Sukhoi LTS "Checkmate" #2

ALAMO wrote:To be honest, I was expecting elegant side intakes, allowing the weapon bay to be extended, or a smaller one added.
When they presented the first undercovered photos, I saw that already with my imagination
So I guess, fixed too much into that

They arranged the covers on the checkmate to make it look like an F-35 clone deliberately, they were trolling the west and apparently they've become pretty good at it.

Even if you made them only side intakes... which means they would have to be significantly bigger to allow for a big engine and a future even bigger engine, taking away the underneath intake would not allow a weapon bay there because the nose wheel has to be in there somewhere... which this intake must go around.

They certainly would have computer modelled this design to death before selecting it but in the air the airflow might influence the performance of the engine.

Engines are getting rather good these days with new materials and more precise production and design, and Russian engines have shown to be rather good even with reverse airflows in tail slide manouvers.

I mean lets face it... not many planes look good on the ground so lets have a look at a fully armed model in the air before declaring it an YF-32...

The YF-32 looked really chunky in comparison...

Creating a demonstrator of the new Checkmate fighter cost $30 million – a source in the UAC. 

The construction of the fifth-generation Checkmate light fighter demonstrator cost about $30 million, a source in the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) told to Interfax.
"$30 million is the cost of a sample aircraft. We can't announce the cost of production of a serial plane yet" – the source said.
As reported by Interfax, the head of Rostec, Sergei Chemezov, estimated the cost of the new fighter at $25-30 million.
Earlier, the head of the UAC, Yuri Slyusar, told Interfax that Checkmate will be produced at the plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, in the same place where its sample was produced. He also did not specify the cost of deploying production of the new fighter.

Source: 

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:Creating a demonstrator of the new Checkmate fighter cost $30 million – a source in the UAC. 

The construction of the fifth-generation Checkmate light fighter demonstrator cost about $30 million, a source in the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) told to Interfax.
"$30 million is the cost of a sample aircraft. We can't announce the cost of production of a serial plane yet" – the source said.
As reported by Interfax, the head of Rostec, Sergei Chemezov, estimated the cost of the new fighter at $25-30 million.
Earlier, the head of the UAC, Yuri Slyusar, told Interfax that Checkmate will be produced at the plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, in the same place where its sample was produced. He also did not specify the cost of deploying production of the new fighter.

Source: 

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=555237&lang=RU

Interesting. Prototypes are usually cost more than serial ones, isn't it?

GarryB wrote:The more I see the aircraft the more I like it.

I have to say I liked it from the beginning, even when it was under the covers. We could tell a lot of the overall shape and the only thing I got fooled with was how far high the intakes came up the sides. I thought for some reason (I think it was the way the tarp was creased at that point of the intake and the LERX) that fooled me.

I'm very interested in how they determined that they didn't need H-stabs. Was it super computer information and algorithmic calculations that determined that possibility or was it window tunnel sample testing that was performed on miniature models and then finally on this full scale prototype?

I think the surprise factor for some others whom are skeptical (there will always be those lurking all the time) that it's essentially ready for ground testing and then taken to the air is fantastic. I hope that happens sooner rather than later.

Some mentioned the V-stabs and the wings are essentially the same as the Su-57 amongst some other items. I think that is such a great strategy to reduce the workload and assembly line production to a minimum for those rather large and complex items. However, I'm not sure about the wings as I look at them side by side as best as possible. They might be identical overall, like 95% but other changes can be seen in the shape, especially at the very far end outside tips.

The cost is also going to be debated till the cows come home. $25-$30 million just seems way too low but hey, we'll have to wait and see. The big pressure on Sukhoi/Rostec and co. is the speed at which they turn it into a flying prototype and then a platform ready for assembly. Get through all that including the testing and that will be the final judging parameter by the super hardened critics IMO.

Otherwise, I think it's just downright awesome and can't wait to see it take to the skies and tens of countries line up to purchase it!

I am just happy they didn't make it an F-35 wannabe copy with VSTOL potential because that would totally ruin the design potential.

I suspect most of the time like the Flanker it wont operate with full fuel loads to keep the weight down and make it a more nimble fighter, but a flight range of 3,000km is excessive... you could get to Australia from New Zealand with that sort of range...

Also the 7 ton payload is just a joke... it is not going to be carpet bombing... you likely couldn't physically fit 7 tons of munitions on the plane, though it does suggest that if needed it should be able to carry the sort of 1.5 ton heavier weapons the Su-57 might carry too...

Most of the time precision means smaller lighter weapons can be carried in greater numbers which is preferable to carrying a few very heavy weapons.

I am just happy they didn't make it an F-35 wannabe copy with VSTOL potential because that would totally ruin the design potential.

Agreed.

I suspect most of the time like the Flanker it wont operate with full fuel loads to keep the weight down and make it a more nimble fighter, but a flight range of 3,000km is excessive... you could get to Australia from New Zealand with that sort of range...

3000km is not excessive at all, that's 36% more range than it's main competitor (the F-35 ) and having long legs for a light fighter without the need for external fuel tanks also makes the Checkmate an excellent Strike Aircraft, basically everything the F-35 was supposed to be but didn't become.

Also the 7 ton payload is just a joke... it is not going to be carpet bombing... you likely couldn't physically fit 7 tons of munitions on the plane, though it does suggest that if needed it should be able to carry the sort of 1.5 ton heavier weapons the Su-57 might carry too...

It's ability to carry that much weight will give it much better flight characteristics with a lesser load, plus those numbers look much better on a sales brochure, yes?

Most of the time precision means smaller lighter weapons can be carried in greater numbers which is preferable to carrying a few very heavy weapons.

Having a light, long range, high payload capacity aircraft means having the luxury of carrying a large amount of both, should the need arise.

I go away for a couple of weeks to the boonies and Checkmate happens. Awesome news folks!


This ain't your father's F-35. This is a true 5th gen fighter plane.
No tradeoffs made to replace medium bomber aircraft. No mucking up the design to make it "cheaper" decreasing top speed and agility.

Having a light, long range, high payload capacity aircraft means having the luxury of carrying a large amount of both, should the need arise.

The thing is that light is the opposite of long range and high payload... and trying to get all three in one aircraft can ruin its design.

I think the best compromise would be light fighter with good range with a normal payload or short range with a heavy payload and long ferry range with no payload for long distance deployments.

If you need better range then that is what the Su-57 and Su-34 are for...

Very good aircraft designs can be wrecked by trying to make them something they are not and trying to make a light plane into a medium one or a medium plane into a heavy one is a slippery slope to make it more expensive than the bigger planes it is supposed to be working with in useful numbers.

lancelot wrote:I go away for a couple of weeks to the boonies and Checkmate happens. Awesome news folks!


This ain't your father's F-35. This is a true 5th gen fighter plane.
No tradeoffs made to replace medium bomber aircraft. No mucking up the design to make it "cheaper" decreasing top speed and agility.

They should market it as 4++ and say it's equivalent, the F-35 is 4++ because  they  can't supercruise. That would be a good trolling since americans are always inconsistent with their generation classification.

GarryB wrote:

Having a light, long range, high payload capacity aircraft means having the luxury of carrying a large amount of both, should the need arise.

The thing is that light is the opposite of long range and high payload... and trying to get all three in one aircraft can ruin its design.

I think the best compromise would be light fighter with good range with a normal payload or short range with a heavy payload and long ferry range with no payload for long distance deployments.

If you need better range then that is what the Su-57 and Su-34 are for...

Very good aircraft designs can be wrecked by trying to make them something they are not and trying to make a light plane into a medium one or a medium plane into a heavy one is a slippery slope to make it more expensive than the bigger planes it is supposed to be working with in useful numbers.

Let's say that 75 seem to carry a lot of fuel while retaining an excellent aerodynamical shape.
Inner bomb bay is quite small in comparison but as it will came AFTER Su-57 and Okhotnik that are instead both excellent in this aspect I think it is not so problematic at all.



So very long range, good performances, limited (inner) payload, low cost part of the mix you propose is covered.

Inner bomb bay is quite small in comparison

The important point is they've designed a standard bay: Su-57 has 2* in tandem, S-70 apparently has one each side between the engine & landing gear, Su-75 has one centreline under the engine.
Its sized for a bunch of existing weapons & a whole new generation is developed/in development to fit it.
What fits in one will fit in all planes with these bays & should also be fine for external carriage on older planes.

The US has built non-standardised bays on F-22 & F-35 and has had issues trying to fit anything other than very specific weapon loads because of it.

Good point, it is the air equivalent of the UKSK launcher, so all new internal tactical weapons should be designed to fit.

Consider for a moment the actual target market for this aircraft as opposed to the different needs of a country like Russia.

It seems to me that they have pretty much nailed it in terms of the range and payload. This is a Mig-21+ for the modern age, with some multi-role added to the mix.


Also, I haven't noticed anyone commenting on the possible strategic objective of this announcement, in line with Russia poking the US with shinny new weapons over the past few years. In particular to force yet another increase in the already bloated US defence budget by responding to it. Will this make the US have to commit to a 'stealth F-16' lightweight fighter? A development that they can't piggyback onto an existing product.

Whichever way you look at it this plane would have had a big impact in the Pentagon, much greater than its pure military significance. You can almost see the Boeing and L-M lobbyists moving into action

JohninMK wrote:Consider for a moment the actual target market for this aircraft as opposed to the different needs of a country like Russia.

It seems to me that they have pretty much nailed it in terms of the range and payload. This is a Mig-21+ for the modern age, with some multi-role added to the mix.

Also, I haven't noticed anyone commenting on the possible strategic objective of this announcement, in line with Russia poking the US with shinny new weapons over the past few years. In particular to force yet another increase in the already bloated US defence budget by responding to it. Will this make the US have to commit to a 'stealth F-16' lightweight fighter? A development that they can't piggyback onto an existing product.

Whichever way you look at it this plane would have had a big impact in the Pentagon, much greater than its pure military significance. You can almost see the Boeing and L-M lobbyists moving into action

With almost 3000 km range on internal fuel the LTS goes well into heavy fighter territory. Of course this is great for countries where the LTS would be the only serious combat aircraft available, but also allows Russia to substitute their fleet of Flankers at a great advantage in operational costs and with very little or no reduction of practical combat capabilities.

As to the US, there has been a lot of talk lately about improvements in the engine of the F-35, the only thinkable solid technical advantage they may have vs. Russia, at least until we know more about the izd. 30 and the 3 stream engine they are designing based on it. It will not be an all-new design, but a further evolution based on the existing core, so it should not take so long to develop as the izd. 30 took. The LTS can indeed hurt the the F-35's market and, above all, reduce the US leverage they exert by trying to attach strings to its sale to foreign countries, that had no chance before but now can go to Russia and buy something better for much less money and compromises to their sovereignty.

I sauntered into this while looking for pictures of Sukhoi LTS. I believe this has not been posted here yet?

While this is just an artist rendition and the accuracy may not be on point, I find it quite acceptable, if only on the aesthetics side. The inspect-able 3D model is nice to get a look at the craft from angles that I don't see from MAKS photos. What I only noticed from this rendition is that there seem to be a very slight change of sweep in the leading edge of the wingtip section.

https://citizensnip.artstation.com/projects/mDNe21

GreyHog wrote:I sauntered into this while looking for pictures of Sukhoi LTS. I believe this has not been posted here yet?

While this is just an artist rendition and the accuracy may not be on point, I find it quite acceptable, if only on the aesthetics side. The inspect-able 3D model is nice to get a look at the craft from angles that I don't see from MAKS photos. What I only noticed from this rendition is that there seem to be a very slight change of sweep in the leading edge of the wingtip section.

https://citizensnip.artstation.com/projects/mDNe21

Amazing what can now be created outside the product's own R&D labs. Saving US Intel a bundle

That guy, Tim Samedov, clearly has some talent. Some good stuff at that link. Thanks

Will this make the US have to commit to a 'stealth F-16' lightweight fighter?

Thats what F-35 is*

*was supposed to be but US military-industrial-Govt corruption complex...

They've already ordered F-15EXes and there has been recent indications that they'll buy a new light 4++ to replace F-16 (remember when Russia was a silly backwards gas-station for buying new-build 4++ fighters for the last 8 or so years )
So I think this won't make any difference actually, unless by scaring them into keeping buying a stupid amount of F-35s.

I am slightly disappointed with this design. It is somewhat similar to the YF-32 design. Or for that matter planes like the Vought Crusader in terms of center fuselage.
It looks more elegant than the YF-32, more F-16 like, but I think there were better choices. Consider this:


Saab Draken.

With the same engine as the twin engine BAC Lightning it could outperform it in speed and lift.

Another example. Saab Grippen.


Still I am certain the Checkmate will outperform the F-35 even in clean configuration. Not as "fat".

Thanks to TVC in Izd. 30 they could have gone even further with designs like the X-36.



No vertical surfaces to reflect radar whatsoever.

Just my opinion but there is no real design evidence that points to any similarity with the YF-32 at all. Even the "similar" air intake is completely different.
The Draken on the other hand is arguably one of the most beautiful fighters ever designed but why go retro? The Grippen is nothing special and has nothing to offer. The Su-75 is doing just fine as it is thanks!

Where is the first part of this thread? Thanks.

Eugenio Argentina wrote:Where is the first part of this thread? Thanks.

First post   Even tho' you joined 3 years ago I suspect you still have to introduce yourself.

Try here, it changed name to reflect the topic

https://www.russiadefence.net/t8565p975-new-combat-aircraft-will-be-presented-at-maks-2021