Sukhoi LTS "Checkmate" #2

If the maximum take-off weight of the Su-75 was 18 tons, it would be the same as for the MiG-29.

MiG-29 family aircraft max out at 22 to 24 tons MTOW... with a modern fighter having thrust vectoring engine nozzles means ability to manouver is astounding...

Most of the time modern aircraft are going to be flying high and fast and launching missiles at max range.

Flight speed and altitude count there and thrust to weight ratio indicates acceleration only... the MiG-25 has two 11 ton thrust engines so it has less power than a Su-27... guess which is fastest?

And this also means that one "izdeliye-30" engine would have to power the Su-75 aircraft, which has a nearly 50% lower maximum allowable take-off mass than the Su-57.
What is the truth, time will tell.

The Su-75 seems to have a 3,000km flight range and a max payload of 7 tons.... both of which are vastly higher than a light fighter would normally use on a normal combat mission, so normally it will not be operating at anywhere near it MTOW.

When launched to intercept a threat it will likely have half fuel and 4-6 AAMs so it would probably be 13 tons or less on takeoff.

It may be better to spend resources on the cheaper Su-75s over the Baltics and the Black Sea than on the Su-57s, since the NATO countries in that area will have nothing but single-engine F-35 fighters.

Honestly I actually believe that by the time the F-35 is in widespread service in Europe that Russia could have MiG-35s in service in large numbers and while not an astounding design, its radar could be state of the art for the time and its new air to air missiles are going to be the same missiles as fitted to newer types.

The job of the fighter is to get missiles to where you need them and launch them at the enemy planes and I think the MiG-35 can do that cheaper and easier than any F-35.

I absolutely believe the F-35 is going to destroy HATO because its costs are horrendous... I mean the EU knows how badly they work together on military projects and yet many have said instead of getting the F-35 they will work with their neighbours to make their own new 5th gen light stealth fighter.

I don't think they could agree on the colour to paint it let alone a name they all like.

Why would nuclear iskander be needed? Noone is threatening Russia with nuclear weapons

Europe is HATO now so rather than fight them with planes Russia should just accept it is a closed border and nothing of interest is there.

Rather than having lots of planes and tanks to defend the border I think he is suggesting a hard border where if you try to attack us to cross it we wont send planes to stop you, we will use nukes to destroy the threat to our country. It is simpler and cheaper.

So rather than moving large numbers of men to the Fin border which costs money and raises tensions... remember HATO is a peaceful organisation that spreads love and friendship, so we now have US listening posts and air bases so why are you (Russia) increasing your military strength near our border.

Well you joined a gang whose entire purpose was to fight us and kill us so when you allow the US to put bases on your territory... all of which should have violated the CFE treaty if it existed any more, so Russia needs to change its defense posture to cater to the new level of hostility coming from Finland.

And the Americans will not trade their own cities for Helsinki or any other NATO state

They don't give a shit about their european meat shields, but that is not to say Finland is now anti Russian and Russia needs to change its military posture in response to the open change to being HATO friendly like they have always been... they fought with German Nazis in WWII.. why not American nazis to start the next one.

This is why France has its own independent nuclear deterrent, its well known in Europe that Washington will not use nuclear weapons on Russia for eastern European countries

And yet they trample their own rules and laws to scamper under the hem of Americas big dress...

So conventional weapons are sufficient to beat limitrophe states , against F35, Su35 and s400 with AWACS is enough

I suspect he means that if war starts with HATO then the enormous border with finland is a big area to cover... actually destroying all their major cities might be a quicker and easier way of nullifying the threat they pose rather than having to send troops in to deal with the threat.

There is no new territory Russia needs to conquer or to add to the Russian Federation so destroying it quickly and efficiently with nukes would be rather easier than having to send in large amounts of conventional forces, which would free conventional forces up to take parts of the Baltics that would allow a land route to Kaliningrad after the conflict.

Podlodka77 wrote:A few days ago it was announced that with afterburner thrust "izdeliye-30" engines would give the maximum power up to 17.5 - 19.5 tons.

Do you have a source?

The patent for the modular design above:

https://new.fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&DocNumber=2807558&TypeFile=html

every day it seems to look more like in concept the F-16XL that never got built
except in plan form it is starting to resemble the Saab Viggen

2 of the most beautiful cranked-delta designs ever in my opinion ....
if it looks good .... it will be

having said that - deltas tend not to be popular on aircraft carriers
due to high approach landing speeds
so I think navy will go Su-57 carrier version ....

Gazputin wrote:every day it seems to look more like in concept the F-16XL that never got built
except in plan form it is starting to resemble the Saab Viggen

2 of the most beautiful cranked-delta designs ever in my opinion ....
if it looks good .... it will be

having said that - deltas tend not to be popular on aircraft carriers
due to high approach landing speeds
so I think navy will go Su-57 carrier version ....

High landing speed was a problem for first generation of deltas.
Su-75 has horizontal control surfaces, just merged with the cranked delta design.
Note that there is also the S-70 to consider for carriers.

TMA1 wrote:Saw someone posted this on secretprojectsuk. Do not know the original source of the image.

Posted by UAC at their Telegram channel

https://t.me/s/uac_ru

https://t.me/uac_ru/2051

Some people are very afraid of being hurt or upset so they always expect the worst... Putin is about to sell us out for a nice billion dollar estate in Florida, that sort of thing so when bad things happen (and occasionally they do) they wont be upset because they expected worse.

It also means when they are wrong they are happy because when they are wrong good things happen.

I understand it, but it is a very negative way of viewing the world and such people can't be put in charge of anything... they can only be critics they can never be value creators because a pessimist will never take risks.

If pessimists were in charge of the Russian Navy they would have thousands of ships... and they would all be 1980s corvettes and frigates... because they were cheap and easy to mass produce.

Su-75 and Su-57 are/were risks, but risks worth taking... no matter how they turn out.

Also you have to understand half their market or maybe more, is westerners who would not approve of a Russian site that was too pro Russia and not skeptical at all...

Gazputin wrote:every day it seems to look more like in concept the F-16XL that never got built
except in plan form it is starting to resemble the Saab Viggen

2 of the most beautiful cranked-delta designs ever in my opinion ....
if it looks good .... it will be

having said that - deltas tend not to be popular on aircraft carriers
due to high approach landing speeds
so I think navy will go Su-57 carrier version ....

Rafale M. Granted it's Euro-trash-canard and not cranked-delta but still delta enough with an overall small wing surface area yet has an even smoother carrier landing than the behemoth F/A-18 Super Hornet. And those Navy & Marine pilots drop them things on the deck like boulders.

I've had a quick look in this thread but it seems that much of the following has not been posted.

Here is a summary of an article in Zvezda's online publication on 23 November 2023 on the future Su-75:
https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/202311201034-YUXl8.html


The press service of Rostec State Corporation reported on November 13 that preparations for the production of the first samples of the fifth-generation Su-75 Checkmate light single-engine fighter have begun in Russia.

The Checkmate is described as a multi-role tactical fighter (LTS) and that all the design documentation for the new Sukhoi fighter has been transferred to the manufacturer.

The Checkmate is considered as an "economy version" of the Su-57 and much of the Checkmate's design was done by utilizing super computer technology.

It was conceived as a cheap and easily adaptable alternative to the PAK-FA, created as part of the program of the promising aviation complex of front-line aviation's Su-57. The use of supercomputer technologies in the design of the Checkmate, as well as a high degree of commonality with the Su-57 design, made it possible to significantly reduce the time needed to create an "economy version" of the PAK FA.

With the Checkmate, Sukhoi developed the first single-engine light tactical aircraft in the modern history of Russia. It has a take-off weight of up to 18 tons. The aircraft is designed to reach a maximum flight speed of more than Mach 2, and through the use of a thrust vectoring engine, the aircraft will have super maneuverable capability. This feature will also improve the aircraft's takeoff and landing characteristics. The thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft is at least 1:1.

Sukhoi admits that it would be very problematic to sell an aircraft abroad that has not been adopted by the Russians themselves. It is therefor expected that the Checkmate should enter service in the Russian Aerospace Forces.

Alexey Bulatov, Deputy chief designer of the Checkmate project, noted that the new aircraft was created as an addition to the already existing heavy supersonic twin-engine fifth generation Su-57, and the number "75" is a mirror image of "57".

The Checkmate borrowed a lot of components and technical solutions from its "older brother" - the Su-57. This - together with the extensive use of supercomputer technologies made it possible to create a pilot LTS sample in record time - in just ONE year!

Like its Russian "big brother", Checkmate would receive a control system for a group of drones that the fighter would carry on an external and/or internal suspension.

Sukhoi indicated that the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Plant named after Yuri Gagarin, would be used for large-scale production of the Su-75.

For the modern Russian defense industry, the single-engine Checkmate is in many ways a revolutionary machine, that marks the return of the single engine design.

According to Sukhoi the twin engine design has certain advantages but it also has certain drawbacks.  Two engines contributes to a substatial increase in labor costs for creating such an aircraft. Two engines increases the dimensions of the machine, its weight, as well as the complexity of its maintenance. It also automatically increase the cost of the fighter significantly - therefor reducing the number of potential buyers.

Moreover the fighting in Syria, Libya and Karabakh has clearly demonstrated that in modern local conflicts of low to medium intensity, heavy fighters often simply have nowhere to "roam".

In these conditions, the tactical and technical characteristics and cost of heavy fighters are simply too excessive. In these conditions it would be more optimal to use modern multi-role light tactical machines - such as Checkmate. From this point of view, the promising supersonic single-engine super-maneuverable multi-role light fighter of the fifth generation from Sukhoi is a "bull's-eye hit".

According to Sergey Chemezov, the cost of Checkmate is projected to be in the range of 25-30 million dollars. This is a very competitive price for a new Russian fighter in the global market. It is expected that operational cost per hour of the new Sukhoi fighter will be six to seven times lower than that of the F-35. Checkmate indeed!

Since 2021 times have changed dramatically but according to Chemezov there is still a serious demand for the Checkmate abroad. "I believe that in 2023, this demand has not gone away either, despite its own and all the military-political conflicts associated with the special operation. At least, Rosoboronexport, a member of Rostec, announced on the sidelines of Dubai Airshow 2023 that this year the amount of contracts for the supply of Russian aircraft abroad exceeded $ 22 billion. In other words, sales of our aircraft, helicopters and aircraft engines abroad continue."

"As for the prospects of Checkmate in the Russian Aerospace Forces, I repeat, it is much more difficult to sell abroad a car that has not been adopted by the Air Force of your own country than an accepted one. Secondly, the experience of combat operations gained by the Russian military during the ongoing military operation is able to encourage the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation to search for a niche for LTS in the modern structure of our aerospace forces. Thirdly, the possibilities for modernizing our "oldies" such as the Su-24 front-line bomber and the Su-25 attack aircraft are close to exhaustion. Plus, neither the "twenty-fourth" nor the "twenty-fifth" "pull" versatility. And if the Su-24 in the VKS of the Russian Federation is gradually being replaced by the front-line supersonic fighter-bomber Su-34, then no replacement is yet expected for the "twenty-fifth" in the niche of the light tactical aircraft of the VKS. "

The SVO, which began in February 2022, slowed the project down, but I didn't stop. The evidence of the latter was the publication in the first half of 2023 of three patents for an industrial design of an "inconspicuous single-engine aircraft" in single, double and unmanned versions. The wording did not deceive anyone - the same Checkmate was listed in the patents, but it had clearly been modified. The model of the unmanned version of the LTS was later demonstrated at the International Military-Technical Forum "Army-2023".

More proof that no one is going to give up on Checkmate was the statement made by Denis Manturov, Deputy Prime Minister and head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation, on November 13, 2023: "I expect that this the creation of the first flight model of the Checkmate fighter will happen before the end of 2025." That is, there is a shift to the right in terms of the timing of the LTS project, but the project itself is not closed and work on it is underway. Another confirmation of this conclusion was the message from the Rostec press service at the beginning of this text. "Based on the work carried out, changes were made to the project, which adjusted the timing of the first departure. Today, the design documentation has been transferred to the manufacturer, and the preparation of production of the first samples has begun".

Mir wrote:I've had a quick look in this thread but it seems that much of the following has not been posted.

Is it just me or are any other fellas having a certain percentage of conflicted opinion as to how cool a platform looks without any horizontal stabilizers?  I understand all about the dynamics of having them vs not having them and how the canted vertical stabilizers make up for the need to control both, yaw but also pitch authority where otherwise the H-stabs would assume that role.  Still, it looks like it's missing something.

I don't get that sense when looking at any full delta-winged aircraft like any of the Mirage series since the delta wings are usually placed further aft of the fuselage, sort of taking away from the need of having something fill in that void or space.  Even delta/canards don't give off that impression either for obvious reasons.  But this design and all the newer 6th gens without H-stabs all look like they're missing something because of that.  

Even the Tempest gives off the same impression, albeit not as much as the Checkmate but still, the notching on the trailing edge of the wings make that thing look like there's something missing.

I believe that the new design solves that little issue for you!

But sometimes it takes some time to adapt to a new shape. Vladimir Kondaurov was a Mig-25 test pilot. When he first saw the Mig-25 he thought that it looked incapable of flying at high speed. He expected it to look like a rocket if it was going to fly at Mach 3

Mir wrote:I believe that the new design solves that little issue for you!

Is this really the officially new design? If that's the case, looks friggin unbelievable!

Seems like it's also leaning towards that common, H-stabs-less, 6th-gen design that's floating around between most of the big-wig manufacturers, not just the US & UK, but even the Japanese one I believe is similar. Is this really the new one?

This is it!
These are the patent drawings of the single seat.

@Mir, you know what this means now, though?  They won't have the interchangeable wings of the Su-57 which I thought was originally a great idea for mass production purposes, having the same wings for both aircraft and pumping them out would ease the assmembly process.  But I guess that's not a huge deal, just a bit more logistically complex and a bit more costly. And if it's a matter of optimizing performance, aerodynamically & stealthily, then well worth it.





This article HERE says while it looks like the Su-57 has received a new configuration, Sukhoi still hasn't made an official announcement.  I'm thinking and they probably won't, at least not until they unveil another prototype at whichever next MAX.

Mir wrote:I've had a quick look in this thread but it seems that much of the following has not been posted.

Here is a summary of an article in Zvezda's online publication on 23 November 2023 on the future Su-75:
https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/202311201034-YUXl8.html


The press service of Rostec State Corporation reported on November 13 that preparations for the production of the first samples of the fifth-generation Su-75 Checkmate light single-engine fighter have begun in Russia.

The Checkmate is described as a multi-role tactical fighter (LTS) and that all the design documentation for the new Sukhoi fighter has been transferred to the manufacturer.

I think that such an article should be consider quite outdated almost for what regard the "multirole" part, considered that it emerged a firm rejection of the concept itself almost for what it concern the VKS own needs.
They have found infact that designing from the scratch a plane to be a FULL FLEDGED multirole means to lose a lot of time and efforts just to develop vastly different capacities in parallel, so to end up in a sort of endless tail chase with the need to introduce progressively new features even before having reached the IOC or, using russian terms, the GSI 2 phase.
So, they seem determined to return in full to their old practise (never really abandoned anyway) of having different aviation"troops" each one having specially designed planes for performing their own assigned tasks.
Naturally,nothing forbid them to consider their own version of the Su-75 as a strictly IBA/RA plane and label instead the export version as a "multirole" even without adding any new real additional capabilities.

@Gomig-21

Yes the wing design has been changed but the modification is still based on the Su-57's wing. Only the rear part at the tail end has changed.

Here I made a crude comparison of the old wing superimposed over the new design - not much has changed.


The tail end has seen a more comprehensive redesign - marked in red. The stabilizers seems a bit smaller as well.


The front end and the fuselage has aslo been changed slightly - but were talking about the wings.

marcellogo wrote:
I think that such an article should be consider quite outdated almost for what regard the "multirole" part.

The Su-75 is designed as a light strike fighter, but in the article the translation reads "multi-function" which I translate as multi-role.
I believe the aircraft would indeed be multi-role, but it is based on open architecture and can be changed as to what the customer desires.

If the Su-75 is not supposed to be multi-role one would expect Alexey Bulatov, the deputy chief designer of the Checkmate project, to have corrected the author, as the Checkmate was referred to as being multi-role throughout the article. Something that would have been picked up by the "sensors" if you wish. Then again maybe it's disinformation?

Sukhoi admits that it would be very problematic to sell an aircraft abroad that has not been adopted by the Russians themselves. It is therefor expected that the Checkmate should enter service in the Russian Aerospace Forces.

So Sukhoi wants the Russian military to buy some so they can export them to the world.

I understand why Sukhoi would want the Russian Military to buy them but what exactly is in it for the Russian Military?

For the modern Russian defense industry, the single-engine Checkmate is in many ways a revolutionary machine, that marks the return of the single engine design.

Which means nothing at all if the Russian military decide they want twin engined fighters.

According to Sukhoi the twin engine design has certain advantages but it also has certain drawbacks. Two engines contributes to a substatial increase in labor costs for creating such an aircraft. Two engines increases the dimensions of the machine, its weight, as well as the complexity of its maintenance. It also automatically increase the cost of the fighter significantly - therefor reducing the number of potential buyers.

They are trying to sell a single engined fighter, of course they will make such comments.

Moreover the fighting in Syria, Libya and Karabakh has clearly demonstrated that in modern local conflicts of low to medium intensity, heavy fighters often simply have nowhere to "roam".

So light fighters make sense... so which light fighters are ready for production quickest?

It is expected that operational cost per hour of the new Sukhoi fighter will be six to seven times lower than that of the F-35. Checkmate indeed!

Lets be generous and say 7 times... that means 10-11 thousand dollars per flight hour.... which is not terrible.

"As for the prospects of Checkmate in the Russian Aerospace Forces, I repeat, it is much more difficult to sell abroad a car that has not been adopted by the Air Force of your own country than an accepted one.

So they are trying to pressure the Russian AF to buy their plane...

And if the Su-24 in the VKS of the Russian Federation is gradually being replaced by the front-line supersonic fighter-bomber Su-34, then no replacement is yet expected for the "twenty-fifth" in the niche of the light tactical aircraft of the VKS. "

That is an interesting admission... so they expect the light 5th gen fighter to replace the CAS role...

Presumably using sensors and standoff weapons.

The evidence of the latter was the publication in the first half of 2023 of three patents for an industrial design of an "inconspicuous single-engine aircraft" in single, double and unmanned versions.

Sounds like they are doing the same as MiG... a single engined light 5th gen fighter and a small drone to operate with it and also a twin engined light fighter in case the Air Force wants two engines and also to offer to the Navy as a light fighter because they will definitely want a twin engined aircraft.

"I expect that this the creation of the first flight model of the Checkmate fighter will happen before the end of 2025."

So no flight till 2026 then.

Is it just me or are any other fellas having a certain percentage of conflicted opinion as to how cool a platform looks without any horizontal stabilizers? I understand all about the dynamics of having them vs not having them and how the canted vertical stabilizers make up for the need to control both, yaw but also pitch authority where otherwise the H-stabs would assume that role. Still, it looks like it's missing something.

Thrust vectoring should allow rapid pitch movements, but I wonder about roll control with just the one engine not allowing differential TVC for rapid roll rates...

I don't get that sense when looking at any full delta-winged aircraft like any of the Mirage series since the delta wings are usually placed further aft of the fuselage, sort of taking away from the need of having something fill in that void or space. Even delta/canards don't give off that impression either for obvious reasons. But this design and all the newer 6th gens without H-stabs all look like they're missing something because of that.

It is made worse by previous Flanker types like the Su-33 with tails and canards in the tri wing layout.

I am sure they will know what they are doing.

Even the Tempest gives off the same impression, albeit not as much as the Checkmate but still, the notching on the trailing edge of the wings make that thing look like there's something missing.

Tempest is real vapourware of course... in comparison.

I believe that the new design solves that little issue for you!

Of course now I think about it there were flat moveable surfaces between the vertical tail and the engine nozzle too which might act as horizontal tail surfaces that are hidden from radar from most angles.



Of course they will continue to test shapes and designs and test them until it is time to make the flying prototype when it starts to cost real money to make changes.

But sometimes it takes some time to adapt to a new shape. Vladimir Kondaurov was a Mig-25 test pilot. When he first saw the Mig-25 he thought that it looked incapable of flying at high speed. He expected it to look like a rocket if it was going to fly at Mach 3

In the early 1970s the west saw the MiG-25 and the MiG-23 and confused them for each other... well the MiG-23 looks like a rocket/arrow.

These are the patent drawings of the single seat.

Those images are too small to see if it has the surfaces in the image I posted above... the shape of it would suggest it is likely and possible...

They won't have the interchangeable wings of the Su-57 which I thought was originally a great idea for mass production purposes, having the same wings for both aircraft and pumping them out would ease the assmembly process

The basic wing structure might be the same but the wing on the Su-57 has to interact with the horizontal tail surface while the trailing edge of the Su-75 does not so the control surfaces hanging off the back of the wing might be different while the wing structure is the same.

Or they could be talking shit to get a sale.

You know... like western companies do... Like the Gripen is not cheap to buy but is super cheap to operate...

This article HERE says while it looks like the Su-57 has received a new configuration, Sukhoi still hasn't made an official announcement. I'm thinking and they probably won't, at least not until they unveil another prototype at whichever next MAX.

The designs they put out are cheap... they are computer models that can be tested and played with and painted in the colours of the air forces you want to sell the plane to. These are serious test designs of course, they wont just be having fun, but they will test them all and pick the best to use for the flying model or maybe two for the flight model and make a full sized plane with what they like the best and think is the best and make a scale model of one or two others and flight test them and see if the results match what they calculated they would get.

Honestly I think if the Su-75 lives up to the hype and is good as they suggest then it wont have any problems finding export customers whether the Russian military buys it or not.

The model that MiG showed is much smaller and probably lighter and likely wont be able to fly 3,000km with 7 tons of payload, but it will be small and light and cheap and its AESA radar will be useful and it will be able to carry all the needed ordinance and equipment to do the job and I think it will be cheaper because that is what MiG has been doing for the last 40 years... cheaper light fighters.

In a sense it is the equivalent of an F-16 based on the F-5 so actually cheap but also with a single engine.

Very nice comparison - esp the price!

Mir wrote:

marcellogo wrote:
I think that such an article should be consider quite outdated almost for what regard the "multirole" part.

The Su-75 is designed as a light strike fighter, but in the article the translation reads "multi-function" which I translate as multi-role.
I believe the aircraft would indeed be multi-role, but it is based on open architecture and can be changed as to what the customer desires.

If the Su-75 is not supposed to be multi-role one would expect Alexey Bulatov, the deputy chief designer of the Checkmate project, to have corrected the author, as the Checkmate was referred to as being multi-role throughout the article. Something that would have been picked up by the "sensors" if you wish. Then again maybe it's disinformation?

Well, thank you a lot.
Light Strike Fighter is then a quite precise rendition of IB in US actual military jargon.

Russian VKS would consider them an IBA plane  and use it accordingly while Sukhoi would call it a multi role plane in their own advertisement for foreign customers.
So, question settled.