Sukhoi LTS "Checkmate" #2

WTF!!! Shocked

Before the Su-25 the last aircraft they used in the CAS role was the Il-10.

Combat air support in the 70s and since would have been provided by their swing fighters... high speed fighters that would deliver bombs after they had cleared the skies of enemy fighters like the MiG-21 and the dedicated attack aircraft like the Su-7... it was found that slower aircraft like the older obsolete fighters were better for this mission... the MiG-15s were better than the newer faster aircraft, so the Su-25 was developed... but in the mean time the Su-17 evolved from the Su-7 as a pure light strike attack aircraft and the MiG-23 split into the ground attack specialised MiG-27 to hit targets holding up the ground forces.

They were not particularly good at the job, hense in Afghanistan they used MiG-27s and Su-17s to bomb targets, but they also tested Su-25s and even Yak-38s and it was shown the Su-25 was an excellent aircraft for the job.

Su-17 and MiG-27 were removed from the gene pool because they were single engined aircraft... the arrival of the Su-25 would not have replaced them, but they would have stopped providing direct close air support and kept their light strike roles... allowing MiG-21s and MiG-23s to be fighters.

Do you have any source to corroborate that story or is it entirely your imagination?

The light and heavy 5th gen programmes were originally running in parallel, but the light 5th gen fighter programme stopped and it was mentioned several times that the light fighter was put on hold while they focussed on the heavier fighter and that work would resume on the light fighter after the heavier fighter was in serial production... well the heavier fighter programme is in serial production... and all of a sudden we hear about Checkmate.... after all these years of silence about light 5th gen fighters.

Or has the light 5th gen fighter project been running normally and fully funded all this time and it was kept completely secret... makes you wonder what the light Sukhoi fighter is so far behind the medium Sukhoi fighter with all their money and power and resources... they haven't even had a first flight... what is their excuse for the delay?

It is a shame to see MiG in such shape as it is now, but it is, mostly, by their own doing.

Yeah, everyone blames MiG for its situation because obviously MiG is responsible for the end of the cold war and sudden mass loss of customers in Eastern Europe and the fact that the Russian AF thought they could protect the largest country on earth with Flankers only and everything would be fine.

The concept of having MiG-29s and Su-27s was not because they had too much money and didn't know what else to spend it on... having a mix of fighter types actually makes economic and military sense.

Their last presentation with toy models of their "projects" was nothing but shameful.

It wont be for export, it is for the Russian AF first and foremost so they have no obligation to show the world where they are at.

And the models looked just fine to me. The carrier model looked rather good and they have a single engined small land based fighter design with a twinned UAV support drone of their own design too... sounds like despite not getting the funding and attention Sukhoi gets they are working hard.

Rostec CEO Sergey Chemezov at a meeting with Russian President Vladimir PutinPutin said on May 18 that serial production of the Su-75 Checkmate will begin in 2027.

Look forward to the usual suspects crying like the sky has fallen because serial production does not start till 2028 because they had to make some changes or something happens the year before that delays it...

Maybe Iran was looking for some the other day?

Would love to see Iran making these...

Iran must be indeed salivating at the prospect of getting a 5G plane with the practical capacities of a Su-30 for that kind of money... it is a bargain

Its internal weapons capacity will be nothing like the weapon capacity and flight range of the Su-30, but otherwise I would agree... this is a very capable looking aircraft... and it appears to be everything the F-35 was supposed to be... stealthy, state of the art, and cheaper to operate... of course the F-35 was ruined by various factors... mostly the greedy MIC the US has.

GarryB wrote:Look forward to the usual suspects crying like the sky has fallen because serial production does not start till 2028 because they had to make some changes or something happens the year before that delays it...

Certainly. But interestingly, the production date has not been moved right, and Slyusar corrected again the 2025 date to 2024 for the first flight. It does not really matter in the big picture and people should a little of perspective and compare such deadlines with what is usual for a fighter development program, that is, more than two decades from start to production.

Its internal weapons capacity will be nothing like the weapon capacity and flight range of the Su-30, but otherwise I would agree... this is a very capable looking aircraft... and it appears to be everything the F-35 was supposed to be... stealthy, state of the art, and cheaper to operate...

7.4 tons vs. 8 tons and ca. 3000 km range on internal fuel for both reads to me as close as it gets in regards of payload and range performance. With the advantage that a LTS with internal weapons has way lower drag penalty and it should fly longer.

On top of that, the WB in the LTS are able for A2G payload. The ventral one is basically identical to those in the Su-57 (2x 4.2x0.4x0.4 m ordnance), but also the side ones are sized bigger than just for carrying one short range AAM and are claimed as capable for big weapons. UAC has shown them carrying KAB-250 for instance. So a clean LTS will have almost the full claimed range while being anything but inoffensive and will perform in that regard probably better than a Su-30. On the other hand, a fully loaded Su-30 has slightly more weapon stations overall, but in the few cases when that would count, it could be compensated by the bigger number of smaller and cheaper airframes allowed  by LTS and its UCAV  version.

of course the F-35 was ruined by various factors... mostly the greedy MIC the US has.

It is nice to see that there are cultures and companies still ruled by common sense, the aim to understand the design decisions behind a rational single engine plane was what motivated me some years back too, and now seeing those thoughts embodied in the LTS is rewarding indeed. F-35 was a product of greed as you say and cheap politics, but still made many people think that there was no other way, as frequently happens with US MIC shaping the perception of the public about how things should be done. Now we know they are most often claiming a lot and having little worth showing, and that better ways of doing things do exist

GarryB wrote:
Before the Su-25 the last aircraft they used in the CAS role was the Il-10.

Yes and a great aircraft it was! The Soviets did try with the Il-102 but it never entered production. An interesting aircraft though.

GarryB wrote:That is not true... the best example of the second type would have to be the Su-25 to replace the Su-17 and MiG-27

The Su-25, Su-17M3/4 and Mig27's were all ground attack aircraft of the same generation. Each was developed from a very specific requirement. All these aircraft were designed to replace the previous generation - Su-7's and Yak-28's.
The Soviets saw what the Americans did with the A-10 and developed their own version but with a different approach. The su-25 was much faster than the A-10 for starters.

Love the look of this thing in these renditions.

7.4 tons vs. 8 tons and ca. 3000 km range on internal fuel for both reads to me as close as it gets in regards of payload and range performance.

Yeah, I am kinda wondering what sort of weapons they can fit in those weapon bays to achieve a 7.4 ton payload, and if it is not mostly fuel and it is not flying at medium altitude at very fuel efficient speeds I am thinking 3,000km is the ferry range with no ordinance and extra fuel and 7.4 tons is the max rating of every pylon and weapon bay the thing has.

In comparison 8 tons for the Su-30 to 3,000km, there are some big bombs and missiles that plane can carry that would add up quickly.

I don't think the LTS would be a good design if they were trying to make it an Su-30 equivalent and it is stupid to expect as much.

Operationally it will be operating over much shorter ranges with much lighter payloads and with modern guided weapons why would 7.4 tons even be needed?

With the advantage that a LTS with internal weapons has way lower drag penalty and it should fly longer.

Actually I would say the opposite... having to carry everything inside limits the size of what it can carry and also makes it bloated and fat like a transport plane that also carries its payloads inside.

The stealthy shape means low external drag, but also larger envelop to contain all the fuel and weapons the aircraft will carry.

At least they haven't demanded it also have a huge geared lift fan powered by the main engine like the F-35.

The ventral one is basically identical to those in the Su-57 (2x 4.2x0.4x0.4 m ordnance), but also the side ones are sized bigger than just for carrying one short range AAM and are claimed as capable for big weapons. UAC has shown them carrying KAB-250 for instance.

So main bay with two weapons and two side bays with two more weapons... that is four weapons... a KAB-250 x 4 is 1 ton.

Even being super generous and allowing some FAB-1500s four of those would be 6 tons... but they wont fit I rather suspect, and besides most targets would require one or two and the other weapon bays will have self defence AAMs.

There is max payload and there is practical payload and they are two very very different things.

On the other hand, a fully loaded Su-30 has slightly more weapon stations overall, but in the few cases when that would count, it could be compensated by the bigger number of smaller and cheaper airframes allowed by LTS and its UCAV version.

Why not compare with the Yak-152? Or perhaps a helicopter maybe...

What relevance is there in comparing a plane that is yet to fly with an in service aircraft with a completely different role and mission?

F-35 was a product of greed as you say and cheap politics, but still made many people think that there was no other way, as frequently happens with US MIC shaping the perception of the public about how things should be done. Now we know they are most often claiming a lot and having little worth showing, and that better ways of doing things do exist

I am looking forward to how the Chinese twin engined F-35 goes... I think it has much better potential because they are clearly more practical people...

Yes and a great aircraft it was! The Soviets did try with the Il-102 but it never entered production. An interesting aircraft though.

I was always very intrigued by the Il-102... ironically western fans deride the Su-25 as being too light and not having a heavy enough payload, but those same fans deride the Il-102 as being backwards and antiquated because of the tail gunner and the weapon bays inside the very thick wings for bombs in a zero drag configuration.

The Il-102 is very much an aircraft in the similar size and weight (payload) class as the A-10, and while it was not perfect and probably could have been refined a bit, it did have two crew with one crew watching the rear.

Love the look of this thing in these renditions.

Ironic that its intake looks like the XF-32, but it does not have design compromises to make it VSTOL so it does not look so ugly... all those lift fans and BS made it look fat, while this looks slim and attractive...

GarryB wrote:Yeah, I am kinda wondering what sort of weapons they can fit in those weapon bays to achieve a 7.4 ton payload, and if it is not mostly fuel and it is not flying at medium altitude at very fuel efficient speeds I am thinking 3,000km is the ferry range with no ordinance and extra fuel and 7.4 tons is the max rating of every pylon and weapon bay the thing has.

Of course. In Russia range is always under optimal conditions with full internal fuel. Payload is safety/structural related, it does not mean it can be actually reached. I have not seen any Flanker remotely close to 8 t either. Maybe they can be loaded to that point, but I have not seen it.

In comparison 8 tons for the Su-30 to 3,000km, there are some big bombs and missiles that plane can carry that would add up quickly.

I have seen 3x KAB-1500 on Flankers, but not much bigger loads. Maybe carrying a truckload of dumb bombs can reach to such weight levels, I would need to check the maximum in such conditions.

I don't think the LTS would be a good design if they were trying to make it an Su-30 equivalent and it is stupid to expect as much.

The LTS has a similar internal A2G ordnance load compared to Su-57 and the same wing stations, and the Su-57 is the substitute of the Flanker.

It is brilliant to design a single engine plane that manages to match most of the key performance parameters of the Su-30, actually. That is why Sukhoi's offer is a no-brainer, they propose to substitute a workhorse with another one, only the next one is smarter and eats much less...

Operationally it will be operating over much shorter ranges with much lighter payloads and with modern guided weapons why would 7.4 tons even be needed?

Why do you think VKS loves their Su-30 then? Russia is a huge country. Lots of fuel is great for persistence over short distances.

Actually I would say the opposite... having to carry everything inside limits the size of what it can carry and also makes it bloated and fat like a transport plane that also carries its payloads inside.

That is why the chin intake is critical, to avoid creating another pregnant penguin (TM).

LTS is extremely streamlined and will probably have outstanding supersonic performance and low drag, much smaller than Flankers.

Take a look at DI tables for external stations before you make statements about internal carriage, external one is a massive range, acceleration and maneuverability killer.

The stealthy shape means low external drag, but also larger envelop to contain all the fuel and weapons the aircraft will carry.

Yes, but it can be shaped in a more convenient way. BWB, axial alignment, area rule and all other optimization strategies apply.

At least they haven't demanded it also have a huge geared lift fan powered by the main engine like the F-35.

They could demand it and as I proposed time ago, it could actually work in the unmanned version...

So main bay with two weapons and two side bays with two more weapons... that is four weapons... a KAB-250 x 4 is 1 ton.

2x big weapons in the main bays is 1.5 t already,  plus say 2x KAB-250 makes 2 t. Quite ok for a low RCS, long range high and excess power plane in 80% of the missions. I think it is an absolute success. Su-57 in such conditions would carry the same number of A2G weapons and a 3t load.

Even being super generous and allowing some FAB-1500s four of those would be 6 tons... but they wont fit I rather suspect, and besides most targets would require one or two and the other weapon bays will have self defence AAMs.

If you are in a permissive environment you can carry 2x KAB-1500 on the inboard wing stations + 2x AAM in the outboard ones, a very balanced loadout with self defence capabilities and a very respectable 5 t A2G load.

There is max payload and there is practical payload and they are two very very different things.

Sure, and that applies both to 4G and 5G planes.

Why not compare with the Yak-152? Or perhaps a helicopter maybe...

Because the dynamics of a Su-30 and LTS are quite similar. Means, they are both supersonic fighters and not helicopters or whatever.

What relevance is there in comparing a plane that is yet to fly with an in service aircraft with a completely different role and mission?

Both are multirole fighters, as demonstrated above with similar payload and range performance. There are no more point defence fighters, VKS will invest their money in planes that can cover several missions. Nowadays that is easy and reasonable, most of the burden is placed in the electronics and weapons, you just need to create a capable platform and do it as cheap as possible. Exactly what Sukhoi is doing...

I am looking forward to how the Chinese twin engined F-35 goes... I think it has much better potential because they are clearly more practical people...

Yes, and also because they lack the 5G engine needed to create a single engine equivalent. That is no minor contributor believe me...

Ironic that its intake looks like the XF-32, but it does not have design compromises to make it VSTOL so it does not look so ugly... all those lift fans and BS made it look fat, while this looks slim and attractive...

The engine ran all along the fuselage, chin to tail, and the WBs were placed at the sides... it was an aerodynamic abomination

It is brilliant to design a single engine plane that manages to match most of the key performance parameters of the Su-30, actually. That is why Sukhoi's offer is a no-brainer, they propose to substitute a workhorse with another one, only the next one is smarter and eats much less...

That is where your logic falls over... there is no magic in the design... if a Su-30 burns x amount of fuel carrying y payload an Su-75 can carry y and burn a lot less than x amount of fuel.

Have we even established the Su-75 has lower drag than the Su-30 by half?

Assuming they both use the same 18 ton thrust engine, the Su-30 will use half the power setting of the Su-75 because its power is doubled by there being two engines and with the burn rates the same... having two engines running at say 6 tons thrust each to maintain speed and altitude, would correspond to the single engine in the Su-75 running at 12 tons to create the same speed... fuel consumption is based on thrust generated per gramme of fuel per kg of thrust per hour, so two engines generating a combined 12 tons thrust burns the same fuel as one engine generating 12 tons thrust on its own... there is a minor reduction in drag, but the Su-75 wont be burning half the fuel and running at 6 tons thrust.

Why do you think VKS loves their Su-30 then? Russia is a huge country. Lots of fuel is great for persistence over short distances.

Russia is a huge country but how often do aircraft fly from one part to another operationally?

Aircraft based in the Moscow region have no business going to Vladivostok every other day for training or missions... there will be aircraft in Vladivostok for those jobs.

Aircraft don't carry full fuel tanks on every mission... most of the time Flankers have barely quarter fuel loads most of the time... full fuel tanks limits their flight performance and takes time to burn off.

LTS is extremely streamlined and will probably have outstanding supersonic performance and low drag, much smaller than Flankers.

Being the low fighter in the high low mix extended long range flights at supersonic speeds simply don't make much sense for such an aircraft... short climbs and accelerations to launch missiles further maybe, but not routinely.

Take a look at DI tables for external stations before you make statements about internal carriage, external one is a massive range, acceleration and maneuverability killer.

Internal carriage means you can fit what you can fit and nothing else... external weapon pylons are more flexible and adaptable...

2x big weapons in the main bays is 1.5 t already, plus say 2x KAB-250 makes 2 t. Quite ok for a low RCS, long range high and excess power plane in 80% of the missions. I think it is an absolute success. Su-57 in such conditions would carry the same number of A2G weapons and a 3t load.

So how can you possibly get 7.5 tons of ordinance internally?

It is just as stupid as suggesting the Su-30 would carry 8 tons... when has that ever happened and when is it likely to happen in the future?

Even if you adapt the Moskit at 4.5 tons it is very unlikely you would then carry 1.5 ton bombs and heavy missiles on the aircraft to all carry at one time it is just stupid.

There are no more point defence fighters, VKS will invest their money in planes that can cover several missions.

You mean like the MiG-35?

you just need to create a capable platform and do it as cheap as possible. Exactly what Sukhoi is doing...

If their bigger platforms were cheaper there would be no need for a lighter fighter aircraft...

Yes, and also because they lack the 5G engine needed to create a single engine equivalent. That is no minor contributor believe me...

You mean the 5th gen engine that will cost more than the purchase price of a Su-75 or its MiG equivalent?

Yeah... wonder why they are not bothering with that... with two engines the super cruise speed of the Chinese plane will likely be higher and with lower drag...

and yet more internal space for fuel and weapons because the engines will be smaller than that American super engine.

The engine ran all along the fuselage, chin to tail, and the WBs were placed at the sides... it was an aerodynamic abomination

Su-75 has side weapon bays too..., but much slimmer and easier on the eye.

GarryB wrote:That is where your logic falls over... there is no magic in the design... if a Su-30 burns x amount of fuel carrying y payload an Su-75 can carry y and burn a lot less than x amount of fuel.

Single seater, smaller, lighter, with significantly reduced cross sectional area and one engine instead of two will mean reduced purchasing, training and operational cost, even without considering other additional optimizations and additional features.

Have we even established the Su-75 has lower drag than the Su-30 by half?

No, but the cross sectional area is significantly smaller for sure, and the weight too, so both parasitic and lift induced drag should be substantially smaller. It is highly likely that the tailless, highly elongated, aerodynamically unstable design has a smaller Cd too. Even without considering the external stations which will make the difference in operational conditions abysmal, mainly in strike missions

Assuming they both use the same 18 ton thrust engine, the Su-30 will use half the power setting of the Su-75 because its power is doubled by there being two engines and with the burn rates the same... having two engines running at say 6 tons thrust each to maintain speed and altitude, would correspond to the single engine in the Su-75 running at 12 tons to create the same speed... fuel consumption is based on thrust generated per gramme of fuel per kg of thrust per hour, so two engines generating a combined 12 tons thrust burns the same fuel as one engine generating 12 tons thrust on its own... there is a minor reduction in drag, but the Su-75 wont be burning half the fuel and running at 6 tons thrust.

It depends on the actual drag and weight values for a specific mission, considering DI of the external weapons and also that, the higher the weight / drag of the plane, the more fuel it needs, further worsening weight/drag in turn. Your analysis of the engine's fuel consumption is more or less right in what regards to the engine alone, but actual figures depend on the actual throttle settings and corresponding FSC. And of course the main contributor is drag, which will be very different as explained.

Russia is a huge country but how often do aircraft fly from one part to another operationally?

Persistence is one of the key parameters to assess the air cover of a fleet in a given region and therefore the amount of planes needed. So it directly affects military effectiveness of any purchasing investment.

Aircraft don't carry full fuel tanks on every mission... most of the time Flankers have barely quarter fuel loads most of the time... full fuel tanks limits their flight performance and takes time to burn off.

It is rather 60% fuel load, but regardless, that will apply the same to Su-75 and Su-30, since both have the same range on internals. You can send your complaints to the VKS

Being the low fighter in the high low mix extended long range flights at supersonic speeds simply don't make much sense for such an aircraft... short climbs and accelerations to launch missiles further maybe, but not routinely.

It does not seem optimised for supercruising as the Su-57 does (due air intake and aero mainly, maybe materials too), but regardless those briefs dashes consume a relevant part of the plane's fuel, so it is always good to do that part efficiently.

Internal carriage means you can fit what you can fit and nothing else... external weapon pylons are more flexible and adaptable...

Su-57 and 75 have both internal and external, hence they are more flexible and adaptable than planes with external stations only.

So how can you possibly get 7.5 tons of ordinance internally?

Most likely you can't

It is just as stupid as suggesting the Su-30 would carry 8 tons... when has that ever happened and when is it likely to happen in the future?

Yeah I agree, but that is what the specs of the plane say

You mean like the MiG-35?

Why not one cheaper and better in almost every parameter?

If their bigger platforms were cheaper there would be no need for a lighter fighter aircraft...

The Queen is not cheap nor should she be

You mean the 5th gen engine that will cost more than the purchase price of a Su-75 or its MiG equivalent?

No, the Russian one...

Yeah... wonder why they are not bothering with that... with two engines the super cruise speed of the Chinese plane will likely be higher and with lower drag...

Probably not a supercruiser at all. But we will see.

Su-75 has side weapon bays too..., but much slimmer and easier on the eye.

That is the key, they are not in parallel with the engine but with the air duct, which can be flexibly shaped and therefore they can keep the cross sectional area and area ruling in check. Besides the LTS has already a main WB, so these side ones are just there to improve the flexibility and carriage capability of the plane, while taking advantage of the cross sectional price already paid due to the landing gear. It is just a brilliant layout work, with outstanding results, given those bays are not side-kick type for SRAAM only, but full sized ones for A2G ordnance. It is genius in fact

Single seater, smaller, lighter, with significantly reduced cross sectional area and one engine instead of two will mean reduced purchasing, training and operational cost, even without considering other additional optimizations and additional features.

Just having one less engine means 3 or 4 million dollars cheaper.

But then when you look at it, it is still using lot of su-57 technologies so I doubt it will be a very cheap design. I guess the very cheap can be achieved if you don't take all the expensive stuff. So instead of a Byelka radar you get a zhuk-M from the old mig-29M, and no thrust vectoring Al-41 but an older al-31, with or without L band wing radar, external mounted belorussian jammers or integrated jammers, refueling pod or not, which IRIST...

It will come with options like new cars which will impact the price.

There's talk about the UAE working with Sukhoi to start a production line of the Checkmate in the Emirates. This has been floating around for a little bit, shortly after its unveiling. Anything of the sorts from Russian sources?

Single seater, smaller, lighter, with significantly reduced cross sectional area and one engine instead of two will mean reduced purchasing, training and operational cost, even without considering other additional optimizations and additional features.

Except it does not look that small...

Why would it reduce training costs... and lack of redundancy and reduced engine power takeoff with only having one engine might actually be a problem if their new radars use a bit of power...

Persistence is one of the key parameters to assess the air cover of a fleet in a given region and therefore the amount of planes needed. So it directly affects military effectiveness of any purchasing investment.

If it is so damn important why bother with smaller lighter cheaper planes?

It is rather 60% fuel load, but regardless, that will apply the same to Su-75 and Su-30, since both have the same range on internals. You can send your complaints to the VKS

But that is the point, the bigger heavier aircraft can operate with reduced fuel most missions because its max flight range is excessive and most often not needed... fuel loads are calculated to allow full manouver performance when needed... if an Su-30 is flying 1,000km out to an urgent dangerous target then full fuel would be loaded but the aircraft will likely go most of the way in full AB to get there as fast as possible meaning at 1,000km it will likely be half fuel tanks or less and ready to fight... the point is that they wouldn't send an Su-75 on such a mission... it would be hunting targets much closer and patroling airspace much closer.

It does not seem optimised for supercruising as the Su-57 does (due air intake and aero mainly, maybe materials too), but regardless those briefs dashes consume a relevant part of the plane's fuel, so it is always good to do that part efficiently.

It is very unlikely to operate enormous distances from its base... as opposed to a Su-30.

Su-57 and 75 have both internal and external, hence they are more flexible and adaptable than planes with external stations only.

To retain stealth and low drag performance they can only carry internal weapons, otherwise stealth is pointless.

When you can fly with external weapons then an Il-76 with bombs and missiles would make more sense... hell a Tu-22M3 could probably take over if stealth is no longer an issue...

Most likely you can't

So can we stop swinging this imaginary dick around?

Why not one cheaper and better in almost every parameter?

Currently only one is low rate serial production and can fly.

The Queen is not cheap nor should she be

In this case we are talking about a pawn... well that might be the S-70, but the Su-75 is not so much a chess piece but a checkers piece... a numbers platform.

But then when you look at it, it is still using lot of su-57 technologies so I doubt it will be a very cheap design. I guess the very cheap can be achieved if you don't take all the expensive stuff.

The question really is, what sort of technologies will be in the export Su-57 that they will put in the Su-75 for export or domestic use?

You don't get the same numbers advantage savings when you mass produce and sell and export model and have a super secret high tech more capable model for domestic use...

This is a MiG-21... or it is supposed to be.... if you expect it to be better than an Su-57 you are only going to get disappointed... in the same way F-35 fans were, though they got disappointed in all sorts of other ways too.

One thing that nobody has failed to mention in this latest debate is cost, there were hints of around $30 million per aircraft so as garryb stated if your going to compare this to $60-100 million aircraft u will be disappointed.

The purpose of this aircraft is to be sold for export to a wide market and specifically to countries on lower budgets. Russia actually is timing this well. Mig-23, Mig-21, Su-17/22, mig-27, old Mig-29, J-7, F-4, F-5, A-4, old mirages, old F-16, are exactly what the checkmate will be aiming at replacing.

India hasn't exactly replaced it's Mig-27 with anything and is looking at replacing it's mig-21 and older mig-29. The Tejas replacement has been slow, and Tejas isn't as good as checkmate and costs more.

Iran needs to ideally replace it's F-4, J-7, mirage, mig-29, F-5, the latter they have been slow at replacing with it's various homegrown F-5 versions, and checkmate would be better than anything Iran could built.

Syria's air force once war is over will be extremely well used and worn and will need a cheap capable aircraft and although funds will be very limited I am sure Russia and Syria will work something out.

Vietnam, south and central America, Africa will want to replace it's aging fleets. Although I see a slight twist, some countries may want to hang on to it's Mig-21 due to threat level and cheap maintenance costs which is fine, but in. Decade or two they will eventually want to replace. Checkmate will obviously cost more to buy and maintain then keeping mig-21 in service and if u have limited threat I get that. But other more complex aircraft such as the ones I mentioned above either cost more to maintain that mig-21 or are in a dire state, or their threat level has increased. And they will want a cheap replacement. Tejas, J-17, or second hand early versions of western aircraft is what most would be looking at although all those options are likely going to be more expensive than $30 million and the aircraft won't be as good as checkmate even if checkmate came in at $35mn it would still be better option.

What will be interesting is exactly what capabilities will the final aircraft have, and I am sure multiple variations will be made especially country specific mods.

Although it will be sad to see Soviet era aircraft eventually being replaced at least we can all say that they did well and the length of service is a testimony to that. And it very likely we won't see future aircraft have such a long service life as the Soviet era aircraft enjoyed.

Iran needs to ideally replace it's F-4, J-7, mirage, mig-29, F-5, the latter they have been slow at replacing with it's various homegrown F-5 versions, and checkmate would be better than anything Iran could built.

It sounds like UAE are thinking about licence production so Iran would certainly want to licence produce these aircraft too given the chance of course.

Some parts might need to be made in Russia and assembled in the places with licence production contracts, but countries like Venezuela and Pakistan and even Turkey might want replacements for their F-16s that they actually control and is not ridiculously expensive and restrictive as the F-35.

And they will want a cheap replacement. Tejas, J-17, or second hand early versions of western aircraft is what most would be looking at although all those options are likely going to be more expensive than $30 million and the aircraft won't be as good as checkmate even if checkmate came in at $35mn it would still be better option.

You probably couldn't get a western LIFT for that price let alone a new fighter.

Personally I think going for a light fighter with a 3,000km range and 7.4 ton payload is just stupid and it should have been made much smaller... only a fan boy would think such payload capacity would be good... it creates compromises in size and shape and cost and performance.

A light numbers plane should be used in numbers so you don't need all your eggs in the one basket so to speak.

In short, LTS is the fighter of the multipolar world

Initial batch of Russia’s new Checkmate fighter jet due in 2026

The Sukhoi Company plans to manufacture four Checkmate prototypes

https://tass.com/defense/1505161

There's a lovely update.




https://vk.com/ruselectronics?w=wall-78662445_1504

...its a miracle. A real update on Russian jets.

Lenta.ru

Checkmate

Work on fifth-generation fighters began at the end of the 20th century. In the United States, the first such aircraft - the F-22 - began to be developed in 1986 and completed only in 2001. But four years before that, a Russian machine took off into the air - an experimental Su-47 carrier-based fighter. And in February 2000 - again before the Americans - the MiG 1.44 experimental aircraft.

Nevertheless, in Russia they abandoned the further development of these machines, designed back in the 1980s in favor of the modern and technologically advanced Advanced Aviation Complex of Frontal Aviation (PAK FA), as the Su-57 was called until August 2017.
The first flight of this fighter took place on January 29, 2010 in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. Compared to machines of previous generations, the Su-57 combines the functions of a strike aircraft and a fighter. The Russian machine has active phased antenna arrays (AFAR) distributed over the entire surface of the aircraft, providing all-round visibility. Only the F-35 fighter can boast of this, but not the F-22. On the other hand, both American aircraft are inferior in maneuverability to the Su-57, and the F-35 is not at all capable of sustained flight at supersonic cruising speed.


Otherwise, the Su-57 is a typical fifth-generation heavy fighter. Due to the geometry of the hull, intra-fuselage armament and radar-absorbing coating, the aircraft is hardly noticeable in the radar and infrared ranges. The fighter is also equipped with a complex of deeply integrated avionics with a high level of control automation and intelligent crew support. This reduces the pilot's workload and allows him to concentrate on tactical missions.
Due to the onboard equipment, the Su-57 can exchange data in real time both with ground control systems and within the aviation group, as well as solve problems autonomously.



n August 2019, the first Russian heavy strike unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) S-70 Okhotnik took off into the air, which should expand the capabilities of the Su-57.

First of all, the "Okhotnik" will be able to take over the target designation and thereby allow the Su-57 to hit the enemy without entering the air defense (air defense) coverage area. To interact with a strike link of two to four drones, it is planned to use the developed two-seat version of the Su-57, in which one of the crew members will be solely responsible for the operation of the S-70 Okhotnik. This UAV is made according to the “flying wing” scheme and, like the Su-57, is made using stealth technologies.

The Su-57 is a heavy twin-engine fighter, and the progress of fifth-generation domestic combat aviation is not limited to this direction. Thus, the new Russian light tactical aircraft Checkmate (“Checkmate”), a sample of which was presented during the International Aviation and Space Salon 2021 (MAKS-2021), received one power unit.

The speed of the fifth-generation light fighter will be 1,900 kilometers per hour, and the range will be about 3,000 kilometers. The fighter will be able to carry more than seven tons of various types of weapons - guided missiles, aerial bombs and a cannon. The onboard equipment of the aircraft with a built-in radar with AFAR will allow attacking six and tracking up to thirty air targets. Since Checkmate is being created on the basis of the backlog from the Su-57, unification with the latter is expected both in terms of avionics and weapons. Checkmate's first flight is scheduled for 2023.

The single-engine stealth aircraft is built primarily for export, making fifth-generation fighter aircraft available to developing countries. The United States assumes that sanctions will not become a hindrance here, since India, Vietnam and Argentina, which have not introduced restrictions against Russia, can be the main buyers. In addition, as the developers say, the aircraft provides for the use of only domestic components.

The advantage of Checkmate is that only Russian-made components are used in its design, while most foreign combat aircraft are created in cooperation, which significantly limits their export.

The main competitors of the new fifth-generation Russian aircraft will be French (Rafale) and Swedish (Gripen) fourth-generation fighters, as well as the American F-35 aircraft. Unlike Western aircraft, the cost of which is estimated at 60-90 million dollars, the Russian fighter will cost foreign customers several times cheaper - 25-30 million. Checkmate developers are confident that the demand for the new fighter in the international market will be 300 aircraft for 15 years. The leading buyers of the fighter may be the Arab countries, India and the states of Southeast Asia.

All generations of Russian fighter jets...

If they can produce this aircraft with these specs and at that cost even if the cost creeps up to $35mn then I am sure there will be many customers. Let me hope countries have the balls to tell USA to f**k off with their CAATSA nonsense.

countries still operating mig-23, Su-22, old mig-29, will want to replace them with these. And I suspect that some countries operating some of the older western country aircraft like F-5, F-4, A4, old mirages etc will also buy. I suspect that the mig-21 will also see some replacement although not totally (at least for some years to come) due to cheap costs and countries threat level. The Checkmate would be a good opportunity for North Korea to get a defacto production rights (through the backdoor of course), could also be a good aircraft for Iran, Egypt. And I would imagine Syria, Libya and Yemen will want them once the countries are back on its feet. There might even be a chance for Lebanon to finally get a fixed wing aircraft in its inventory. And this would certainly help destroy sales of Gripen and F-16 although European countries will still bend the knee to USA masters say so politics. Central and east Asia, south and central America, middle East, and Africa will be the markets to be had. Could see sales to Belarus and Serbia as well.

Although I can already see western analysts slating the aircraft when it finally comes out. They will be comparing it to F-22 etc etc in capabilities etc when in fact this aircraft I feel isn't trying to be a superior aircraft and won't be as good as Su-35S and Su-57, but is purely meant to fill a gap in the market for a capable aircraft that's cheap to buy and maintain and allows Poorer nations to have a capable multi role aircraft at half the cost of most things on the market to which is overkill or too expensive for their needs. As I mentioned earlier there is a lot of aging Soviet era and western cold war era aircraft out there still in service that will need replacing and the checkmate will be in a perfect position to fulfill that role. Western aircraft have priced themselves out of the market for poorer nations with the best offer the west can offer is secondhand aircraft (often already outdated) with red tape, or leaving the buying country with an option of buying half a squadron of mediocre aircraft for their planned sales budget and still with red tape and high maintenance costs. Going buy the proposed costs of this aircraft it's even cheaper and better than Tejas, and J-17 etc.

Part of the hype about new western aircraft is because their price means they can't replace the older aircraft one to one, so to justify costing 10 times more it has to be 10 times better so you only buy 10 time less.

The weapon bays on these aircraft will be standard with the Su-57s bays so they can carry the same types of weapons... the smaller aircraft obviously having fewer weapon bays, but that should mean a large number of them armed with new air to air and air to ground weapons will become quite a potent force.

I wonder if Argentina would like to test drive three dozen of them... the UK would have to seriously accelerate their new fighter programme ... together with their other costs wanting to look tough to Russia...

These aircraft could be destabilising which is good because that means they will be powerful anti colonial equalizers for the not so rich countries of the world to properly defend themselves from the more powerful and richer colonial countries.

There were agreements over the distribution of high tech weapons like MANPADS and ATGMs which were strictly controlled... but now... it is going to be much harder for western countries to just bomb smaller countries into submission and doing what they want them to... which is good for the rest of the world.

Remember that Russia invading the Ukraine was the worst crime of the 21st century, but the west bombing and sanctioning countries to steal their wealth or to force them to comply with the exodus of wealth from these countries to the west is business as usual.

External appearance of the LTS patented:

https://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll?ty=29&docid=00132472&ki=S

Vietnam, south and central America, Africa will want to replace it's aging fleets. Although I see a slight twist, some countries may want to hang on to it's Mig-21 due to threat level and cheap maintenance costs which is fine, but in. Decade or two they will eventually want to replace. Checkmate will obviously cost more to buy and maintain then keeping mig-21 in service and if u have limited threat I get that. But other more complex aircraft such as the ones I mentioned above either cost more to maintain that mig-21 or are in a dire state, or their threat level has increased. And they will want a cheap replacement. Tejas, J-17, or second hand early versions of western aircraft is what most would be looking at although all those options are likely going to be more expensive than $30 million and the aircraft won't be as good as checkmate even if checkmate came in at $35mn it would still be better option.

That raises a political dimension I had not really thought about... imagine a Russia friendly country somewhere decides to buy Checkmates because they are affordable and offer state of the art technology, the US generally tries to turn countries near such states and influences them as a counter... so say Venezuela might want Checkmates and buys 50... the US normally controls its central and south american "staff" by giving them Skyhawks and F-5s and early model F-16s, but none of those are going to be anything more than cannon fodder against a Checkmate, so they are going to have to look at state of the art new F-16 models or F-35s which are going to be enormously expensive... those countries could never afford such aircraft... even just the maintenance costs will cripple their budgets, so the US taxpayer starts pay for them?

Or they give up and send F-15s... but they are even more expensive... 250 million each... this is a real problem for the US moving forward... the engine of the F-35 costs more than a Checkmate fighter...

Capitalism for you. Someone needs to make big profits up top and as a result they hike the price up

This is out of control capitalism fed by monopolies leading to self destruction...

If the US got its way all its allies would be flying the F-35 and not much else, but most of the features that were supposed to make it cancel proof also made it eye wateringly expensive, and attempts to curb that horrific excessive cost led to substandard materials and parts being used leading to even more problems.

They have more than 600 in service and the damn thing hasn't even had most of its core problems sorted out yet... it is barely operational and the enormous flight costs means countries that use it are struggling to keep pilots and ground crew current on operating it.

The core problem is that the makers are not defending the US, they are making money for the people who run the US... who think the US has not real rival and the US is completely safe and even if it is not they have the money to move to Australia or New Zealand where most people are white and they speak English and they can avoid problems with their accent by pretending to be Canadian.

Russia has a capitalist economy too so you can't really blame this on capitalism as such... more unregulated capitalism... which is capitalism with rules largely made up by the richest capitalists.

With the state of USA debt and the way the polar shift in world power is turning I highly doubt USA will have the money to build another 1 trillion dollar aircraft they will most likely be stuck with this pile of crap with problems for the next 2-3 decades and be forced into keeping F-22, F-15, F-18 in service a lot longer. The sad thing all those allies who have been duped into buying this pile of crap they will be forced to retire part of their inventory within the next few years due to costs and issues. This aircraft effectively had caused a massive blip in western air forces something that will take decades to recover from. All the while Russia and China steam ahead with air force technology and procurement.