Sukhoi LTS "Checkmate" #2

JohninMK wrote:"Thus, unmanned "Screamers" (NATO codification of su-75: Screamer - "Screamer") "

Has NATO given it a name already? Or did I miss it?

Naaaahh, it's just a double automatic translation misuse: it means that the russian journo has used it to translate "Growler" into russian so when it was translated back it resulted into SCREAMER instead!
Naturally, while a growl is the menacing verse of a wild animal while instead a scream means someone crying loud for abject fear.

To this day, i still don't understant why some airplanes were called "frogfoot" and "fishbed".

It could have been worse like "flatfoot" and "fishpaste"

But seriously one can not expect anything else from NATO.

I believe it was the role of the air standards coordinating committee, which is a group of nations... very similar to the five eye group who made up names for aircraft the west might not know anything at all about.

The rules are fairly straight forward... though often abused... for instance H for helicopter and F for fighter and one syllable for a propeller aircraft and two or more for a jet... but there are always exceptions... Bear is B for bomber and one syllable for prop driven, but then Hip is helicopter and it is jet powered...

Names are often chosen to not be flattering, but part of the criteria is that they be very distinct and not sound similar to any other code name or code call...

So for instance the code Firefox is too close to the calls for launching missiles... ie fox fire...

Names of friendly types are also an issue so you can't use falcon or eagle or hornet etc etc.

Remember radio communications can be noisy and difficult to hear so the names need to be easy to say and clear and unambiguous.

Has NATO given it a name already? Or did I miss it?

It will be years before NATO assigns a name to it. So first dibs. UAC has the chance to keep pushing the "Checkmate" brand and get it in general usage. NATO will still call it whatever they want in the future, but only they will.

Very nice George but I think it's a repost...

In your defense - very hard to keep track with all the extensive essays posted these days!

Atmosphere wrote:To this day, i still don't understant why some airplanes were called "frogfoot" and "fishbed".

A lot of the words chosen were done so it couldn't be misunderstood with a common word so as it would stick in your mind, also for when transmitted over radio if the signal wasn't great you wouldn't mistake it for anything else and all words are uncommon, that's what I was told During my training at chicksands. Foxhound, foxbat, and as you said frogfiot fishbed are all not common words to be used.

MOSCOW, 24 March. /TASS/. A model of the new Russian single-engine fighter Checkmate was tested in wind tunnels. This is stated in the text of the patent (available to TASS) for a light tactical aircraft (LTA), published by the Federal Service for Intellectual Property.
"The presence of all the above controls in the design of the aircraft together make it possible to move the zones of occurrence of unbalanced static instability of the aircraft, <...> to increase the bearing properties and reduce the resistance of this aerodynamic layout of the aircraft, which is confirmed by calculations and tests of the model in wind tunnels", - says in the document.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14165873

MORE NEWS; MOSCOW, 24 March. /TASS/. The newest Russian single-engine fighter jet Checkmate can get an engine with an all-angle rotary jet nozzle, which will significantly increase its maneuverability. This is stated in the text of the patent (available to TASS) for a light tactical aircraft (LTA), published by the Federal Service for Intellectual Property.

"The rotary jet nozzle of the aircraft engine is located along the axis of symmetry of the fuselage and is used for control and balancing in flight, it can be made both deflectable only up and down in the vertical plane, and all-aspect," the document says.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14166043

MORE NEWS; MOSCOW, 24 March. /TASS/. The newest Russian single-engine fighter jet Checkmate can get an engine with an all-angle rotary jet nozzle, which will significantly increase its maneuverability. This is stated in the text of the patent (available to TASS) for a light tactical aircraft (LTA), published by the Federal Service for Intellectual Property.

An all angle rotary jet nozzle sounds like an engine nozzle that can be angled in any direction... up down left and right... 3D TVC, but...

"The rotary jet nozzle of the aircraft engine is located along the axis of symmetry of the fuselage and is used for control and balancing in flight, it can be made both deflectable only up and down in the vertical plane, and all-aspect," the document says.

Deflectable only up and down in the vertical plane sounds like it can only go up and down... 2D TVC... but then it says all aspect?

GarryB wrote:

MORE NEWS; MOSCOW, 24 March. /TASS/. The newest Russian single-engine fighter jet Checkmate can get an engine with an all-angle rotary jet nozzle, which will significantly increase its maneuverability. This is stated in the text of the patent (available to TASS) for a light tactical aircraft (LTA), published by the Federal Service for Intellectual Property.

An all angle rotary jet nozzle sounds like an engine nozzle that can be angled in any direction... up down left and right... 3D TVC, but...

"The rotary jet nozzle of the aircraft engine is located along the axis of symmetry of the fuselage and is used for control and balancing in flight, it can be made both deflectable only up and down in the vertical plane, and all-aspect," the document says.

Deflectable only up and down in the vertical plane sounds like it can only go up and down... 2D TVC... but then it says all aspect?

Yes, there is no mistake in translation of the text.

It's the same type of thrust vectoring as su-57. 3d since it will use the same engine.

That's some sort of brain masturbating here.

interested in either LMFS and stealthflankers input about their supposed ideas making it stealthier than f-117.

"The rotary jet nozzle of the aircraft engine is located along the axis of symmetry of the fuselage and is used for control and balancing in flight, it can be made both deflectable only up and down in the vertical plane, and all-aspect," the document says.

Deflectable only up and down in the vertical plane sounds like it can only go up and down... 2D TVC... but then it says all aspect?

I think he meant the nozzle can be made either in vertical plane only or in full 3D TVC.

GarryB wrote:Deflectable only up and down in the vertical plane sounds like it can only go up and down... 2D TVC... but then it says all aspect?

Currently 2D as al AL-31/41, in the future of course a 3D TVC would make a lot of sense for a single engine fighter and I would not be surprised if they are working on it.

Isos wrote:It's the same type of thrust vectoring as su-57. 3d since it will use the same engine.

That's some sort of brain masturbating here.

No, Su-57 has 2D TVC engines, they achieve the pseudo 3D effect by angling and differential deflection of the nozzles.

thegopnik wrote:interested in either LMFS and stealthflankers input about their supposed ideas making it stealthier than f-117.

Did it say anything about the F-117? They just refer the izd. 117 from what I see.

F-117 BTW was a very rudimentary stealth plane and the science and technology have come a long way since then. I see no fundamental sin in the LTS that prevents it from being a very low RCS plane at the frequencies where current technology is effective.

EDIT: it seems they refer the F-117 in the patent as an aircraft that got stealth at a significant cost in other regards, but it is logical due to the prehistorical level of computation at the time.

TASS has these news about the LTS patent:

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14165627
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14165873
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14166043
https://tass.ru/ekonomika/14166303

LMFS wrote:No, Su-57 has 2D TVC engines, they achieve the pseudo 3D effect by angling and differential deflection of the nozzles.

Aren't you confusing the psuedo 3D TVC on the Su-30/Su-35's (2D TVC angled at 60 degrees) with the Su-57 full 3D TVC?

magnumcromagnon wrote:Aren't you confusing the psuedo 3D TVC on the Su-30/Su-35's (2D TVC angled at 60 degrees) with the Su-57 full 3D TVC?

No, the Su-57 in its current status has the same type of TVC as the Su-35

The patent, thanks to raptor82:

https://new.fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&rn=2005&DocNumber=2768101&QID=0259937B-597E-4B5C-AA56-FCE718499776&TypeFile=html

So Saturns TVC nozzles are not as sophisticated and capable as Klimovs, whose engines on their MiG-29OVTs are full 3D instead of 2.5D (angled 2D) nozzles.

George1 wrote:

The Checkmate’s maiden flight is scheduled for 2023. Its serial production is due to begin in 2025.

Really looking forward to that day. Reminds me of the anticipation we had waiting until 2am (our time) to see Sergei Bogdan take the first PAK-FA out for it's first test flight. That was fun to watch. This should be equally as exciting, if not, more.

Such a great-looking aircraft. especially without H-stabs and just the steep-angled rudders. Wonder if they'll send one of the Su-75s as the chase plane? lol that wouldn't be such a bad idea.

you can't help thinking that single seat fighters are a waste of time now
with a back seater you can control UAVs etc
not to mention jammers .... glide bombs .... loitering munitions

when you look at all the puss and pain of that F-35 with its "sensor fusion" .... and automation .... and ... and
resultant 500 trillion lines of computer code . .... that's is constantly being debugged
to do what ? ..... what a 2nd guy could have done in a lot simpler plane that's what

the thing is next to useless if you ask me ....
why copy a failure

look what the Israelis did to their F-16s .... the F-16I
2nd human .... massive electronics spine ..... conformal fuel tanks
uses standoff munitions for almost everything ....

and .... from a training POV
surely its a lot more sensible to have a 2nd human ...
you can split your training .... so you don't have gazillions invested in 1x guy

and a 2-seater at the flip of a switch becomes a trainer ....

Frankly if I was Rus I'd can Su-35 construction and build Su-30SM2s instead
which are really 2-seater Su-35s

and the Su-34s is perfect for use with drone swarms .....

same re Su-57 ..... its crying out to be a 2-seater - with the Su-70 tagging along

anyway .... this Su-75
I'd be doing a 2-seater .... and a drone version

wouldn't waste my time with a single seater .... of any type
F-35 is about as useful as a hat full of farts ..... why copy it

and 3d thrust vectoring - is it just me
but it seems to be used more to avoid incoming missiles than to "get on the tail" of the enemy

which F-15 did the US put back into production ? .... the E .... the 2-seater

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but I would think controlling jamming equipment is a very specialised and highly technical thing to do where critical timing and awareness is very important... too important to leave to a crewman in the back of an aircraft subjected to g force.

A pilot pulling a 9 g turn to evade a threat... at 9 gs the guy in the back might be asleep... will almost certainly be colour blind and about to have a nap... what sort of support can they contribute.

The Russians are upgrading their Su-30s to Su-35 level but they continue to use Su-35s.

There is no evidence of any two seat Su-57s except from the Indians and they don't seem interested in paying for it so it wont happen any time soon.

I would think the future of drones is to get smarter and more autonomous and not need direct constant telecontrol.

BTW is there any operational aircraft anywhere that actually uses a two crew aircraft where there is a pilot and a UAV controller... apart from the Ka-52?

There was talk about the Yak-130 being used for controlling drones but it didn't seem to result in anything either.

Glide bombs and loitering munitions should not require manual control.

I really don't think the F-35 programme should be held up as an example of anything except corruption and greed... even the extensive and complicated logistics system they were supposed to develop for it to make it much more efficient and cheaper to support was cancelled... talk about trying to make it fail.

The thing about a drone swarm is that you don't use human controllers, because that would become a weak link that could be exploited by jamming the datalink.

A swarm only makes sense when we are talking about more targets than the enemy could possibly deal with so right now you would need literally thousands of individual drones all working together against a single target... such a drone swarm would need to be directed buy you couldn't control each drone individually... 1,000 plus datalink command channels... they would jam themselves and how would you coordinate them all so they don't fly into the ground or each other...

With short range bluetooth links you could control one drone that has dozens of drones following it in formation looking for targets and capturing data or information or delivering weapons.

The difference is stark but not as clear cut as you might think.

HATO certainly has aircraft numbers on their side, but they use their aircraft both for attack and defence, and during operations in a real fight there are going to be substantial losses which means that ability to attack and defend is going to diminish over time... sometimes dramatically if they do something stupid and arrogant.

In comparison the Russian Army has its own strike capacity with ballistic weapons that can now expand into the intermediate range band, and their defence is based on an IADS network that has both SAMs in enormous numbers that can continue to operate even if the central control system is degraded or seriously damaged.

The Russian Aerospace Defence forces also have their own air defence systems on the ground and in the air, and a combined defence including ground and air assets is always more powerful than one based on aircraft alone.

Having a numbers light fighter that is cheaper to buy and operate makes sense and is often more effective than having fewer bigger heavier aircraft, but a mix of both is always the best because different situations and locations require different solutions.