Sukhoi LTS "Checkmate" #2

lyle6 wrote:Except Rosoboronexport has the exclusive rights to sell the planes. Sukhoi can magic their way into cheap 5th gen jets, the Russian government will just pump the margins even higher.

Well as I've said before you gonna find it extremely difficult to explain to a customer why the Checkmate is now suddenly 70 million and not 30 million as previously advertised. Not gonna get any takers  - so might as well just pack it all up. Do you think this whole exercise to launch the Checkmate was just a lame attempt to con countries out of taxpayer money?

Btw I'm sure Rosoboronexport does not decide the going rate of a certain product. I'm pretty sure they are just an umbrella company.

Isos wrote:

It's a light fighter with internal bays. Exactly what you need to have in mass. 2-4 missiles and enough range to operate far away front front line MLRS and drones. It can also do any mission including tactical missile attacks against land targets or ships with cruise missiles which is very important.

So 4 missiles, likely meaning 2 close range leaving only two medium range and no ability to carry anything long range. ALso likely meaning that the aircraft will be completely unable to carry any defensive armament at the same time as any form of ground attack or anti ship weapon.

Not to mention that air to air missiles have terrible kill probabilities, meaning that salvos are often used. So in other words this "fighter" would fire at one target and then try to make it back to the airfield to rearm.

Gomig-21 wrote:

Why can't we expect it to be in the same category and level as the F-35?  Or even better?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the engine will likely limit performance as it will use the a single engine from the SU-57 meaning it would have to make compromises in oder to still work under half the power of the Su-57.

I also do not expect an especially potent payload to be achieved by any light fighter, especially not one that uses internal weapon bays.

Mir wrote:
Well as I've said before you gonna find it extremely difficult to explain to a customer why the Checkmate is now suddenly 70 million and not 30 million as previously advertised. Not gonna get any takers  - so might as well just pack it all up. Do you think this whole exercise to launch the Checkmate was just a lame attempt to con countries out of taxpayer money?

Btw I'm sure Rosoboronexport does not decide the going rate of a certain product. I'm pretty sure they are just an umbrella company.

There is nothing to explain. Prices can and do change. Especially now that the only other 5th gen light fighter on the market is a certified dog.

Mir wrote:

lyle6 wrote:Except Rosoboronexport has the exclusive rights to sell the planes. Sukhoi can magic their way into cheap 5th gen jets, the Russian government will just pump the margins even higher.

Well as I've said before you gonna find it extremely difficult to explain to a customer why the Checkmate is now suddenly 70 million and not 30 million as previously advertised. Not gonna get any takers  - so might as well just pack it all up.

Do you think this whole exercise to launch the Checkmate was just a lame attempt to con countries out of taxpayer money?

No, I believe it was an attempt from Sukhoi to find a risk and cost sharing partner.
The other countries apparently did not accept to invest on the aircraft development and want only the final product. That is perfectly fine but that means that they cannot have the same benefits as they would have had if they invested, say, a couple of USD Billions early in the development.

In addition noone of the potential customers seems to have done an order for su-75 and have already "blocked" the price by paying upfront a large percentage of the cost.

They cannot expect in 5 years or more to receive the same offer, if they did not took the opportunity (together with the risk) in 2021.

At that time, Sukhoi possibly deemed that early injection of funds would have been important for the success of the program and that such risk and cost sharing partner would have been recompensed with a lower price for the final product, where Sukhoi would only get a much smaller margin over the production cost.

When I ask a supplier for a quote, this comes always with a validity. This could be as an example 30 days or a couple of months or even one year if applicable. After that time is expired they do not guarantee the price and I need to ask a new quote.


Since no-one took the early deal in 2021, once the aircraft will be developed, Russian air force will be able to buy it if they are interested in it and it is what Sukhoi advertised.

Foreign customers will also be able to buy it, but they cannot expect that the deal offered in 2021, that they did not take, will be still valid.

If they do not like the new price  they can still buy Rafale, F16, JF-17, Gripen or F35.
Noone will be stopping them from buying instead Chinese, American or European aircrafts which will still cost even more and are worse and much older aircrafts than what the su-75 is supposed to become.

Concerning that table with characteristics and price comparison of the various aircrafts, I would believe the journalist that compiled it made only with what he found in internet and did not confirm the prices with Sukhoi or Rostec, so he just used the price announced in 2021.

From what we have seen of Mikoyan's project it appears to be a glorified trainer, atleast the Su75 should be able to carry a basic payload.

The Su-75 claims to have a payload of 7.4 tons, which is more than a MiG -35 can carry.

This means the Su-75 was badly designed... if it was designed to have a payload of 3-4 tons and a flight radius of 1,500km then it could be made smaller and lighter and cheaper.

People were saying single engined aircraft are lighter and cheaper and that the ideal replacement for the MiG-29 would be a Yak-130 with a radar and self defence avionics etc etc.... but when MiG reveals its light single engined type which would obviously benefit from being actually light looks like a stealthy LIFT then it is not good enough.... glorified trainer you say.

Modifying an existing type can reduce RCS quite a lot, but never enough to actually make it stealthy, otherwise there would be no need to design them from scratch.

The Yak-130 isn't a super cheap aircraft and adding AESA radar and modern avionics and new engines is not going to make it any cheaper, and it is never going to be stealth because there is no internal weapons bay that is essential to be stealthy.

This MiG design ticks all your boxes and still you complain that it is a plastic model, ignoring that it is a design project for the Russian military they have no reason to reveal... especially as that would sabotage any potential sales Sukhoi might get for its Su-75 which would suffer if it is revealed that the Russian AF is going for and funding a MIG option instead.

Mig-29 as shown in Ukraine need to operate in airfield that can be attacked by Lancet because mig-29 range is quite small normally and very small when you need to fly low all the time to evade S-400.

Most have been shot down in the air, with a few getting hit while on airfields I would suggest western aircraft actually tied to airfields would fare rather worse.

At least the MiG-29 can operate from motorways and don't need airconditioned hangars like some western aircraft (and some tanks) need.

The trainer is the MiG-UTS, basically a single engine derivative of the old MiG-AT project. It is a cheap and simple intermediate trainer to replace the L-39 and to be used before the pilots are ready for the Yak-130 advanced trainer.

It was not presented nor labeled as the MiG-UTS. It was described as a single engined 5th gen light fighter.

The MiG-UTS does not need internal weapon bays and should be designed to be simple and basic because it is a cheap simple mass produceable stepping stone from the turboprop Yak-152 or Yak-52 to the Yak-130.

The other one is a potential twin engine fighter mentioned during MAKS-2021.
I do not know how realistic is this project and if they are going to receive any orders from the russian navy.

The twin engined aircraft was described as a backup for the single engined fighter for the VVS if they don't want a single engined aircraft, but also as a carrier aircraft for the navy, assuming the navy would not be interested in a light single engined 5th gen fighter for carrier operations.

Finally, a few years ago they it was mentioned that Russia (Yakovlev) was developing a modern VTOL fighter.

Unless there is a real breakthrough in technology I wouldn't hold my breath on a VTOL fighter.

Why can't we expect it to be in the same category and level as the F-35? Or even better?

Avionics wise it probably is, and in terms of size and weight and likely performance it probably carries much less payload over shorter distances... because light fighters never outperform heavy fighters in those metrics... but the metric that is important is that this single engined MiG 5th gen fighter will be cheap and effective... AESA radar and modern Russian air to air and air to ground weapons, and a modern self defence avionics suite... what else is there?

What will make this and Checkmate vastly superior to the F-35 are two things... firstly they will work, and secondly you will probably get ten Russian planes for the price of one or two American planes and for the operational costs of those one or two American planes you can operate 20 Russian planes...

I would think Sukhoi would want to compete with what's perceived as the best competition out there, no?

I would think Sukhoi would focus on what you might want a light 5th gen fighter to be able to do. I could act as a recon platform, attack aircraft, fighter aircraft, use its high resolution sensors to find targets and transmit information to other platforms and receive information from other platforms.

Light Multi-Function Frontline Aircraft was that it was all about answering the competition, right?

Not really, because all the competition is western or Chinese and none of those had a chance of being adopted by the Russian military to boost numbers in its air force without breaking the bank.

To counter the F-35 since the Su-57 was the answer to the F-22 Raptor, it only made all the sense in the world to make the Su-75 Checkmate the answer to the F-35.

Again, I don't agree... the F-22 was designed to be the stealth fighter that would fly high and fast and destroy everything before they even knew it was there because everything was MiG-29s and Su-27s and older aircraft types that were downgraded export models.

The Su-57 is actually designed to hunt stealthy aircraft including F-22 and F-35... the hint is in the designation which didn't fall from the sky... 22 + 35 = 57.

The f-35 is bloatware jack of all trades but master of none... they couldn't make it more expensive if they tried... and they certainly must have tried really hard.

More importantly any problems are swept under the rug and production continues... and now gonads is cancelled... well put F-15s and F-16s back into production...

The requirement for the Su-75 is the same as the requirement for the MiG-35... just having top of the line super planes is expensive so you will never get good coverage of your airspace if all your aircraft are big heavy relatively expensive fighters.

The Su-75 is not intended to replace the Su-57, just like the MiG-35 is not intended to replace the Su-35... they idea is that you use them together to make your coverage much much better without the cost of buying and operating that many more heavy fighters.

F-22 Raptor and all of a sudden all of that line of thinking is abandoned for some obscure, affordable, minimally capable platform in the Su-75 Checkmate? Makes absolutely no sense.

You are missing the point. You don't need some expensive super fighter to launch an R-37, and the R-37 does not rely on the aircraft that launched it to hit its target... there are a lot of factors that will determine whether a missile launched at a target will hit or not... things including distance to the target and launch altitude and speed all effect the range and performance of the missile, but the MiG-35 and the Su-35 have the same flight performance characteristics that matter... the MiG-35 can fly as fast and as high as the Su-35, so when it launches an R-37 at an F-16 over the Ukraine it is doing the same job but costing less. For every Su-35 you could have three or four MiG-35s prowling around the place waiting for target data... maybe from an A-50 or A-100 or maybe from a MiG-31 or even an Su-35 that could be miles away.

The point is that it doesn't matter that the Su-75 or the MiG-35 aren't as good as the Su-57 and Su-35 in some respects... in some areas they will be good enough.... they are cheap numbers aircraft to add numbers of sensors and weapons to your military.

The three to one attack doctrine where you don't attack an enemy position till you outnumber the defenders 3 to 1 is because when each defender is firing at one of the attackers those three attackers will be firing back, and every attacker killed weakens the attack but every defender killed has a much greater effect on the defence because now the next guy in the trench is fighting off 5 or 6 guys...

The reason fighting in urban areas is so dangerous is because the enemy could be anywhere and waiting to you are not looking can shoot you in the back.

If there is one enemy then that shot will lead to everyone closing in on the shooter, but if there are ten shots for every attacker you are outgunned.

Only having x number of Su-35s and x number of Su-57s limits the number of eyes and ears and also gun barrels you can bring to bear on any enemy force.

Having lots of light planes with missiles every bit as dangerous as the missiles the bigger aircraft carry is valuable... even when you lose a few... but you are going to lose some of the big expensive planes too... this is war, not an advert.

MiG indeed turned to shit, owing to bad management. Remind me, did they try to deliver Algerians second hand parts as new and then try to get out of the situation by lying?

Blah blah blah... yet Algeria continues to buy MiG-29M fighters... must have been almost as upset as you.

List western companies who have never done anything wrong... what do you mean there aren't any?

That would be about right...

Accusations does not make something true.

The whole ******* point of this light fighter is to blow the competition away. As they say in the article - "Checkmate!"

More drawings and promises.

Its an unofficial graphic. No one will sell a 5th gen fighter for $30 or even $60 million.

The thing isn't even flying yet, and they haven't even come close to finalising the design... a customer like the UAE might decide it needs to drop the cannon and be armed with a laser that triples the price of the aircraft...

It may be unofficial graphics (from TASS actually ) but the official statements from Sukhoi confirms those figures since 2021.

Based on estimates and calculations. If the UAE decides to buy up the programme and fund it completely itself it can decide on the form the aircraft takes and how much they will cost to buy.

Well as I've said before you gonna find it extremely difficult to explain to a customer why the Checkmate is now suddenly 70 million and not 30 million as previously advertised.

30 million for the non flying prototype. 70million for an aircraft that flies and can perform military missions (which is better than the F-35 now).

Do you think this whole exercise to launch the Checkmate was just a lame attempt to con countries out of taxpayer money?

No, but lots of amazing ideas never pan out because problems and issues get in the way.

Btw I'm sure Rosoboronexport does not decide the going rate of a certain product. I'm pretty sure they are just an umbrella company.

They negotiate export contracts for Russian companies with countries and customers around the world.

Not to mention that air to air missiles have terrible kill probabilities, meaning that salvos are often used.

Salvos are almost never used except when they have different homing methods.

Fire 10 AMRAAMs at a target and the same jamming signal that defeats the first missile will likely defeat them all... and now your flight of F-35s are armed with cannon only.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the engine will likely limit performance as it will use the a single engine from the SU-57 meaning it would have to make compromises in oder to still work under half the power of the Su-57.

They have said the aircraft weight is about 18 tons and the max payload is 7.4 tons so if it is carrying four R-73 or their replacement models that means 7 tons of potential payload is not being used... so the aircraft weighs about 11 tons with an 18 ton thrust engine... I would say flight performance is pretty good.

If they do not like the new price they can still buy Rafale, F16, JF-17, Gripen or F35.
Noone will be stopping them from buying instead Chinese, American or European aircrafts which will still cost even more and are worse and much older aircrafts than what the su-75 is supposed to become.

Even at 80 million US dollars the Checkmate will be much cheaper than any western alternative, including most 4th gen fighters.

lyle6 wrote:
There is nothing to explain. Prices can and do change. Especially now that the only other 5th gen light fighter on the market is a certified dog.

Obviously prices can vary. It's clear however that Sukhoi intends to be very competitive.

I find it hilarious that in the Mig-35 threat the 45-50 million figure is too high, but over here those same fanboys insist the Sukhoi price tag is too low
Inflation works for them in the Mig-35 threat but NO not here!

Anyway when I asked how many 4+ gen MiG fighters has been exported - not surprisingly no figures was provided. Well I had a look.
I even included Syria in these figures that includes 24 Mig-29's I suspect they would be Mig-29M2's? The tally comes to 129 export units.
This includes the Mig-29M, Mig-29K and the Mig-35(no takers so far)

I did mention the number of exported Su-30's and it came to 580+. This figure does not include any other 4+ gen Sukhois and Chinese copies.

Btw - a 90 to 1 USD exchange rate is excellent news for Russian exporters.

For what I have understood the proposal about the Su-75 is somewhat similar to what the West have done with the F-35 and what India and Russia tried with the FGFA but in the end decided not to proceed.
Sukhoi made so a private project and decided to propose it to both foreign than national air forces/government as a development project not as an already existing plane.
So, like in the previous cases the partners have to invest money during the development of the plane itself and after it would be finished they would receive them at the same very cheap price that usually are reserved for the Russian MoD  itself as they would be considered co-developers as it usually is.
Hence because the price seems so low compared to the other planes, you are not a foreign customer but adevelopmental partner.
It was trough this scheme that US and Lockeed Martin convinced (or better said tricked) their allies to enter in the F-35 programme.

Apparently, infact there were a lot of advantages to pursue this way: all together they would have had the critical mass of orders to advance the program and all of them would have the possibility to acquire the plane at the same standard and the same price and to have the possibility to access at the same spare part pool so achieving the result to have a very advanced plane they would not able to develop even in a multinational (for EU countries) or Joint (Usa) one.
The final results were...
Developing three vastly different version of the same plane IN PARALLEL (USA prerequisite) complicated incredibly the project with a continued series of stop and go, plane(s) development became so a sort of Sisyphus' fatigue with the failing of practically each set deadline and the necessity to constantly coming back at the project desk or even more often to the source code to fix the bugs popping back up after some time from each new software batch release.
Even worse, the spare part delivery software failed also with catastrophic consequences above all for the original international partners that cannot have easy access to a sufficiently large storage depots network like the USA still can instead.
In the case of FGFA instead the cause of failure was instead that the modifications requested by the Indian Air force to the original russian project were not enough to justify the contribution requested and the quantity of the planes to be purchased was not enough to procure those intended savings theycould possibly achieve.

A great example for Sukhoi how not to do things then!

GarryB wrote:

The Su-75 claims to have a payload of 7.4 tons, which is more than a MiG -35 can carry.

This means the Su-75 was badly designed... if it was designed to have a payload of 3-4 tons and a flight radius of 1,500km then it could be made smaller and lighter and cheaper.

Cheap crap is all very well until you realise that operational costs do not scale down in a linear manner and you end up paying more to maintain you fleet of cheap crap than you would to maintain 3/4 the number of decent aircraft.

This MiG design ticks all your boxes and still you complain that it is a plastic model, ignoring that it is a design project for the Russian military they have no reason to reveal... especially as that would sabotage any potential sales Sukhoi might get for its Su-75 which would suffer if it is revealed that the Russian AF is going for and funding a MIG option instead.

In what way does it tick all my boxes? If it is indeed as you suggest it could not carry a sufficient air to air load, let alone a ground attack load with self defence missiles. It would probably struggle to power a decent radar aswell.

I find it hilarious that in the Mig-35 threat the 45-50 million figure is too high, but over here those same fanboys insist the Sukhoi price tag is too low

Using export prices and claiming that is anything like what the Russian military would pay is dishonest inflation to pretend they are too expensive for the role of light cheap fighter.

You will of course notice that I also said that the price for the Su-75 would be cheaper for the Russian military because that is the export price too.

BTW Sukhoi should be tried for treason... handing countries 5th gen aircraft technology for 20-30 million an airframe...

It is one thing for them to base their new light fighter design on the Russian funded heavy stealth fighter, but it is another thing to sell such secrets for bargain basement prices to any country that flashes a chequebook at them. If the US had any brains they would offer 50 billion and get all that cheap working stealth tech handed to them... a bargain compared with the one and a half trillion the F-35 is costing them...

Inflation works for them in the Mig-35 threat but NO not here!

I know you hate the MiG-35 but it is not a threat.

The tally comes to 129 export units.
This includes the Mig-29M, Mig-29K and the Mig-35(no takers so far)

So doing better than the Su-57 and Su-75 right now...

I did mention the number of exported Su-30's and it came to 580+. This figure does not include any other 4+ gen Sukhois and Chinese copies.

Not sure why any of that is even relevant.

Does the Russian AF need another 1,000 Su-35s to fill out their airforce with a frontal aviation type fighter bomber type force because it exports rather well?

The Russian AF could do with another 1,000 fighters, but 600 are probably going to be S-70s operating with Su-57s and Su-35s and also with MiG-35s... so they will be cheaper because apparently one engine makes them magically cheap to operate.... you know... like the F-35 is super cheap to operate because it only has one engine too.

So, like in the previous cases the partners have to invest money during the development of the plane itself and after it would be finished they would receive them at the same very cheap price that usually are reserved for the Russian MoD itself as they would be considered co-developers as it usually is.

And if that is the case that is a problem... not just handing over 5th gen aircraft technology rather cheaply because the actual stealth technology these countries wont be developing because it is all already developed. More importantly if Sukhoi will be selling for Russian AF prices then they are probably going to loose big time because most countries will want to make parts themselves so they make money on all aircraft made which creates the same distributed production **** up that is the F-35... everything will need to be sent to assembly plants around the world for assembly... expensive.

Hence because the price seems so low compared to the other planes, you are not a foreign customer but adevelopmental partner.

So if everyone who buys also joins then Sukhoi is probably going to lose money on this.

In the case of FGFA instead the cause of failure was instead that the modifications requested by the Indian Air force to the original russian project were not enough to justify the contribution requested and the quantity of the planes to be purchased was not enough to procure those intended savings theycould possibly achieve.

Essentially the Indians wanted to make some significant changes to the design but didn't want to pay extra. Making it a two seat wouldn't have effected the price by an enormous amount, but demands on increasing the levels of stealth would have made it horrendously expensive... not just to buy but also to operate...

Cheap crap is all very well until you realise that operational costs do not scale down in a linear manner and you end up paying more to maintain you fleet of cheap crap than you would to maintain 3/4 the number of decent aircraft.

Making a car able to carry 7 tons of payload makes it a van... the direct result of that is that it becomes rather more expensive to operate and buy even if you never ever put a 7 ton payload in the damn thing.

In this case please outline what current or future potential Russian weapons could possibly be carried by the Su-75 that weigh anything close to 7.4 tons?

It is ridiculous... the weapon bays and external pylons might have ratings that add up to 7.4 tons but actually ever carrying that sort of payload will never happen... it would fly like a brick, and its flight range would be reduced by a factor of 5 or 10.

In what way does it tick all my boxes? If it is indeed as you suggest it could not carry a sufficient air to air load, let alone a ground attack load with self defence missiles.

The only advantage the Su-75 would have over the MiG-35 is stealth, which it would lose if it carried external weapons. Internally its weapon capacity and weapon weights will be rather less than what the MiG-35 could carry.

Not to mention the MiG-35 can fly and has flown.

The Su-75 has no pilots licence.

GarryB wrote:

Mir wrote:    the tally comes to 129 export units.
   This includes the Mig-29M, Mig-29K and the Mig-35(no takers so far)

So doing better than the Su-57 and Su-75 right now...

You do realize that they are a complete generation apart - don't you!?  The Mig-29M project dates back to the 80's, whilst the 5th gen Su-57 has just entered service.
My reference only included 4+ gen fighters and not even all of the 4+ gen Sukhois you know. I did that just to make MiG look a bit better - I even included a Syrian order for 24 Mig-29's of unknown type!  

So no GarryB I do not hate the MiG-35 as you want to suggest. It's obviously pure projection!
Perhaps you should rather get some sleep. It sure does look like you need it!

GarryB wrote:  

Mir wrote:
   u seem to be a man of a thousand words, but unfortunately with very little comprehension. Perhaps you will be able to understand a picture somewhat beter?

I know exactly what he was trying to suggest but he is being a prick so I ignored him.
Before we saw the Su-57 there were glimpses of a plastic model of the aircraft on a desk... I guess that means Sukhoi don't make shit either?

No, GarryB you are making a complete false assumption here:
Sukhoi is not taking bribes of any sort for selling 5 generation planes at a discounted price.
A.T.C. they are searching for foreign and national backing to keep on developing a promising plane in which also the VKS could be interested.
Such plane actually doesn't exist, so they would have to put their own money in advance and trust the Sukhoi to be able to deliver what they have promised.
Only AFTER that such plane design would be completed they would be able to buy it at a price that's is NOT discounted at all but just the normal one they will cost to all countries that have actively taken part in the development of the project.
In a certain sense the only one that could receive an undue advantage from such an enterprise could possibly be (in the absolutely improbable case it doesn't take any part in it) the russian state itself, that could have full access to a military plane it has not spent any fund to develop.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Isos wrote:

It's a light fighter with internal bays. Exactly what you need to have in mass. 2-4 missiles and enough range to operate far away front front line MLRS and drones. It can also do any mission including tactical missile attacks against land targets or ships with cruise missiles which is very important.

So 4 missiles, likely meaning 2 close range leaving only two medium range and no ability to carry anything long range. ALso likely meaning that the aircraft will be completely unable to carry any defensive armament at the same time as any form of ground attack or anti ship weapon.

Not to mention that air to air missiles have terrible kill probabilities, meaning that salvos are often used. So in other words this "fighter" would fire at one target and then try to make it back to the airfield to rearm.

Gomig-21 wrote:

Why can't we expect it to be in the same category and level as the F-35?  Or even better?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the engine will likely limit performance as it will use the a single engine from the SU-57 meaning it would have to make compromises in oder to still work under half the power of the Su-57.

I also do not expect an especially potent payload to be achieved by any light fighter, especially not one that uses internal weapon bays.

Far be it for me to correct you, my friend, as I honestly didn't even know the Checkmate was slated to use a single engine from the Su-57.  So essentially it will have 1/2 the power, 1/2 the T-W ratio and 1/2 all the other benefits twin engines give you?  That's not the end of the world, except the reduction in power is huge.

I realize there are differences in size, weight, payload etc. in both aircraft, but are they really that drastically different?  They don't seem to be which makes the tremendous reduction in power a bit concerning TBH.  Disclaimer: By no means would I ever dream of questioning the line of thinking a massive corporation like Sukhoi has, we're just trying to understand things better.

I hate to use the F-35 as the standard for comparisons for obvious reasons, but why not for now?  Especially with the engine revelation.  Aside from the competitive factor, if we just look at the technicals, the concept of having a light, stealthy fighter with all the latest technological capabilities humanly possible and an entire network-centric support environment to operate within to maximize its potency isn't such a bad idea after all.  But the engine was specifically custom made so to not take away from that essential element of a fighter jet.  There wasn't any consideration for sacrificing power by using a single engine from the F-22, but the opposite.

One of the reasons it's also a fat pig is because it's designed to hold a shitton of fuel which is also another huge.  That was actually a good sacrifice to make it a fat pig so it's not as maneuverable since having the internal fuel capacity was considered a much more important advantage than super maneuverability, as the basis of its fighting strengths are from stand-off distances, so it didn't need to be a super-duper dogfighting wonder.  Even so, it's still no slouch in that department.  I know Gary is probably having an aneurism reading this lol.  But even he, being the worlds biggest F-35 detractor would have to admit this.

What are the mission parameters of the Checkmate?  I think that might be the better way to assess its overall strengths & weaknesses in terms of all the details of its design.

If the idea for the low price was originally to get other countries to invest and become part of the Su-75 program, that's also similar to what LM did with the F-35 which is great.  Only problem is that the latter came at a time where competition was practically zero.  The only real threat that was standing in its way was the Su-57, but the US made sure it did everything it could to sabotage any economic chances of Russia exporting the Su-57 on a grand scale like the F-35, leaving it essentially uncontested.  Now not only does the Su-57 have to deal with a plethora of adversity in the export market, but the Checkmate has to also deal with those same factors except even worse.  It has to deal with all sorts of competition out there, between the FC-31, the KAAN, the KF-21, the Tempest (did I leave anyone out?) not to mention the slew of 4th generations out there.  It has a very difficult uphill road.

What are the mission parameters of the Checkmate? I think that might be the better way to assess its overall strengths & weaknesses in terms of all the details of its design.

Medium range, stealthy, affordable bomb/missile taxi (or Uber, if you prefer).

marcellogo wrote:No, GarryB you are making a complete false assumption here:
Sukhoi is not taking bribes of any sort for selling 5 generation planes at a discounted price.
A.T.C. they are searching for foreign and national backing to keep on developing a promising plane in which also the VKS could be interested.
Such plane actually doesn't exist, so they would have to put their own money in advance and trust the Sukhoi to be able to deliver what they have promised.
Only AFTER that such plane design would be completed they would be able to buy it at a price that's is NOT discounted at all but just the normal one they will cost to all countries that have actively taken part in the development of the project.
In a certain sense the only one that could receive an undue advantage from such an enterprise could possibly be (in the absolutely improbable case it doesn't take any part in it) the russian state itself, that could have full access to a military plane it has not spent any fund to develop.

This is exactly my point. Once the aircraft is ready for service, new customers will have to pay the full price, not the price mentioned in 2021 for cost and risk sharing partners (25 to 30 USD millions each, which would be much closer to the price for the russian air force as well).

Otherwise it makes no sense, and one would be an idiot for investing in it if the only advantage is a partial personalisation of the aircraft or a possible partial localisation of production (which could be also discussed at a later time anyway).

You do realize that they are a complete generation apart - don't you!?

What does their generation have to do with their export success?

You claim the MiG is not worth buying because it has been rejected, yet countries have bought the simpler cheaper version of the aircraft, while India has rejected the Su-57 for joint development.

You are saying MiG-35 is no good because only the Russian military bought some, well no one has bought either Su-57 nor Su-75... the latter has not even flown yet.

Except that international popularity and sales don't mean anything at all, we are not talking about buying MiG-35s so they can sell them over seas, this is about what the Russian AF needs moving forward and what they seem to want is more aircraft... more radars and more missiles over the battlefield offering better coverage, but because of operational costs that is not something they can do with their heavy Sukhois.

A new light 5th gen fighter might be a solution, but a light 4th gen fighter makes sense in terms of operational costs... and if you don't understand why compare the operational costs of an F-16 with one engine and of the 4th fighter generation with the operational costs of the F-35 with one engine and of the 5th fighter generation.

Stealth wont be free and operational costs are unlikely to be lower no matter how many engines it has.

The Gripen was supposed to be a bit expensive to buy but super cheap to operate and high tech super Su-35 killer wasn't it?

The only thing right was a bit expensive to buy.

The Russian AF has been using MiG-35s and they know what they cost to operate. Bullshit claims wont work.

The Mig-29M project dates back to the 80's,

No it doesn't. That is a completely different aircraft. You can tell immediately because it has a single seat cockpit canopy, while all the new MiGs have a two seat cockpit canopy... whether they are single seat or two seat.

My reference only included 4+ gen fighters and not even all of the 4+ gen Sukhois you know. I did that just to make MiG look a bit better - I even included a Syrian order for 24 Mig-29's of unknown type!

And I ask again what relevance that has to whether the Russian Air Force needs a modern capable numbers aircraft.

If it was just a numbers aircraft they could be making MiG-29M2s in large volumes, but they clearly want the improved capacity of the MiG-35s.

Their sales or lack thereof internationally mean nothing at all.

Did Russia delay orders for Su-57s because there was no longer an export customer?

No, GarryB you are making a complete false assumption here:
Sukhoi is not taking bribes of any sort for selling 5 generation planes at a discounted price.

Where did that come from?

A.T.C. they are searching for foreign and national backing to keep on developing a promising plane in which also the VKS could be interested.

They have an aircraft design that the Russian military is clearly not interested in funding so they are looking for foreign investors to fund the development and production of the type they expect will be cheap and easy to make as they are basing most of it on what they have already done with the Su-57 development.

The problem is that they are offering developer rates to customers who invest which might turn customers off if they don't bother investing and wait till it is flying and ready for serial production and find that the customer price off the shelf is rather more than for a developer customer... as you would expect because if you are going to invest in a project you should not pay retail price, and would expect some production work making parts too.

just the normal one they will cost to all countries that have actively taken part in the development of the project.

The difference is not a discount, the difference is profit margin. If you buy something off the shelf then you pay retail price, which is the cost to make the product and a profit margin used to generate income for both the maker and the retailer so their businesses can continue to operate while they sell those products. The profit will also go into developing new products and also to deal with returns and broken products etc etc.

A development customer will likely be able to buy the final product with a 4-5% profit margin like the Russian military buys from the Russian MIC because they fund development, while other customers will likely pay a 30+% profit margin so they can earn back the money they invested and also have money for upgrades and improvements and also to develop replacements later down the track.

In a certain sense the only one that could receive an undue advantage from such an enterprise could possibly be (in the absolutely improbable case it doesn't take any part in it) the russian state itself, that could have full access to a military plane it has not spent any fund to develop.

The plane is a mishmash of a plane they paid Sukhoi to develop and contains secrets about their Su-57 they might not want revealed to the world for a couple of hundred million dollars investment.

The supposed advantage of this new aircraft is commonality with the Su-57, so essentially Sukhoi is offering 5th gen fighter technology to any customer with money to invest. That invested money will likely also include licence production of parts which means setting up factories and sharing production secrets too.

Would say this plane would not perform to spec and would not benefit from parts sharing if it does not use the brand new state of the art Russian jet engine the Su-57 hasn't even got yet... but you say the Russian government will be fine with handing those out to anyone with money.

This project is going to be complex depending on who wants to join... what if Turkey wants to join... and Saudi Arabia... and then Iran says it wants to join... how are meetings going to progress? What if India joins... we know they can talk for decades...

Far be it for me to correct you, my friend, as I honestly didn't even know the Checkmate was slated to use a single engine from the Su-57.

One of its sale features was commonality with the Su-57, though perhaps they will get export permission by making it share parts and components and systems with the export model of the Su-57 as it will already be cleared for export... but that might be because it uses Su-35 systems instead of systems in the Russian Su-57.

I realize there are differences in size, weight, payload etc. in both aircraft, but are they really that drastically different?

The problem is that the internal weapon bays are not Doctor Whos Tardis... you can't just say the main internal weapon bay can have an FAB-3000 glide bomb, and the two forward bay can have two FAB-1500s and that is 6 tons payload... the forward two weapon bays look like they are designed for AAMs so maybe a 250kg AAM at best in each... that is two small weapon bays with 500kgs... so what are they going to put in the main weapon bay that weighs just under 7 tons?

I hate to use the F-35 as the standard for comparisons for obvious reasons, but why not for now?

The extra power of the F-35 engine is part of why the aircraft is so damn expensive. The MTOW of the Su-75 seems to be about 18 tons, but that would be with full fuel and full 7.4 ton weapon load, so even a 16 ton thrust engine most of the time it will be operating at maybe 11 or 12 ton takeoff weight, so the thrust to weight ratio is not a problem... when operating a full weight with full fuel and full weapon load even a thrust ratio of 1:1 is OK... it could not possibly be operating in an air to air role with 7.4 tons of payload so not being able to pull 9g shouldn't be a problem... odds are it is carrying external fuel tanks and full internal fuel and needs to ferry somewhere with armament bays filled with fuel bladders or concrete piercing bombs.

Most of the time it will be AAMs and a couple of multifunction missiles and a cannon.

One of the reasons it's also a fat pig is because it's designed to hold a shitton of fuel which is also another huge. That was actually a good sacrifice to make it a fat pig so it's not as maneuverable since having the internal fuel capacity was considered a much more important advantage than super maneuverability, as the basis of its fighting strengths are from stand-off distances, so it didn't need to be a super-duper dogfighting wonder.

They main reason it is a fat pig is because of two factors... VSTOL design and 5th gen design. VSTOL design means it needs internal space for a huge lift fan, and 5th gen fighter design because it needs to carry its weapons and fuel internally most of the time for most missions until the enemy aircraft are dealt with and then it becomes a bomb truck.

If it had not needed to be a Harrier replacement it would have been a much better aircraft... they could make it slimmer and much lower drag and a better shape for acceleration and supersonic flight... a stealthy F-16 really. But instead they got a curvy bitch... a stealthy Buccaneer... but not as nice looking as the Bucc... and not as good value for money. Buccs operate on carriers and are excellent light strike planes... they are not fighters.

I know Gary is probably having an aneurism reading this lol. But even he, being the worlds biggest F-35 detractor would have to admit this.

I love the F-35... it is destroying the defence budgets of all who operate it... and the performance does not justify the cost. Israeli f-35s don't even wander over Syrian airspace as they please... they hide in neighbouring countries to deliver stand off weapon attacks... the way their F-16s used to for a fraction of the price...

If the idea for the low price was originally to get other countries to invest and become part of the Su-75 program, that's also similar to what LM did with the F-35 which is great.

The real difference is that the F-35 is a con to steal money from the US taxpayer and every country that buys the damn thing. A money sink. The Su-75 is an example of what a modern Russian company is able to do with their own technology and actually managing costs.

When the Su-75 enters serial production there will be problems, but Sukhoi will work hard with the customer to sort out the problems and get the performance the customer expects. With the F-35 they just edited the specs and say they will fix it next upgrade, or change the goal posts and say that feature wasn't really needed in the first place and you can either give us an extra billion dollars and we will try to fix it, or we can sweep it under the carpet and you change your tactics and don't expect to be able to do that in future.

They were saying that the logistics system was going to be so amazing that it will make logistics state of the art cheap and simple with no down time waiting for parts and support. They spent billion on it and eventually admitted it didn't work and was never going to work and so they cancelled it.

The cheap light 5th gen fighter to protect the western world is not cheap and is not light and despite over 800 being made it is still not working properly and over time has gotten more expensive to buy and operate... which is the exact opposite to what should have happened.

The US solution to corruption is to throw more money at the thieves than they can steal... and it is not working... or it is working just fine depending on whether you are a tax payer or a consultant from Boeing.

This is exactly my point. Once the aircraft is ready for service, new customers will have to pay the full price, not the price mentioned in 2021 for cost and risk sharing partners (25 to 30 USD millions each, which would be much closer to the price for the russian air force as well).

And the irony is that even if it was 60 million per aircraft, if its performance is what they are suggesting... a 5th gen fighter, and the operational costs are what they suggest... ~10K per flight hour... it is a bargain for any air force able to buy some.

If they could get a local production licence India should go big and make 800 of these planes.... which would justify the local production... I don't think assembling 300-400 Su-30MKIs was a great idea... when you go for local production you should do it for things you need in enormous numbers... MANPADS, ATGMs, Small Arms and of course ammo for small arms and artillery etc etc. The consumables that you are going to produce in enormous numbers.

GarryB wrote:  
   

Mir wrote: The Mig-29M project dates back to the 80's,

No it doesn't. That is a completely different aircraft. You can tell immediately because it has a single seat cockpit canopy, while all the new MiGs have a two seat cockpit canopy... whether they are single seat or two seat.

I'm not going to continue discussing the Mig-35 here - it is pointless to regurgitate what has already been said in the Mig-35 and other MiG threats countless of times.

BTW - the Su-35S followed much the same development path as the Mig-35. They were both developed from dead projects dating back from the 80's. Nothing to be ashamed of. Many project followed that same route. The only difference is, is that the Su-35 entered serial production in significant numbers.

As for the Su-75 - let's see what comes about in the next year or two. By then we should know what the future holds - and that includes the Mig-35.

BTW - the Su-35S followed much the same development path as the Mig-35. They were both developed from dead projects dating back from the 80's. Nothing to be ashamed of. Many project followed that same route. The only difference is, is that the Su-35 entered serial production in significant numbers.

Which would suggest nothing is changed, when clearly both aircraft are radically different... the MiG-35 is simply not the same aircraft as the MiG-29M of the late 1980s... any more than the F-16A is the same as the latest model F-16 whatever that might be.

Shame has nothing to do with it... it is like the granddads hammer folk tale. This is my great great great granddads hammer... it has been in the family for 200 years.... it has had 5 new handles and 4 new heads... it has bluetooth and wifi and a wireless charging port...

When there is no money in the budget and no actual war on then you can get away with a few very large aircraft that give the appearance of an air force, but the operational costs of big aircraft... well no one can afford... the US had F-15s and F-14s, but they also had F-16s and F-18s because the big aircraft are too expensive to buy and operate in enormous numbers so smaller aircraft are needed.

The Soviets took the same path with Su-27s and MiG-29s, but when they had to budget they decided to retire one aircraft and pretend the other aircraft could get the job done.

If that was the case of course then WTF do they even need the Su-75?

Why not just make lots of Su-57s and use them everywhere?

Obviously lighter cheaper fighters make sense, and right now the only two games in town would be the MiG-29M and MiG-35 and they seem to prefer the improved capability of the MiG-35.

As for the Su-75 - let's see what comes about in the next year or two. By then we should know what the future holds - and that includes the Mig-35.

The Su-75 has potential, but is not an option right now... should they just put having what they need on hold till it is ready?

If that were the case then I guess the international nature of the Su-75 programme would be redundant and the Russian AF would fund it fully.

GarryB wrote:Which would suggest nothing is changed, when clearly both aircraft are radically different... the MiG-35 is simply not the same aircraft as the MiG-29M of the late 1980s.

Never said they were the same. Just as the Su27M is not the same as the Su-35S. I've always said they were developed from those aircraft.

Never said they were the same. Just as the Su27M is not the same as the Su-35S. I've always said they were developed from those aircraft.

You said the MiG-35 is just another MiG-29 and is therefore outdated, to which I replied the Su-27 and F-15 are of the same vintage or older and the Su-35 and F-15 are in serial production right now so outdated sounds like the new fashion... I believe the kiddies call it Old School... which means not very fashionable but it works, unlike the modern crap that is so expensive.


It seems you think the US will make some outdated F-15s for a bit and then jump to 7th or 8th gen super fighter, so Russia does not have time to put a numbers fighter into production to boost numbers and general performance of the Russian AF... they need to have nothing for the next 10 years waiting for a plane to be developed and built by committee. Good luck with that.

They are not really in a good position to pick and choose so they could get all sorts of partners whose agenda might be to delay and upset for all we know.

It might end up like the super fighter deal with India where there can be no agreement and different groups start making their own thing, or they wait to buy off the shelf... should such customers get the development bonus of low profit margin prices?

You have seen various contracts around the world for different customers for different aircraft... there is never just one price for any aircraft because some countries need just planes and others need an entire infrastructure built for them and the amount of ordinance can wildly effect the prices as well because it can be very expensive.

GarryB wrote:
You said the MiG-35 is just another MiG-29 and is therefore outdated

ONCE AGAIN - I have never said that. I repeat - The Mig-35 was developed from the Mig-29M. The design is dated but not yet obsolete.

"Dated" in the sense it is a 4th generation fighter and not a 5th or 6th generation fighter. "Not yet obsolete" - in the sense that it is still useful as a fighter.

There is a subtle difference there but I do hope that you can now comprehend what I've said?

lancelot wrote:The Rafale did not sell for several years. Then it was used to bomb Libya and it started selling like hotcakes.
Just because an aircraft is not selling presently does not mean this will continue being the case.

Not the same thing. France started exporting Rafale in numbers after Libya. French army was buying the plane normally, much before that. They had around 140-150 Rafales operational when Libyan intervention started. On the other hand, VKS, so far, didn't show any interest in MiG-35 beyond original 6 planes.

Mir wrote:
I'm not going to continue discussing the Mig-35 here - it is pointless to regurgitate what has already been said in the Mig-35 and other MiG threats countless of times.

BTW - the Su-35S followed much the same development path as the Mig-35. They were both developed from dead projects dating back from the 80's. Nothing to be ashamed of. Many project followed that same route. The only difference is, is that the Su-35 entered serial production in significant numbers.

As for the Su-75 - let's see what comes about in the next year or two. By then we should know what the future holds - and that includes the Mig-35.

There is a very important difference that is timing. Su-35S has been operational for already a decade or so, when Su-57 was in early development and Su-75 was nowhere in sight. While MiG-35 came along too little too late.
Also, VKS stubbornly refuses to use any MiG-29 iteration in and around Ukraine, so far. Maybe they were mentioned in one or two instances and used over Black Sea for destruction of  Ukrainian surface antiship drones.