flight of the thing without even making sure the structure's integrity and assembly was correct...

SS is allowed his own view and his own opinion, and he is not wrong that there is still a long way to go for this design... it looks very promising, but lets find out how it flys... without TVC and without canards and a tail surface it might fly like a brick for all we know... they might end up adding control surfaces to improve or modify performance, but that is up to the customer country.

He IS a troll. But your authority is the one counting here, so it is your call. In any case, I understand kvs perfectly. This gentleman's contribution is nothing but word twisting and posing. As all other trolls, there is no news contribution, no technical analysis and no constructive talk coming from him, just generation of polemics and a deliberate drive to sway people to his side by means of apparently reasonable statements so they enter in confrontation with other members of the forum, like the case with Isos in this topic

It is equally clear the F-35 was designed with super computer models too...

No it is not... digital engineering is being implemented now in US MIC (remember the cheesy talk about the digital century series from Mr. Roper). That does not mean some simulations where not carried out already for the F-35, just that the scope and hence disruptive nature of them was not present at that time.

Hahaha... people in glass houses should not throw stones...

Europeans among all the peoples in this world should really shut up in that regard...

You mean like Russia needed India to buy PAK FA so they could finish it?

I rather suspect they are revealing the aircraft now to get interest at an event where a lot of countries interested in Russian products attend... why wouldn't they?

Exactly. What for the West is doing business and creating wealth, for Russia is being beggars. These people are always half a step away of being outright nazis.

It was requested by a country with the money to fund the programme, but likely if it is the UAE they are not going to buy thousands of these planes so it would be natural for them to try to find other customers to purchase the finished product rather than help with the development.

Yes, UAE want to turn into a relevant player in the aerospace sector and for them investing the Russian industry is a golden opportunity of gaining experience and a stake in the market at ridiculous prices. They are already investing strong in civilian sector with VR Technologies, they signed the MoU in 2017 for the light fighter too. Maybe it is not them, but it would make sense if they are.

Made worse by the knowledge that the west is not some homogenous thing and that while the US made F-22s and F-35s.... neither is a shining success really, and there are no 5th gen fighters in Europe yet either, so the very idea that Russia might have the Su-57 and this new design... but more importantly might have them both for export to countries that the west might not want them to sell them to is probably quite upsetting so they can't take this plane at face value... an example of what the F-35 should have been... but isn't.

They live immersed in cognitive dissonance and that is pretty irritating... as said, they don't allow their brains to work and prefer to live instead with their heads deep up their assess. Worse for them, they will have to learn the hard way and I don't give a damn anymore about them, they are just self serving losers without any sort of moral compass in life.

they could probably buy 1000 for the difference in purchase and operational costs....

7 times less than the F-35 was the estimation by UAC. Granted it depends on the operator, but I kinda agree the difference may be very big, once you detract the monopolistic element from the F-35 way of doing things. The user of those planes is a complete hostage even for the smallest detail, and even in the US the whole maintenance business was removed from the air force and handed to the manufacturer, so the prices skyrocketed. This is essentially a welfare program for the industry, so just by being moderately decent servicing costs should be reduced to a low fraction of what they are.

JohninMK wrote:For all we know they may have already signed up a partner. Given the sharing of so much from the Su-57, this was a very saleable project right off the drawing board. The Sukhoi sales team would have been out there selling it since it was only a concept.

Do you put the product into production before it is fully tested and hope to make upgrades to all the units you have already produced and accept that large numbers will be scrapped and many more will never get to full performance? This is the money no option we got bribes, sorry commissions, to pay and there is a Government money printing press at work. (F-35)

Or, make sure it works before we make any quantity, as scrap is wasted money which is a limited resource. (Su-57)

Is there really any significant timescale difference in the start of project to proven production either way? There certainly is in cost.

Bullshit (US) beats brains (Russia) is often just smoke and mirrors, a giant PR campaign backed by unlimited funds (debt) and significant financial control over ones vassals.

Nice post sir!

Isos wrote:Pak fa was funded by Russian ministry of defence. Indian were supposed to get their own version with the money russian asked with a ToT.

Nothing to fo with indian financing the pak fa.

Their money was not needed.

You seem to have short memory. It was claimed until literally yesterday (heck, it is claimed even today) that without India's money, Russian's "rubles" would not be enough to pay for the plane. Because, despite the program being "supposedly" funded by the MoD, we need to remember Russians are just pariah that do not know how to count their kopeks and the program was in shambles (since there was no purchasing contract literally until the last minute), because they already had the Su-35S and even said that the cost was very high and they were not in a hurry to buy the plane. This is the way MoD keeps leverage on the manufacturer and the exact reason why they function while US MIC is a total freakshow, but in the West it is preferred to stay in the comfort bubble than to see reality.

This one isn't financed by russian ministry of defence. Just made by Sukhoi itself and they certainly don't have the money to finish it alone. This presentation was all about getting parteners to finance it.

That so called buyer need to be seen first before I beleive it. They have hard time selling finish products like su-35 in Indonesia or whatever else around the world and you want me to beleive they have a buyer for a plane that doesn't exist ?

And to be successful they need to sell at least a hundred of them. Only India or China could potentially buy that much. Smaller countries like Algeria can order a dozen which won't make it a successful program.

Well, what we believe or not is not the point, but what the facts are. You are ignoring their statements that they have a customer and you are misjudging how state run companies work.

SS wrote:I believe they said they will have flyable prototypes within 2-3 years, the never said if the model we saw can fly it really doesn't change much, you can get a giant box to fly with wings and enough trust.

They said that prototype will fly around 2023 you clown. And again you cover your coward ass saying that maybe it flies, but it will be still not designed. I am starting to think that what you have outside this board must have to do with making up shit, you literally can't stop doing it.

If it was flyable that implies a great deal of testing was done and in that case, more prototypes would not take 2-3 years to make.

Says the poser, this time turned into expert Russian aircraft designer. Do you even have a grasp of what it means to build, prepare and ground test a prototype of a new plane including its structure and subsystems? Still no clear to you that indeed a great deal of testing was done virtually?

As this model would need to fly in order to gather data on what needs to be changed.

The prototype will need to fly to confirm or not the results of the tests already run with the virtual model of the plane.

This is also a marketing campaign to attract investors, so I'll take what they say with a grain of salt.

You are smearing them and calling them liars, but at the same time you try to leave a door open for you in case you are proven full of shit again... you just do the same all the time you one trick pony

Isos wrote:You are right. But my point is that I don't beleive they will produce this fighter in 2027 like they say.

So what, if it happens by 2028 it will still be a breakthrough. In program management it all revolves around uncertainty reduction, which is maximum at the beginning and minimum at the end. Many of the elements affecting the program cannot be managed or factored in and no one in its right mind expects complex multidecade efforts as modern fighter development to proceed 100% as per the original schedule from day one to finish. Doubting it will happen is therefore an empty statement...

mnztr wrote:
Why would a jet engine be limited to providing only 7KW of power? These engines are massively powerful and only limited by the generating equipment that is chosen for them. It does impose a parasitic drag on the plane and the more capacity = more weight. But you can drive a 1MW generator with these engines and still have lots of power. More likely 150-200 KW would not be an issue. Packaging and weight are much greater considerations. The F-16 has about 60KW of power generation for example, and it is quite an old design, its probably been increased quite a bit. The F-35 has a massive 240KW of generating capacity.

True, such an engine produces ca. 25 MW of power, extracting 7 or 70 kW of electrical power means literally nothing. Current power electronics allow to handle a lot of power with reduced volumes if the cooling is good, so powering a radar with such a spacious airframe and such an engine is indeed not the biggest issue.

Backman wrote:You still feel the need to hedge your bets and plead skeptical even if one flies relatively soon. Which you yourself seem to think is a possibility. Rolling Eyes

With this mentality , you will plead skeptical all the way to production. And you are hardly giving Russia any more credit than the alphalbet soup of go nowhere projects out there. TFX AMRC Tempest Fcas et al

Yeah, that half arsed attempt of sitting on two chairs at the same time didn't end very well

Broski wrote:I got a feeling that Turkey will not only buy a large amount of Su-75's in the near future but also sign a local production & ToT deal with Russia and apply the technologies acquired to their non-existent 5th generation fighter program. They don't really have a choice anyway since the few countries that could help them (the U.S, China) won't and the rest that would (Ukraine) can't help at all.

Turkey is indeed pretty determined to develop their own industry in all aspects. I don't know whether they will succeed, but by now they are settling for the same type of propulsive solution also taken by Korea and determined by the lack of availability of real 5G engines, much less in the size class needed by heavy fighters and their derived single engine light complements. In that regard, the offer by Russia would have some attractive, even when it would mean to turn TF-X upside down. Maybe they try with a token buy or some common development program to gain access to the Russian's know-how.

kvs wrote:The whole PESA vs AESA "debate" is the usual amateur wank fest. The PESA design can be refined to do the job and there is no
brick wall cut off that prevents refinement. AESA is more flexible but how good is the AESA? The Devil is always in the details and
the dismissive attitude that Russian science and engineering is mud hut level is an indication of the true level of the "experts".

Indeed to know the difference between a good PESA and a shitty AESA demands to actually know what you are talking about, and that sort of knowledge is not abundant...

Kiko wrote:However, probably the most important detail about the features of the aircraft turns out to be the least visible. And it's the maneuver button on the plane's control knob. Ignites the vector thrust that helps execute the craziest aerial maneuvers. All this suggests that the new fighter is most likely equipped with vector thrust.

This is confirmed by the engine that is installed in the model of the new fighter: at first glance it resembles a modification of the AL-41 engine, currently used in the Su-35S and Su-57 fighters. However, it appears to have a new vector thrust system that more closely resembles what the MiG-29OVT had.

I doubt the TVC is true 3D, there is no space at the sides of the nozzle for significant side deflection

Atmosphere wrote:Then pardon me, i thought you meant electro optical targeting system in the literal sense.

Nothing to pardon, I am not sure about this one...

Not sure if this was posted here already, but did they modify the RVV-SD version that will go in this bird's bays with foldable conventional fins instead of the fixed, standard lattice ones? If so, that's pretty good that they've already taken care of even the weapons that will go into this thing. They've pretty much completed all the necessities to make this aircraft complete. All that's left is to get it up in the air!  

Mindstorm wrote:The Hi/Lo force composition's ratio in the fighter department of ВВС (that is NOT equivalent to heavy and light products) is about 1:2,7 and taking into account the new architecture ,envisioning slaved UCAVs, it should reach 1:7.

Interesting, and makes sense indeed. That would point out to an already very advanced state of planing of the future operational concepts involving a deep penetration of unmanned platforms in the fleet composition.

Both class of missions are considered fundamental by Federation's Command because the early failure (optimally with crippling enemy  air forces material losses both in the air that on the ground) of the opening air operations would very likely collapse entirely the OTAN warfare fundamentals also taking also into account the significant inferiority on the ground of theirs forces and probably prevent the further escalation of such a clash toward a nuclear one and therefore resolve quickly the conflict at favourable terms.

Thanks for the operational concept described... that is a significant driver for the numerical growth of the VKS fleet and it would essentially deny the NATO's best chance of denting the defensive strategy of Russia.

Is self-evident that in ВВС service an aircraft like ЛТС would be very useful for the first class of air superiority/air interdiction roles but would be hardly employable and concede heavily to Су-57 and С-70 in the second class of missions and we all know the importance in domestic doctrine of the early stand-off destruction, ВДВ conquer or endangering by ground force offensive of the main OTAN's air bases and for this reason the Federation Command will fill the "low" side of the composition mix only partially with a similar aircraft and probably only after that an optionally manned or fully robotic version with increased fuel fraction will be completed.

My comment here is that the LTS, with the stated range on internal fuel, is already better than most (I would say all with possible exception of the F-15EX) Western planes in that regard... 1500 km combat range (obviously in optimum conditions) is not what you would call a point defence fighter and is (remarkably) on paper capable of replacing planes like the Su-30SM in payload (7.4 vs. 8 t) and range, with the additional advantage, that internal weapons carriage will make it even less affected by the drag of the ordnance, improving range and dynamic capacities, at least for missions where loadout is compatible with the bays. And the use of the unmanned version would allow a mixed wing to complement Su-34 and the Su-57/S-70 combo in strike and deep interdiction roles, so the later can concentrate on highly protected / hardened and high value targets.

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:Checkmate and F-35 compassion

This image is incomplete and needs a legend/key. I suggest the following:

BLUE - Predator
BLACK - Prey

Good take of the DSI bump from the video:

That so called buyer need to be seen first before I beleive it. They have hard time selling finish products like su-35 in Indonesia or whatever else around the world and you want me to beleive they have a buyer for a plane that doesn't exist ?

That is resolutely ludicrous statement. How in christs earth can you say the plane does not exist ? When we just seen the unveiling of the actual plane ?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:@Hoom
..

This is also a marketing campaign to attract investors, so I'll take what they say with a grain of salt.

So you think if a country ordered this aircraft , Rostec would turn the order down ? (because it needs investors first. For record, i don't. I believe if anyone orders this aircraft, Rostec will accept the order and fill it.)

This was purely a sales event for this aircraft. Bringing up "investors" is just a sneaky way of giving the propagandists like Steve Trimble credibility. And the whole bullshit narrative that Russia is Iran with design bureau's. I just watched the whole unveil presentation again. It said "Checkmate is ready for flight testing"

Why would they not be capable to calculate those values with a given airframe design and propulsion?

Because a lot can go wrong between paper/CAD design vs built flyable prototype and again the leap to production.

Just look at F-35 for a whole heap of the things that can go wrong.
Or Il-112V with its 3tons overweight first prototype due to problems with the tail design.

As I said earlier: if their numbers are based off the weights achieved in building this first prototype they should be more reliable than numbers from the 'paper' design.
But yes I'm sceptical of top speeds & ranges being bandied about until confirmed by flight testing.

Gomig-21 wrote:Not sure if this was posted here already, but did they modify the RVV-SD version that will go in this bird's bays with foldable conventional fins instead of the fixed, standard lattice ones?  If so, that's pretty good that they've already taken care of even the weapons that will go into this thing.  They've pretty much completed all the necessities to make this aircraft complete.  All that's left is to get it up in the air!  

That's the Izd. 180 (R-77M or K-77M)

They seem to have borrowed the rear set up from the MiG-MFI

UAE operates 6 squadrons of 4th generation single engine fighters. F-16's and Mirage 2000's. 

Even if they get the F-35 order , they still might be the main client on the su 75.

hoom wrote:Because a lot can go wrong between paper/CAD design vs built flyable prototype and again the leap to production.

Just look at F-35 for a whole heap of the things that can go wrong.
Or Il-112V with its 3tons overweight first prototype due to problems with the tail design.

As I said earlier: if their numbers are based off the weights achieved in building this first prototype they should be more reliable than numbers from the 'paper' design.
But yes I'm sceptical of top speeds & ranges being bandied about until confirmed by flight testing.

Of course a validation of the results through testing is needed, but what I mean is that the fundamental difference between this plane and previous ones, included those you mention, is that the design process now for the first time includes thorough virtual testing with the digital twin of the platform. If they are doing it properly (the methodology is new so there is inherent risk in the process), they should get very reliable values directly out of the design phase, as well as almost 100% workshop ready documentation for prototype building.

@kvs:
The F-35 has ca. 2800 km range on internal fuel with more than 8 t of it carried onboard. But the speed is indeed lower, the cross sectional area is huge, supersonic acceleration is low, the bays are less usable and in general it seems surpassed in the dynamic aspect, specially if izd. 30 is to be used in the LTS. Chauvinists are assuming this to be a "low end" plane compared to the F-35, but I still cannot understand what the concrete arguments are, they know basically nothing about the performance of the avionics, which are very similar in features, and there are more points where the LTS is ahead in terms of airframe than the other way around, even with export specs and at claimed four times lower cost... even at twice the stated price and from the information we have, two LTS would make short work of a F-35 so the advantage in military value should be clear.

Just made by Sukhoi itself and they certainly don't have the money to finish it alone.

No, they have a customer, but not Russia. Suspected to be the UAE... but might be some other country.

This presentation was all about getting parteners to finance it.

Not so much finance it, but buy the final product and therefore make it more profitable.

That so called buyer need to be seen first before I beleive it.

The Customer is probably the UAE and they wont reveal that because it exposes them to bullshit sanctions from the US for undermining their F-35 industry.

They have hard time selling finish products like su-35 in Indonesia or whatever else around the world and you want me to beleive they have a buyer for a plane that doesn't exist ?

Indonesia wanted the plane, but they feared US sanctions, which is probably why the paying customer in this case is secret.

And to be successful they need to sell at least a hundred of them. Only India or China could potentially buy that much. Smaller countries like Algeria can order a dozen which won't make it a successful program.

At 20-30 million dollars an aircraft and 7 times cheaper to operate than the F-35 most air forces on the planet will want this aircraft... including all the countries who have already bought the F-35.

At 120 million dollars an aircraft the Turks likely paid the US 12 billion dollars for their 100 aircraft... which is cheaper than the 8 billion dollars India paid for their 36 Rafales of course, but even at the higher price of 30 million per aircraft that is 3 billion so they basically save 9 billion dollars... that buys a lot of weapons and fuel and leaves a lot left over...

I believe they said they will have flyable prototypes within 2-3 years, the never said if the model we saw can fly it really doesn't change much, you can get a giant box to fly with wings and enough trust.

They actually said that this was the flying prototype but that they have not done the ground based structural tests which they need to do before the first flight.

If it was flyable that implies a great deal of testing was done and in that case, more prototypes would not take 2-3 years to make.

Structural prototypes need to be made and tested, they built this flyable prototype so they could roll it around on the airfield before MAKS and create some hype before MAKS started. Plywood mockups can't be safely rolled around an airfield as a sudden gust of wind could flip it over or break it... which is not something they would want to happen.

You are right. But my point is that I don't beleive they will produce this fighter in 2027 like they say.

They are using proven parts and putting them together in a different way.

How many decades of testing do you think there were between structural tests of the MiG-21 and Ye-8 test prototype?

They have experience with a twin engined version of this plane called Su-57 and they have flying experience with a single engined model with no vertical tails called the S-70, so what surprises are you expecting with the addition of vertical tail surfaces and the removal of one engine?

Even the cockpit is taken directly from the Su-57... how much modification would you expect there?

Why would a jet engine be limited to providing only 7KW of power?

Jet engines generate electrical power indirectly by having generators attached to them to provide electrical power in flight.

It is not so much the size and capacity of the generator though having two engines with two generators makes a difference too.

These engines are massively powerful and only limited by the generating equipment that is chosen for them.

They had a jamming version of the Tu-22M3 competing with a jammer version of an Il-76... despite the Tu-22M3 having 50 tons of thrust from two engines, and only 48 tons of thrust from the four 12 ton thrust D-30K engines, the Il-76 carried more powerful jammers because four generators on four engines produced more power than two generators on two engines.

With this mentality , you will plead skeptical all the way to production. And you are hardly giving Russia any more credit than the alphalbet soup of go nowhere projects out there.

Lots of denial too... I think he has gotten a part time job on the teams in the EU and WHO that are supposed to be testing and evaluating Sputnik V for use in the EU and the rest of the world... I am sure he will make a decision on that soon enough... when Pfizers order books are full perhaps.

I got a feeling that Turkey will not only buy a large amount of Su-75's in the near future but also sign a local production & ToT deal with Russia and apply the technologies acquired to their non-existent 5th generation fighter program. They don't really have a choice anyway since the few countries that could help them (the U.S, China) won't and the rest that would (Ukraine) can't help at all.

As I mentioned above they would save 9 billion dollars on the deal and operational costs alone they will be saving a lot more than that over the next few years.

More interesting is that if a HATO country like Turkey buys these planes then what about countries like Hungary or Greece... keep an eye on those proposed French carrier designs... all they need to do is redraw them as being single engined...

The whole PESA vs AESA "debate" is the usual amateur wank fest. The PESA design can be refined to do the job and there is no
brick wall cut off that prevents refinement. AESA is more flexible but how good is the AESA? The Devil is always in the details and
the dismissive attitude that Russian science and engineering is mud hut level is an indication of the true level of the "experts".

The radars they have are better than a bad AESA, so there is little point in spending a lot of money to get an immature system that wont perform as advertised... further down the track as they improve then it makes sense to look at them again, but there is no rush.

A fighter is serial produced, ships are not.

Of course ships are serially produced, but with brand new designs of bigger ships there is a lot more risk involved because scale modelling has its limits and they are much more expensive to get wrong.

What they are doing now is just leveraging all that work, actually in a way never before done (to my knowledge) in recent aerospace industry.

WHAT?

MiG-23 and MiG-27, Su-7 and Su-17... Su-27 and Su-34.... modifying and aircrafts shape and design to make it suit other purposes or roles has been done before...

UAC themselves talked about the single seater and unmanned versions as their proposal to the military (exactly as I argued in the past if you remember).

Yeah, they want to propose it because they want to sell as many airframes as they can, but how many existing drones are based on actual in service aircraft that were not in service aircraft to begin with and are now being used as target drones for air defence practise?

Yes, UAE want to turn into a relevant player in the aerospace sector and for them investing the Russian industry is a golden opportunity of gaining experience and a stake in the market at ridiculous prices. They are already investing strong in civilian sector with VR Technologies, they signed the MoU in 2017 for the light fighter too. Maybe it is not them, but it would make sense if they are.

It is interesting really because I remember in the 1990s a lot of people in the west were actually afraid that the dire situation in Russia might lead to a rebirth of the Japanese aerospace industry... before they were occupied by US troops they had a booming aircraft producing industry that created some impressive aircraft... many in the west that Japanese funds could buy Russian expertise and a combination of precision Japanese tooling and perfectionism and Russian space and air technology expertise and cheap educated work force with technology and experience in metals and materials might lead to something that would challenge the wests new found domination... funny it turned out the Russians did it all on their own without Japanese money...

7 times less than the F-35 was the estimation by UAC.

Even of only a few countries buy this plane it will become pretty obvious over time whether it is affordable and capable, but just looking at the available information I would expect this to be more successful than the MiG-21 because it has adequate performance for a low cost, which is what most MiG-21 customers were looking for.

This may kill the JF-17...

Or maybe China might get on board and licence produce them in the tens of thousands... and hand them out free to poor countries so they can remain independent so China can trade with them without worrying about regime change imposed by the west...

This is the way MoD keeps leverage on the manufacturer and the exact reason why they function while US MIC is a total freakshow, but in the West it is preferred to stay in the comfort bubble than to see reality.

Well actually the Russian MIC is state owned, while the US MIC is private companies earning a buck or two...

Says the poser, this time turned into expert Russian aircraft designer. Do you even have a grasp of what it means to build, prepare and ground test a prototype of a new plane including its structure and subsystems? Still no clear to you that indeed a great deal of testing was done virtually?

What happened was they took the 1:35 scale plastic model of the Su-57 and took away one engine and then tried to build the kit... it wasn't designed it was just put together that way.

But then as it uses Su-57 bits quite clearly to get it all to fit together it would need to be seriously re designed so the modified pieces actually fit and it makes sense.

I doubt the TVC is true 3D, there is no space at the sides of the nozzle for significant side deflection

There is as much room for 3D engine nozzle deflection on the Su-75 as on the Su-57... look at the pictures posted above.

Not sure if this was posted here already, but did they modify the RVV-SD version that will go in this bird's bays with foldable conventional fins instead of the fixed, standard lattice ones? If so, that's pretty good that they've already taken care of even the weapons that will go into this thing. They've pretty much completed all the necessities to make this aircraft complete. All that's left is to get it up in the air!

Good spotting, that would be R-77M.

But yes I'm sceptical of top speeds & ranges being bandied about until confirmed by flight testing.

Of course, but you seem to be suggesting these guys are liars, or don't know what they are doing... they are designing the thing so they should have a good idea of what it can achieve and what it can't achieve...

At 20-30 million dollars an aircraft and 7 times cheaper to operate than the F-35 most air forces on the planet will want this aircraft... including all the countries who have already bought the F-35.

That price is just a dream.

A client will evaluate the plane ane its exploitation cost before buying. And as of now this plabe doesn't exist and those numbers comes from marketing guys.

UAE involved means they financed the program for their needs. They won't buy a plane that doesn't exist.