Sukhoi LTS "Checkmate" #2

if you want to see a mockup just look at the tempest, that is what a mockup looks like. It is visible within the details, what is more ridiculous is that sukhoi knows that qualified people, like engineers, would go and see the airplane, those people can easily recognize a mockup from a real deal since they work with all sort of production facilities, so lying about it is never an option.

its just not the plywood accusation I recently got another ban for calling out another user particularly a moderator that pre-2014 urkaine production numbers of the Su-57 are entirely different to production numbers estimated after the sanctions for the Su-75 meaning the Su-75 has a better chance being on schedule in production than the Su-57. And of course other users were already off topic by now  saying there were cracks on the Su-57 according to some polish journo which same can happen to the su-75 in which I made a smartass reply that airforce General Brown and Christophers Miller's opinion also should matter on the F-35 in which they are high ranking officials in their respective positions and that they have more credibility than some journo and stating that trusting said journo based on his background is like trusting an Armenian reporter for the TAI-TFX project and that was it for me. Wish the best of luck to TMA1, LMFS and Marcellego over there but other than that people are just comparing apples to oranges saying ohh its going to come late because there will be defiencies and so on. I am sure they already have their next excuses ready when the UAE purchases these aircrafts and the U.S. threatens sanctions or pulls the F-35s out.

kvs wrote:

pukovnik7 wrote:

kvs wrote:Best plywood prop ever.  

The attention to detail, including materials is amazing.   Never though that plywood could be made to look like metal...

More seriously, it looks like this design was not cobbled together in a few months.   There must have been a single engine
jet plan in action for a long time.  

I guess there was a plan to have two fighters from the beginning, replicating Su-27/MiG-29 setup?

I think that there was some sort of hangup over the reliability of the engines with reluctance to adopt a single engine
design.   But things change and Russian engine technology has advanced since the 1980s in spite of the economic
collapse of the 1990s.   I am not sure what broke the final psychological barrier but this must have happened several
years ago at least.  

Various "experts" were totally blindsided by this prototype because they never heard anything about it and assumed
that it would be business as usual.   This is why we had all the inane plywood prop drivel when it was first shown.
Russia seems to have a good control over important information.   We may see other surprises.

Judging by UEC's developments with IGTs and natural gas compressors (which are very similar to aviation turbofan engines), they have roughly doubled operational engine life over the last 10-15 years. And a single engine design is now much more feasible.

PD-14GP series gas compressors (based on PD-14 engine)
Service life = 200,000hrs
https://avid.ru/en/news/2021/10/20/2118/

Older IGTs and gas compressors based on PS-90 (GTE-25P for example)
Service life = 100,000hrs
https://avid.ru/en/energy/engines/ust/?id=18

The gains in other engine designs (like product 30) might not fully match up. But the Su-75 designers look to have faith in them.

thegopnik wrote:its just not the plywood accusation I recently got another ban for calling out another user particularly a moderator that pre-2014 urkaine production numbers of the Su-57 are entirely different to production numbers estimated after the sanctions for the Su-75 meaning the Su-75 has a better chance being on schedule in production than the Su-57. And of course other users were already off topic by now  saying there were cracks on the Su-57 according to some polish journo which same can happen to the su-75 in which I made a smartass reply that airforce General Brown and Christophers Miller's opinion also should matter on the F-35 in which they are high ranking officials in their respective positions and that they have more credibility than some journo and stating that trusting said journo based on his background is like trusting an Armenian reporter for the TAI-TFX project and that was it for me. Wish the best of luck to TMA1, LMFS and Marcellego over there but other than that people are just comparing apples to oranges saying ohh its going to come late because there will be defiencies and so on. I am sure they already have their next excuses ready when the UAE purchases these aircrafts and the U.S. threatens sanctions or pulls the F-35s out.

F-16.net and SecretProjects, as well as similar forums, are the reddit equivalent of military aviation, literally no one cares about their bollocks, the lack of humility and the over confidence in their simplistic photograph based, leap of faith regurgitated excuses for an 'analysis' makes anyone who respects his or her mind to instantly leap off, i stopped looking when i noticed that the year was 2021 and the Air ducts shape was still a topic.

the principle is: in forums like that, the more idiotic the claim is, the louder and more confident the user gets,



to adress the cracks "claim", if what you mean is physical cracks on the airplane,then that claim is stupid, even microscopic cracks on the structure are monitored via fiber optics, and so if their tolerance is this tight for micro cracks, by elimination, anything above is  also counted, Furthermore, any structural strength, or RCS compromise through so called cracks, can instantly be identified by the hundereds oof hours the airplanes spends being actively radiated and measured to see if it's cross section complies with the required figures,

this proves that these people have no engineering background, or are downright looking for excuses for a prealably placed claim, because anyone who knows how engineering works knows that a high end product defect cannot slip through the eyes of the designer, yet magically appear in pictures for the almighty forumist to pick apart,

as i said, its reddit, for airplanes, do not waste your time mate. A discussion in which someones gut feeling and personal "speculation" is viewed as an actual argument is not something that holds any water, just look at the Su-57, has any negative speculation come to be true? Being cancelled? no high speed data bus? Inferior element base for the AESA radar? laughs in lower noise factor*.

Is the SU-25SM3 not Gefest equipped?

Would expect even if it doesn't it likely has the equivalent capability like the Su-34 has.

The key is low cost... already having an aircraft and spares to keep it running in stock means actual costs are low... you are just using up a resource already paid for.

An old already paid for system is of course cheap, but not actually cheaper than something designed from the outset to use existing parts and to be cheap and simple to operate.

The Checkmate seems to be using already developed parts from the Su-57 to make a simple cheap smaller aircraft, though looking at the drawings of the Su-27 and Checkmate it might not actually be smaller than the Su-57 which is smaller than the Su-27 too.

The MiG-29 was designed to be cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate despite having two engines too, and MiG have been focusing on cheaper to operate designs for some time now.

Su-25SM and Su-25SM3 doesn't have Gefest SVP-24 inside. Gefest offer their packet for Su-25 upgrade, but it is not in RuAF jets. Sukhoi made deeper upgrades, modernizations, which also included similar capable computer system for precise bombing with dumb bombs on given coordinates, but also other equipment upgrades, which gefest doesn't offer. New Su-30/34/35 have similar or better standard equipment, so no need for Gefest SVP. Difference is best seen with Su-24. RuAF have two upgrade versions. One is Su-24M with SVP-24, which got SATNAV system, new computer for weapon calculations and new communication for data link to receive target data from outside sources. The second is Sukhoi upgrade Su-24M2, which have all, what SVP-24 give, but also it have modernized radar, capabilities to use R-73 AAMs, capabilities to use anti-ship missiles (most probably new modes for radar), new flares and chaffs launcher, etc. Su-24M2 is better, but more expensive upgrade.

medo wrote:Su-25SM and Su-25SM3 doesn't have Gefest SVP-24 inside. Gefest offer their packet for Su-25 upgrade, but it is not in RuAF jets. Sukhoi made deeper upgrades, modernizations, which also included similar capable computer system for precise bombing with dumb bombs on given coordinates, but also other equipment upgrades, which gefest doesn't offer. New Su-30/34/35 have similar or better standard equipment, so no need for Gefest SVP. Difference is best seen with Su-24. RuAF have two upgrade versions. One is Su-24M with SVP-24, which got SATNAV system, new computer for weapon calculations and new communication for data link to receive target data from outside sources. The second is Sukhoi upgrade Su-24M2, which have all, what SVP-24 give, but also it have modernized radar, capabilities to use R-73 AAMs, capabilities to use anti-ship missiles (most probably new modes for radar), new flares and chaffs launcher, etc. Su-24M2 is better, but more expensive upgrade.

-What is the difference between the SVP-24 and bomb CCIP and CCRP ballistics computers found on strike aircraft like the F111?

Some 50 years.
Don't mention.

ALAMO wrote:Some 50 years.
Don't mention.

Apart from automatic release, I cannot find a difference. Wind is the prime cause of bomb inaccuracy, but its impossible to predict.

Just blow and check the results

limb wrote:

medo wrote:Su-25SM and Su-25SM3 doesn't have Gefest SVP-24 inside. Gefest offer their packet for Su-25 upgrade, but it is not in RuAF jets. Sukhoi made deeper upgrades, modernizations, which also included similar capable computer system for precise bombing with dumb bombs on given coordinates, but also other equipment upgrades, which gefest doesn't offer. New Su-30/34/35 have similar or better standard equipment, so no need for Gefest SVP. Difference is best seen with Su-24. RuAF have two upgrade versions. One is Su-24M with SVP-24, which got SATNAV system, new computer for weapon calculations and new communication for data link to receive target data from outside sources. The second is Sukhoi upgrade Su-24M2, which have all, what SVP-24 give, but also it have modernized radar, capabilities to use R-73 AAMs, capabilities to use anti-ship missiles (most probably new modes for radar), new flares and chaffs launcher, etc. Su-24M2 is better, but more expensive upgrade.

-What is the difference between the SVP-24 and bomb CCIP and CCRP ballistics computers found on strike aircraft like the F111?

The fact that the SVP-24 is not a ballistic computer but an integrated navigation complex with a secondary function that allow to use onboard weapon with increased precision.
So even without such feature the system in itself would still function.
Needless to say the added function is just a fraction of the overall cost of system (already economical in itself).
It doesn't apply to free fall bomb only, as it was proven benefical to guided weapons (of any kind) also as it allow them to be released along their own optimal trajectory so to increase their own success rates.
Needless to say , it work with rockets also giving them a 50% hit probability to hit a tank sized target (meaning that 10 out of 20 of a standard pod will hit) allowing them to not waste money on a laser guided version of them.
It receive data by a variety of sources, included but not limited to inboard GLONASS, radar and optical systems.
In tactical use (i.e. Syria) the most appreciated features were, on one side the ability of getting such data in real time and in any flight attitude, quote and visibility condictions allowing pilots to engage their planes in evasive manoeuvres immediately before and after the weapons release, compared to the need to mantain a certain quote and a rigid flight path of previous ones and on the other part the easiness to adapt the system itself to the use of the HUGE variety of aerial weapons the VKS use.
Enough?

Atmosphere wrote:

thegopnik wrote:its just not the plywood accusation I recently got another ban for calling out another user particularly a moderator that pre-2014 urkaine production numbers of the Su-57 are entirely different to production numbers estimated after the sanctions for the Su-75 meaning the Su-75 has a better chance being on schedule in production than the Su-57. And of course other users were already off topic by now  saying there were cracks on the Su-57 according to some polish journo which same can happen to the su-75 in which I made a smartass reply that airforce General Brown and Christophers Miller's opinion also should matter on the F-35 in which they are high ranking officials in their respective positions and that they have more credibility than some journo and stating that trusting said journo based on his background is like trusting an Armenian reporter for the TAI-TFX project and that was it for me. Wish the best of luck to TMA1, LMFS and Marcellego over there but other than that people are just comparing apples to oranges saying ohh its going to come late because there will be defiencies and so on. I am sure they already have their next excuses ready when the UAE purchases these aircrafts and the U.S. threatens sanctions or pulls the F-35s out.

F-16.net and SecretProjects, as well as similar forums, are the reddit equivalent of military aviation, literally no one cares about their bollocks, the lack of humility and the over confidence in their simplistic photograph based, leap of faith regurgitated excuses for an 'analysis' makes anyone who respects his or her mind to instantly leap off, i stopped looking when i noticed that the year was 2021 and the Air ducts shape was still a topic.

the principle is: in forums like that, the more idiotic the claim is, the louder and more confident the user gets,



to adress the cracks "claim", if what you mean is physical cracks on the airplane,then that claim is stupid, even microscopic cracks on the structure are monitored via fiber optics, and so if their tolerance is this tight for micro cracks, by elimination, anything above is  also counted, Furthermore, any structural strength, or RCS compromise through so called cracks, can instantly be identified by the hundereds oof hours the airplanes spends being actively radiated and measured to see if it's cross section complies with the required figures,

this proves that these people have no engineering background, or are downright looking for excuses for a prealably placed claim, because anyone who knows how engineering works knows that a high end product defect cannot slip through the eyes of the designer, yet magically appear in pictures for the almighty forumist to pick apart,

as i said, its reddit, for airplanes, do not waste your time mate. A discussion in which someones gut feeling and personal "speculation" is viewed as an actual argument is not something that holds any water, just look at the Su-57, has any negative speculation come to be true? Being cancelled? no high speed data bus? Inferior element base for the AESA radar? laughs in lower noise factor*.

A little clarification that i'll add in case someone watches this thread and gets misinformed.
So i just checked the thread mentioned by "thegopnik" regarding LTS (and by some extent Su-57) and it appears that the discussion is way more idiotic than anticipated.
The claims were regarding the structural strength of the early T-50 *prototypes* and how strengthened airframes were created afterwards, however, the *very point* of a flight test prototype is to *exactly show any aerodynamic or structural defect* for refinment, i have no idea why is this even used as an argument or shed in in a negative light, any project of any sort goes into several builds for the sake of refinment.

The analogy pulled with LTS is also very false, just because the T-50 prototypes revealed certain flaws does not mean that the LTS is going to have the exact same roadmap, its way more complex than that, the T-50 was built from scratch while the LTS draws heavily from the T-50. Then theres the fact that they are ten years apart in simulation methods, a better analogy would be with the Su-34, since it was drawn from the Su-27 and was not a similarly risky project as to create a su-27 from scratch.

what is funnier is that the same people making these hideously simplistic analogies are the ones who zealously defend the F-35, an airplane which *ironically enough has shown structural defects in production variants* .

the *very point* of a flight test prototype is to *exactly show any aerodynamic or structural defect* for refinment

Indeed.
We did see external strengthening added on the early prototypes.
But not on the later prototypes -> lessons learned & structure properly adjusted, thats what prototypes are for.

Meanwhile as you point out the F-35s incredibly long & expensive super-hi-tech 'Western master race' engineering has had a bunch of structural problems & weight increasing redesigns.
On top of that because of the idiocy of concurrent development they have to rebuild a bunch of the completed airframes for $$$ or limit their uses.

-What is the difference between the SVP-24 and bomb CCIP and CCRP ballistics computers found on strike aircraft like the F111?

In addition to what Marcellogo said, the CCIP was usually a pipper on the HUD for aircraft like the F-16 to accurately drop free fall bombs in free flight.

SVP-24 is intended to drop bombs from altitude away from the risk of most low level ground fire, but is essentially the same idea.

The Su-25SM has a CCIP system added which would make this system redundant as pointed out by Medo, but allows it to perform its mission which traditionally involved using dumb bombs and unguided rockets directly against point and area targets to cheaply and accurately deal with ground targets.

It seems to be a held belief that a laser guided bomb can be released and will automatically hit its target no matter what, but actually aiming for the target greatly improves its ability to get a direct hit... laser guided bombs have control surfaces but not huge control surfaces and not huge wing areas so its ability to hit a target really depends on how much it has to manouver to get to the target in the first place.... if it is turning as hard as it can to hit a target then it wont have any extra turning capacity to counter crosswinds for instance on the way down, meaning an increase of miss distance.

limb wrote:-What is the difference between the SVP-24 and bomb CCIP and CCRP ballistics computers found on strike aircraft like the F111?

CCPI is not a good counterpart, CCRP would be much closer to СВП-24, at least from the point of view of operational employment (aid in achieving pre-planned impact points for unguided ammunitions).

In reality neither CCPI or CCRP are not even far relatives of СВП-24.

The formers are basically software defined computing systems for free-fall bombs release that can be mounted on virtually any aircraft uploading theirs relative data and general ones of the weapons.

In this way is not possible, in operational conditions, to achieve a free-fall bomb CEP (western standard) inferior to 60-70 m from 2000 m of altitude in good environmental conditions.



СВП-24 is instead the name of a group of systems that must be re-designed and tested for each single aircraft and for each single unguided ordance; those systems collect data in real time about: pressure, dynamic wing and actuators loads during manoeuvres, humidity at hull surface and in different layers under the aircraft, buffetting, thermal sollicitations and hardpoints vibrations.

All those data coming from sensors specifically designed and mounted for a particular aircraft are employed by the centralized CPU (crossing the data with those obtained with hundres of releases of that specific weapon in tests with that specific aircraft in all different variables) to compute a release point for the ammunition and partially to guide the pilot in executing the right manoeuvres and compensate for the real-time changing conditions .

This allow to obtain, in operational conditions, a CEP (western standard) of about 20 m. from an altitude of over 5000 m.


Obviously an СВП-24 designed for a Су-25 would provide not benefits for a Су-24 while CCPI or CCRP could be mounted from one to the other with a simple software update.

Which also explains why there are versions for each type of aircraft equipped with the system...

What's with that thumb? And title?

Most of the footage and facts are Sukhoi footage and facts.

I think what puts people off of that vid is the use of hilariously exaggerated clickbaity title and thumbnail that is clearly taken from fanarts or games. It makes it hard to take the information seriously, even if those are factual.

I personally can tolerate clickbait title, but using outlandish thumbnail to accompany it really does put me off big time. Most of the uploader's contents are of that nature which is why I blacklisted it.

The site was quoted several pages before in the thread. It is from TASS, not from UAC, so it is not official, but it is probably a decent source. BTW, 14.5 - 16 tf is the engine's thrust, not the weight of the plane. The rest of the data you mention with exception of the external dimensions were already provided by UAC