New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021

PapaDragon wrote:

Backman wrote:Intake ducting

https://2021.f.a0z.ru/07/25-9896401-7517.jpg

This thing is a flying gas tank, no wonder they expect 3k range

That was the first thing I noticed too when I first saw that cut diagram by Backman. Actually it wads the affirmation of the duct pushing up the way it does when we were talking about it needing to do exactly that in order to make room for the forward landing gear to tuck up in there when retracting. Sure enough, that'd exactly what it shows and the other is how much space and room there is for tons of fuel, especially in that spinal run,

I was there. I saw the Su-75 at arm's length.

Did you get a good enough look at it to judge whether its a mockup or looks like a proper plane?

Modern fighters have a cruising mode for the engine to save fuel which gives them more range than before.

Push the throttle and they burn it like hell. Those numbers are biased for any fighter. And it also depend on the load.

Gomig-21 wrote:
That was the first thing I noticed too when I first saw that cut diagram by Backman.  Actually it wads the affirmation of the duct pushing up the way it does when we were talking about it needing to do exactly that in order to make room for the forward landing gear to tuck up in there when retracting.  Sure enough, that'd exactly what it shows and the other is how much space and room there is for tons of fuel, especially in that spinal run,

I think I read somewhere that the F-35 used its fuel as a coolant for its electronics, giving it problems when operating in high ambient temperatures.

Could the Su-75 be doing similar but with the airduct cooling the fuel? Also, does running cooler fuel into the engine have any effect on performance?

I hoped you would get my point without the need of giving more details. There is no production line for ships as there is for planes. That "production line" (the shipyard) is not purpose built for the ships, it builds anything, pretty much as a workshop for prototype aircraft works. The amounts produced are in the single digits or low double digit numbers. There is no significant overhead of a production line in the cost of the single unit that needs to be paid back by means of big amounts of serial units. Ships are built essentially as one offs, of course in a ship series there is some cost reduction and above all a risk reduction, but it has nothing to do with the way a big aircraft series leverages scale.

So when they lay down two helicopter carriers weighing 40k tons each they are one off unique... most shipyards will lay down several ships at once... after the first Lada class Sub was laid down they laid down two more and had three being built at the same time... two were stopped after the first one got some initial testing and found a few changes were needed, but once the design is right they can lay them down in several shipyards at once and multiple keels at each shipyard where space and finances permit.

Being able to order parts and products for 24 Destroyers helps with financing and support.

Su-57 and LTS are different airframes with some of the same pieces.

The LTS is an Su-57 modified for a different role of lighter aircraft... it would be no different to taking the fighter interceptor nose off the MiG-23 and putting a ground attack/strike nose on it and calling it a MiG-27... or doing the exact same thing with the Su-27 and calling it the Su-34.

Tell me another plane changed from twin to single engine before, I don't know it.

Actually many of the prototypes for the MiG-25 had one engine, but to get the required performance they added an engine.

Sukhoi have been promising to make a single engined variation of the Flanker for the best part of 35 years... they suggested it to replace the L-39 trainer, they suggested it to replace the MiG-29, and now they are suggesting it again... at least they are consistent.

This is an extremely elegant solution for the growth of the VKS in a time of high paced evolution of the air power.

Assuming their numbers are right and it will be that cheap to buy and that cheap to operate, but then the new MiG LMFS might be cheaper to operate.

The MiG-29M would be cheaper to buy than the MiG-35 but both similar costs to operate so it seems spending a bit more on a suitable aircraft is worth it in their view... if they had bought MiG-29Ms they could have quite a few in service now but they are happy to wait... well probably not happy, but prepared to wait.

And not only that. I can imagine the designers of medium 5G fighters in Korea, China and Turkey have a bitter grin in their faces right now.

Not to mention the UK and France and Germany and Italy and Taiwan and Japan...

A few of those countries might take a serious look at this project and either take a few good ideas from it or perhaps even grow a pair and join it.

This project is being executed by Sukhoi but technically it is a UAE funded project... Turkey and Korea might bullshit their way into getting on board perhaps... Turkey paid 12 billion for 100 F-35s... even if these only cost 40 million each that will be 4 billion... 8 billion saved...

I really hope you are being sarcastic, right?

It is the only way I can think of to come up with a new design without any design taking place... you take some bits and put them together where they fit and where they don't fit you reshape to make them fit... oops that sounds like redesign.... which is a type of designing isn't it...

So yeah... even if it was papier mache this mockup changes the shape of the aircraft it was based on... of the aircraft they took parts from... sorry there is no way around this it is redesigned and is a design in itself.

I think SS is confusing the word design with the words Serial production model... which it isn't.

Nope. The nozzles in Su-57 are canted 2D, not 3D. If a 3D nozzle was to be installed in the LTS, it would collide with the bodywork at the sides.

It will be computer controlled by the flight control system, so could easily be fitted and designed to only operate at angles that wont hit the aircraft... if the engines on the Su-57 can do 2D up and down but angled to simulate 2.5 D control then the control software can be used to allow full 3D nozzles to be used but for teh engine nozzles to deflect to hit the aircraft... like the guns in a tank turret can be fitted with a bump to prevent the coaxial MG shooting off a spot light fitted to the hull of the vehicle that sticks up in the line of fire.

And that TVC nozzle is not known as available, is not what Saturn does and does not match with what we saw.

Saturn doesn't make one, but Klimov makes one that can be fitted to any jet engine... or are you saying MiG should work with Saturn but Sukhoi can't work with Klimov?

It is a prototype.

And you were the one saying the small light fighter has to have a single engine because of acceleration and agility.... without tailerons and canards this thing is going to be a dog with no roll control in stall states...

That is by now, I will keep thinking more questions hahaha

You had better send him your address via PM so he can send the core samples and EM recording readouts...

And I don't have the best technique and not the best photography skills. but some photos, I think, can be posted here. I apologize in advance for their quality.

Anything you wish to share is most welcome... thank you for sharing and I for one am very jelly...

Anyway, I can't tell which figure for the F-35 is real, 2200 or the Wikicrapia 2800 km. Wikicrapia is edited by pro-NATzO hacks so I suspect the
real numbers are the ones from the link above.

I suspect no one knows because it has never flown that far without a fault requiring it to return to base...

It's also the reason why F-35B (VTOL) has shitty range, it has a lift-off fan there instead of a fuel tank like the other two

The size of the fan and the area of useless space it takes up makes all three designs rather more stocky and bulky than they should have been...

And?

I doub't that Sukhoi gives a shit

Exactly... I am sure the countries who have permission to buy Russian stuff will take a look anyway and make their own minds up about this...

What about the video on RT where the lady journalist actually gets in and says how comfortable it is? Fake person? lol

Obviously a dwarf.

The F-35 is not close to the CF-18 range (3300 km) as per the Canadian government. This was a major issue several years ago given Canada's
extensive territory and limited resources. The limited range of the F-35 is a real issue and not just a matter of sources.

A serious problem for the F-35 because it is likely to operate on its own, but LTS is something you can buy along with Su-57s so if you need longer range reach just use the bigger aircraft...

Most of the LTS duties will be much shorter ranged, though good range is good, it is not something to get too upset about.

God damn it I got blueballed hard when I saw KRETs name with this aircraft hoping to see that it was something EW related such as sharing same modules or himalayas or a brand new EW system with name.

This is a small stealth fighter for operating over a battlefield... it will no doubt have a built in EW suite and DAS and all the other new crap other new planes have... as well as external pods for targeting and jamming etc etc depending on the role.

Also, does running cooler fuel into the engine have any effect on performance?

The MiG-25 and MiG-31 inject alcohol into the air intake inlet to cool the air going in, but it operates at much higher speeds than this plane would ever experience...

The huge airscoops on the inner surface if the tail fin root suggest it is where the cooling air is taken from but certainly inside the engine intake more cold air could be extracted to cool components too and perhaps the outside of the engine...

Could be wrong but I'm not sure the temperature of the fuel is the issue in performance, rather the temperature of the air flow into the engine. This is why high performance cars have air intakes that are away from the heat of the engine ("cold air intakes"often down near the front grill) and they usually get a horsepower increase by having cold/colder air entering the intake. In the grand scheme of things I don't think it's a big hp increase and I'm not sure how much increase it would translate to in fighter aircraft. Might be greater or lesser proportionally, idk.

I cannot fathom that it is still debated weather the plane is real or not right After being confirmed by the creators to be an actual prototype

Atmosphere wrote:I cannot fathom that it is still debated weather the plane is real or not right After being confirmed by the creators to be an actual prototype

Until they see it flying it's just vapourware.

Which is fine.. Let them think that. I feel the same way about FCAS, NGAD, Tempest, TFX etc. Lol until I see it flying...

Lurk83 wrote:

Atmosphere wrote:I cannot fathom that it is still debated weather the plane is real or not right After being confirmed by the creators to be an actual prototype

Until they see it flying it's just vapourware.

Which is fine.. Let them think that. I feel the same way about FCAS, NGAD, Tempest, TFX etc. Lol until I see it flying...

The sophists are already hedging their bets and calling it vaporeware even if it flies. This is a real static prototype and Sukhoi has earned credit for that.

It's unfortunate to see how much of a dog the FCAS program is. The Tornado is retired. The Rafale is dated. Look at the fuel probe. Germany supposedly has lots of money. France has the know-how. If Russia can build 2 5th gen jets you'd think France and Germany could build one. They are the ones losing out on this UAE deal. Maybe the Checkmate will wake them up.

About the question of combat range of tactical fighter aircraft with different design is important to remember that, in assessing the flight profile of those aircraft, the "hi" cruising altitude part of those profiles can vary drammatically among different aircraft : An F-22 and an A-10 have different flight pact mission's profiles includicng "hi" and "lo" altitudes, but the "hi" cruising altitude of an F-22 can be 18500-19000 meters while for an A-10 the same "hi" cruising altitude mean 9,500-10000 meters.

This obviously follow the main CONOP behind the design of the aircraft and, therefore , the selection of its glider's layout.

F-35 is an unified platform aimed at achieve maximum commonality among different requirements of three branches of US armed forces: its main role is evidently strike missions ( JSF -Joint Strike Fighter-) with an emphasis on high subsonic cruise (Mach 0,85-0,90) in the fuel effcient "hi" section of mission profile 12000-13500 meters of altitude.

ЛТС on the other side, as said previously, has an aerodynamic layout clearly optimized for high-altitude/high-speed cruise and manoeuvrability (its frontal section area ,wing area and swept angle selection and tail vertical stabilizers arrangement all point in this direction) and therefore its "hi" fuel-economical section of its mission profile will happen at 17000-18000 meters.

This contribute to explain the ЛТС boasted combat range in air to air configuration; obviously for an aircraft with this configuration the reduction in useful range at lower altitudes and heavier combat loads will be significatively greater than an aircraft with a glider design optimized for middle altitude and ground attack mission (at example an Су-34 or the same JSF).

ЛТС's weapon loadout for the optimized mission will foresee a full air to air configuration with 2 изделие 610M/810 in the ventral bay to be delivered at veryu high altitude and high supersonic speed (against fighter aircraft from half or less theirs maiximum engagement range) followed by an high speed nosedive attack long an outflanking trajectory (aimed also at outmaneuver possible inbound medium-range missiles from enemy aircraft) so to continue the engagement of surviving aircraft/UCAV at WVR from a geometrical/energetic advantageous position.

The aircraft with a weapon loadout (internal and external) of 5000 kg or more will lose almost entirely all its in-built advantageous features, and therefore the figure of weapon payload of 7400 kg hold very scarce value outside of a pure marketing slogan.

Those requirements (and even more the possible option fully robotization) has been not advanced by the international partner but by MoD that ,anyhow, still expect the results of phase two to ultimately decide on its full involvement.

hoom wrote:

I was there. I saw the Su-75 at arm's length.

Did you get a good enough look at it to judge whether its a mockup or looks like a proper plane?

Definitely, this is not just a mockup. this is a full-fledged fuselage, perhaps just without most systems. probably, now it has only a partial electrical system. But this is too detailed, there are too many connections and auxiliary elements, such as static electricity drains. I have not seen a single mockup with a similar level of elaboration.

Yes, this is not a typical shot on the Su-57. But you will appreciate these lines.

So, at present, Sukhoi has formed a line of three different types of aircraft with a high degree of mutual unification (plus the Su-35, which is unified with the Su-57 in avionics). Which country in the world currently has a similar concept under implementation?

This is not about the judgement of the viewer who has no Access to anything but pictures.
It is up to the people who made it.
If they say it is a prototype and not a mockup, then it is.
They literally have nothing to gain by lying, Because customers examine the hardware bolt per bolt when needed.
This stupid "ill believe when i see" drivel found in other forums simply comes from being skeptic of everything russian, while taking anything western for granted.
But these idiots should understand that they are not the "judge" , but just a person on the internet with only pictures to work with, and in several cases, a severely flawed base of logic.

Scorpius wrote:
So, at present, Sukhoi has formed a line of three different types of aircraft with a high degree of mutual unification (plus the Su-35, which is unified with the Su-57 in avionics). Which country in the world currently has a similar concept under implementation?

Above all they will be introducted in an air force that has already the bulk of its own fighting line made of recently acquired planes, the same Su-27SM3 planes were acquired starting in 2009 i.e. after the F-22.

Atmosphere wrote:This is not about the judgement of the viewer who has no Access to anything but pictures.
It is up to the people who made it.
If they say it is a prototype and not a mockup, then it is.
They literally have nothing to gain by lying, Because customers examine the hardware bolt per bolt when needed.
This stupid "ill believe when i see" drivel found in other  forums simply comes from being skeptic of everything russian, while taking anything western for granted.
But these idiots should understand that they are not the "judge" , but just a person on the internet with only pictures to work with, and in several cases, a severely flawed base of logic.

-

Deleted as no longer needed

JohninMK wrote:

Do you really have to express yourself in such a juvenile and puerile way? This is not the only thread either.

This type of language is not what this forum is about and is definitely not good. Probably too low for even the 'Talking bollocks' thread.

Sorry about that. In my defense, I just came home from a drinking sesh with the homies and it got political. Deleting the posts now

I've done my bit now delete the remains

These oil sheiks in the Gulf are the kind of guys who get companies like Ferrari to build a new clean sheet car just for them. That's maybe what they did here too. 

Regardless of whether one engine or 2 is better, maybe the sheiks wanted one engine because that's what they are used to.

I heard on a podcast that dignitaries from other countries were sitting in the prototype at the unveil

I am almost sure that the side bays can fit an R-77M.
Why? Because of their length, all that length can only be meant for a longer missile, if it was only meant for R-73/4 category missiles then the obvious choice would be to make them shorter and use the volume for fuel.