Sukhoi LTS "Checkmate" #2

RTN wrote:If the Russian Air Force starts to place large scale order for The Checkmate then it means hardly any Mig 35s and Su 30SM will be purchased.

So in the long term, RuAF will eventually settle for Su-34, Su 35, PAK-FA and Checkmate along with the S-70 Okhotnik-B in a Loyal Wingman role.

GarryB wrote:

If the Russian Air Force starts to place large scale order for The Checkmate then it means hardly any Mig 35s and Su 30SM will be purchased.

The MiG-35 is a cheap to operate numbers plane that will be in production for the next 5 years or so... whether they want the Checkmate or not wont be decided till they can test it and that likely wont be until after 2028.

Mindstorm wrote:
Ventral bay, in high contested air space against western type air forces, will probably host two изделие 610M or much more probably two изделие 810 because those missiles will allow not only to "punish" enemy aircraft attempting and/or capable to run away to avoid short range combat (where will be in terrible disadvantage) but also, avoiding completely initially the enemy air superiority group and destroy AWACS or tankers well behind the enemy OCA lines

No western built aircraft can do the same for inescapable volumetric limits of theirs internal bay.

3) Wider angle of coverage of the radar complex ,distributed around the whole hull ,allowing to provide information update to launched missiles while proceeding in missile-evading direction

4) Much greater kinematic characteristics of on board missiles (particularly for изделие 810)

will allow ЛТС and even more Су-57 squadrons to adopt widely detached formations forcing the enemy aircraft ,in significative kinematic and maneuver limits disadvantage, to waste quickly theirs load of medium range missiles only to avoid to lose from the beginning the initiative and the positional battle, all of that while in the mean time selecting the missile-delivering enemy aircraft to be attacked from the most advantageous geometrical position with изделие 610M or изделие 810.

After this first phase of long range sniping, capitalizing the opponent's kinematic limits, the enemy air formation will show big coverage's holes that will be used to quickly proceed at close range where surviving enemy units will be destroyed.

Practically domestic philosophy of air superiority and air interdiction combat almost do not include a medium range clash, at least not in the western meaning of the term, but instead a first long range attrition phase followed by a very rapid transition to close combat allowed by the positional advantage that domestic design progressively gain in the first phase.

Also new medium range air to air missile products near to introduction will boast enegagement ranges signicatively superior to theirs western counter parts in observance to what previously exposed.

PapaDragon wrote:So in what range does 7.7 tons of fuel translate to?

Isos wrote:Isn't the plane 7 or so tons ?

marcellogo wrote:

LMFS wrote:

marcellogo wrote:Are it possible that the vigorous 8G turning means SUSTAINED turning at 8G? pirat pirat pirat pirat pirat pirat pirat

The MiG-29 can already sustain 9 g...

Sustained here is to be intended in opposition to Istantaneous turning rate, meaning it can turn at such without losing speed and energy i.e. an excellent performance.

LMFS wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:
Ventral bay, in high contested air space against western type air forces, will probably host two изделие 610M or much more probably two изделие 810 because those missiles will allow not only to "punish" enemy aircraft attempting and/or capable to run away to avoid short range combat (where will be in terrible disadvantage) but also, avoiding completely initially the enemy air superiority group and destroy AWACS or tankers well behind the enemy OCA lines

Indeed that is an advantage Russia has. There are some comments to that: on the one hand, at least the R-37M (don't know about izd. 810) is a missile with a huge warhead and general size, and also relatively big drag, not optimal against fighter type of targets, either economically or in terms of effectiveness. Of course it should allows to steal the initiative (no one would keep course with such missile heading their way) and that is important enough in the scenario you mention. On the other, the thrust profile of Meteor makes it and interesting alternative, at least from what is known from open sources. So it is not clear to me what approach is more effective, specially because the reduced load that even a Su-57 could carry of such big missiles, compared to the salvo size a Western fighter with smaller bays can carry in the form of Meteor. I take for granted it is a more expensive weapon than R-37M, but I wonder what would be the cost of a Russian equivalent, and I am not sure such development has been abandoned completely. The bays of the Su-57/LTS would allow to carry 3 (or eventually 4, if very well optimized) AAM with the rough body diameter of the R-77, and the excess length of the bays could be used with a detachable booster for even longer ranges. That would provide a bigger loadout and a more capable weapon vs fighter type of targets (at least kinematically) at the same time

No western built aircraft can do the same for inescapable volumetric limits of theirs internal bay.

To be fair, the F-35 can carry generously sized ordnance like the NSM for instance, that is not at the same level of say Kh-69 but it is quite close. Of course it is unfortunate for them that such platform does not even come close in kinematics or payload to the Su-57 and would be at a distinct disadvantage when confronting it, but still it is better than the bay limitations of the F-22.

3) Wider angle of coverage of the radar complex ,distributed around the whole hull ,allowing to provide information update to launched missiles while proceeding in missile-evading direction

Are you referring to eventual (not yet seen) cheek arrays in the LTS, or to the L-band antenna in the wings? Otherwise the plane does not have a wider coverage than Western equivalents, which is IMHO perfectly acceptable for numbers plane BTW...

4) Much greater kinematic characteristics of on board missiles (particularly for изделие 810)

 
Is anything known already bout izd. 810 in that regard? Or in any regard, actually?

will allow ЛТС and even more Су-57 squadrons to adopt widely detached formations forcing the enemy aircraft ,in significative kinematic and maneuver limits disadvantage, to waste quickly theirs load of medium range missiles only to avoid to lose from the beginning the initiative and the positional battle, all of that while in the mean time selecting the missile-delivering enemy aircraft to be attacked from the most advantageous geometrical position with изделие 610M or изделие 810.

I am not yet sure about LTS in this regard, because I think that what we have been shown until now is just a monkey export version and not what VKS will receive, specifically in terms of propulsion. But in regards of what is known of Su-57 and specifically the second stage standard, the overmatch vs the West is going to be almost painful to watch. First iteration NGAD + adaptive engines are the only chance of USAF right now.

After this first phase of long range sniping, capitalizing the opponent's kinematic limits, the enemy air formation will show big coverage's holes that will be used to quickly proceed at close range where surviving enemy units will be destroyed.

This is a perfectly logical tactic for which USAF is very badly prepared. As of now, F-35 cannot even carry AIM-9 in a stealthy way. No extended use of TVC, DIRCM, platforms not optimized for maneouvering... it is one thing when you are better in one aspect and just a bit worse in the other, currently USAF seriously lacks arguments in both BVR and WVR.

Practically domestic philosophy of air superiority and air interdiction combat almost do not include a medium range clash, at least not in the western meaning of the term, but instead a first long range attrition phase followed by a very rapid transition to close combat allowed by the positional advantage that domestic design progressively gain in the first phase.

Also new medium range air to air missile products near to introduction will boast enegagement ranges signicatively superior to theirs western counter parts in observance to what previously exposed.

It is always good to have more and cheaper missiles, and when the bays and kinematics of the platform are intrinsically superior, that is going to work even with missiles that are not better.

We discussed also about the possibility of using the multimissile concept discussed for the long range interceptors, I see such possibility as extremely powerful and an optimal way of maximizing the substantial advantage in weapon bays space and quality in the Su-57 and LTS.

TMA1 wrote:

LMFS wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:
Ventral bay, in high contested air space against western type air forces, will probably host two изделие 610M or much more probably two изделие 810 because those missiles will allow not only to "punish" enemy aircraft attempting and/or capable to run away to avoid short range combat (where will be in terrible disadvantage) but also, avoiding completely initially the enemy air superiority group and destroy AWACS or tankers well behind the enemy OCA lines

Indeed that is an advantage Russia has. There are some comments to that: on the one hand, at least the R-37M (don't know about izd. 810) is a missile with a huge warhead and general size, and also relatively big drag, not optimal against fighter type of targets, either economically or in terms of effectiveness. Of course it should allows to steal the initiative (no one would keep course with such missile heading their way) and that is important enough in the scenario you mention. On the other, the thrust profile of Meteor makes it and interesting alternative, at least from what is known from open sources. So it is not clear to me what approach is more effective, specially because the reduced load that even a Su-57 could carry of such big missiles, compared to the salvo size a Western fighter with smaller bays can carry in the form of Meteor. I take for granted it is a more expensive weapon than R-37M, but I wonder what would be the cost of a Russian equivalent, and I am not sure such development has been abandoned completely. The bays of the Su-57/LTS would allow to carry 3 (or eventually 4, if very well optimized) AAM with the rough body diameter of the R-77, and the excess length of the bays could be used with a detachable booster for even longer ranges. That would provide a bigger loadout and a more capable weapon vs fighter type of targets (at least kinematically) at the same time

No western built aircraft can do the same for inescapable volumetric limits of theirs internal bay.

To be fair, the F-35 can carry generously sized ordnance like the NSM for instance, that is not at the same level of say Kh-69 but it is quite close. Of course it is unfortunate for them that such platform does not even come close in kinematics or payload to the Su-57 and would be at a distinct disadvantage when confronting it, but still it is better than the bay limitations of the F-22.

3) Wider angle of coverage of the radar complex ,distributed around the whole hull ,allowing to provide information update to launched missiles while proceeding in missile-evading direction

Are you referring to eventual (not yet seen) cheek arrays in the LTS, or to the L-band antenna in the wings? Otherwise the plane does not have a wider coverage than Western equivalents, which is IMHO perfectly acceptable for numbers plane BTW...

4) Much greater kinematic characteristics of on board missiles (particularly for изделие 810)

 
Is anything known already bout izd. 810 in that regard? Or in any regard, actually?

will allow ЛТС and even more Су-57 squadrons to adopt widely detached formations forcing the enemy aircraft ,in significative kinematic and maneuver limits disadvantage, to waste quickly theirs load of medium range missiles only to avoid to lose from the beginning the initiative and the positional battle, all of that while in the mean time selecting the missile-delivering enemy aircraft to be attacked from the most advantageous geometrical position with изделие 610M or изделие 810.

I am not yet sure about LTS in this regard, because I think that what we have been shown until now is just a monkey export version and not what VKS will receive, specifically in terms of propulsion. But in regards of what is known of Su-57 and specifically the second stage standard, the overmatch vs the West is going to be almost painful to watch. First iteration NGAD + adaptive engines are the only chance of USAF right now.

After this first phase of long range sniping, capitalizing the opponent's kinematic limits, the enemy air formation will show big coverage's holes that will be used to quickly proceed at close range where surviving enemy units will be destroyed.

This is a perfectly logical tactic for which USAF is very badly prepared. As of now, F-35 cannot even carry AIM-9 in a stealthy way. No extended use of TVC, DIRCM, platforms not optimized for maneouvering... it is one thing when you are better in one aspect and just a bit worse in the other, currently USAF seriously lacks arguments in both BVR and WVR.

Practically domestic philosophy of air superiority and air interdiction combat almost do not include a medium range clash, at least not in the western meaning of the term, but instead a first long range attrition phase followed by a very rapid transition to close combat allowed by the positional advantage that domestic design progressively gain in the first phase.

Also new medium range air to air missile products near to introduction will boast enegagement ranges signicatively superior to theirs western counter parts in observance to what previously exposed.

It is always good to have more and cheaper missiles, and when the bays and kinematics of the platform are intrinsically superior, that is going to work even with missiles that are not better.

We discussed also about the possibility of using the multimissile concept discussed for the long range interceptors, I see such possibility as extremely powerful and an optimal way of maximizing the substantial advantage in weapon bays space and quality in the Su-57 and LTS.

George1 wrote:New topic with new title also

GarryB wrote:

Su-30s and Su-34s will be in production and service from decades to come, all 5gen airforce is unnecessary and financially unviable so we will have Su-57 and Checkmate as high end core plus Su-30 as number filler and Su-34 as bomber component

Hahaha.... you mention finances and affordability and then you totally ignore it...

Su-30s are not affordable, it will likely be more expensive to operate than the Su-35 because it is slightly bigger with slightly more drag and slightly heavier than the Su-35.

Even the US couldn't afford an all F-15C and F-15E air fleet.... how do you expect Russia to manage the same?

What you are suggesting is an F-22 (Su-57) and F-15C and F-15E fleet (Su-30 and Su-34) but with an F-35 that was actually affordable.

Why even talk affordable when you ignore the MiG-35 and the LMFS fighter they are developing, which based solely on the model shown is clearly optimised for being a low cost 5th gen very light fighter.

Does the Russian Airforce even care to have a cheap to operate numbers plane, though?

If it wants decent fighter aircraft coverage and numbers enough to provide army units with decent air support without increasing its defence budget to US levels then yes it does.

They seem to be very satisfied with the Su-30's, 34's and 35's they currently operate as well as the Su-57.

If that was true then there would be no value in the Swifts aerobatics team and the MiG-35 would not exist and neither would the Checkmate... I mean if Russia can operate heavy twin engined fighters and that be affordable then a lighter single makes little sense because performance is going to be reduced, and being a stealth fighter it can't be that much cheaper.

I take for granted it is a more expensive weapon than R-37M, but I wonder what would be the cost of a Russian equivalent, and I am not sure such development has been abandoned completely. The bays of the Su-57/LTS would allow to carry 3 (or eventually 4, if very well optimized) AAM with the rough body diameter of the R-77, and the excess length of the bays could be used with a detachable booster for even longer ranges. That would provide a bigger loadout and a more capable weapon vs fighter type of targets (at least kinematically) at the same time

The rather large warhead of the R-37M mean any last second manouvers performed by the target can be countered simply by directing the blast and fragments in a suitable direction in the last millisecond of the interception... making out turning or dodging impossible.

Is anything known already bout izd. 810 in that regard? Or in any regard, actually?

It is quoted as having between 1.6 and 9 times the range of the izd 610M at altitudes up to 40km... which makes it sound like it probably has a scramjet motor enabling it to climb after a low altitude launch and use its fuel efficiently... unlike a solid fuelled rocket.

Lets make an assumption that max range for R-37M (izd 610) is 300km, that would make the max range of the new missile about 480km.

Presumably a lower altitude and lower speed launch would result in a range much shorter than 300km but it obviously can't be more than 480km max range so when they talk about 9 times better range that would be when the R-37M is launched from low altitude and low speed...  lets say 450km divided by 9 = is about 50km which sounds about right for a Ka-52K helicopter launching an R-37M at low altitude and low flight speed because most of its solid rocket fuel will be burned up accelerating and climbing to a useful altitude and then it would turn and essentially fall onto the target.

This would suggest that in the same scenario an izd 810 fired from a Ka-52K naval helicopter could launch an attack on a target at 450km... which is astounding, but not impossible because the missile could use its fuel vastly more efficiently to gain altitude and eventually much greater speed...

I am not yet sure about LTS in this regard, because I think that what we have been shown until now is just a monkey export version and not what VKS will receive,

If they even get it at all.

TMA1 wrote:You are indeed correct that it is thicc and craggy and can only pull 8gs max. That said it goes so damn fast, faster than the Phoenix and can pull more g. Would this still make it effective against fighters? Especially if they aren't prepared for it? But concerning its massive size and price it may be better with what you described.

GarryB wrote:It is quoted as having between 1.6 and 9 times the range of the izd 610M at altitudes up to 40km... which makes it sound like it probably has a scramjet motor enabling it to climb after a low altitude launch and use its fuel efficiently... unlike a solid fuelled rocket.

Lets make an assumption that max range for R-37M (izd 610) is 300km, that would make the max range of the new missile about 480km.

Presumably a lower altitude and lower speed launch would result in a range much shorter than 300km but it obviously can't be more than 480km max range so when they talk about 9 times better range that would be when the R-37M is launched from low altitude and low speed... lets say 450km divided by 9 = is about 50km which sounds about right for a Ka-52K helicopter launching an R-37M at low altitude and low flight speed because most of its solid rocket fuel will be burned up accelerating and climbing to a useful altitude and then it would turn and essentially fall onto the target.

This would suggest that in the same scenario an izd 810 fired from a Ka-52K naval helicopter could launch an attack on a target at 450km... which is astounding, but not impossible because the missile could use its fuel vastly more efficiently to gain altitude and eventually much greater speed...

GarryB wrote:together with the upgraded 4th gen fighter that was also upgraded with most of the technology developed for the 5th gen fighter but with external weapons allowing better payload options and lower operational costs.

Now the focus is a more balanced fleet with the light fifth gen fighter starting serious development (LMFS that is because the LTS has nothing to do with them),

The focus for both the LMFS and MiG-35 is low cost operations, which is why the LMFS looks like a lead in fighter trainer design, but that should make it super cheap.

Therefore light 5th gen is about affordability for export and for domestic use, but 5th gen wont be as cheap as 4th gen and as the USAF has worked out.... a really good 4th gen is better than a really expensive 5th gen... or two of them.

I suspect 5th gen fighters light and heavy will be useful but will not replace 4th gen especially light fighters.

I expect 6th gen fighters will be unmanned, so 4th and 6th gen might operate after 5th gen are replaced rather than 5th and 6th operating together.

I think for the next 5 years the MiG-35 will be made in numbers... probably 300

I'm thinking they need to be seen totally in conjunction with the canted stabilizers. When the paddles move up with the stabilizers twisting outwards they cup the air inwards to give the paddles greater energy for upward pitch in this case