Sukhoi LTS "Checkmate" #2

Isos wrote:

Soviets were arming those countries to the teeth for a fraction of the price they would have got from the US.

They just failed miserably gain and again against smarter israeli.

You know, it's not surprising when someone compliments another man for having the guts to criticize Russian equipment AND tactics like I acknowledged you doing when you crapped all over the Su-34's failures as well as countless awful Russian SMO tactics in the midst of about the most super pro-Russian crowd on this board and actually called you a "brave man" for being a hyena challenging a pack of lions & lionesses in the Serengeti.  Oh yeah, not to mention the beating you gave Russian MoD for not building $5000 mud shelters to protect their aircraft instead of the rather "unique" tires tarping and decoy paintings on the tarmac and instead of understanding the main point in THIS PARTICULAR discussion regarding the restrictions on Russian exports and how it would particularly affect the Su-75 Checkmate, you jump off into some obscure historical reference of ungratefulness of Russian generosity some 55 years ago?  Talk about lol. You know that's about the silliest grudgy curmudgeons observation I could destroy in an instant, but I won't because it's too far off topic since you clearly missed the point.

If I was actually childish and responded in a childish manner (which I admit I am to a certain degree despite being 58 years old), I would tell you what about the arrogance of the Soviets who couldn't take any constructive criticism from Egyptian MiG-21 pilots who not only scored the FIRST documented MiG-21 A2A kill, but actually had great success against the Israelis from the War of Attrition on into 1973 to the point where they informed the Soviets of the terrible shortcomings of the MiG-21 and how it's center of gravity would shift to a point that would make it seem like a completely different aircraft VERY difficult to fly once 1/3 of the fuel was dispensed. not to mention the loss of 50%+ of depleted energy coming out of highspeed dogfight turns and what did the Soviets say?  "Oh Sukka Blyat you Arabs don't know how to fly these airplanes against a bunch of ex-Nazis whom we beat to shit 30 years prior with radial-powered engines.  So what did the Egyptian do?  They told them go ahead, show us how it's done and the Soviets in all their might and glory jumped into 5 of their best supposed MiG-21s (and they were flying the MF models at the time) and guess what, Isos my brave brother, the result was 0-5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You want me to add a laughing emoji to disparage Soviets/Russians and uplift murderous zionist land-stealing jackboot thug pigs to play along with you in your same tone and style?  I don't think it's necessary.

Point is, at the end of the day, AGAIN, my question/point/comment only gets understood by a few who actually understood it and commented back with common sense instead of going off on one of their misunderstood, butt-hurt tirade like you just did. And here I thought you were A LOT smarter than that, but comprehension can be challenging many times, I understand especially when English seems to be a second language.  

Isos wrote:At the end they became US vassals buying useless f-16 or abrams that can't be used against Israeli and their supply lines come directly from the US so they hold them by the balls.

I know, shameless gutless Egyptian slaves we are.  Yep, you're right.  Except that wasn't the point but we now why you ended up going there.  Comprehension problems but you're forgiven.  I still consider you a brave critique instead of towing the old familiar "Russia always right line."

Let's try again and let's see if we can grasp the point being made without getting all butt-hurt panties in a bunch, shall we?

Isos wrote:Just like the Joranian, Qatari, Saudi...

Now Israel bomb out of anyone there with impunity.

But yeah it's russian fault.

Again, who the frick said it was Russia's fault whatever that preconceived notion you're claiming from?  

The only fault that can be attributed to Russia is that it incurred the sanctions on itself but those are debatable as to whether they are in fact Russia's fault or not.  But let's assume none of the sanctions that are brought on are Russia's fault which of course they shouldn't be IMO.  Russia has the right to defend itself in every possible way it can even more so than the filthy murdering zionist who are killing innocent women & children at an unprecedented rate Russian couldn't even do 1/1-millionth as much if it tried to despite having every existential threat at its doorways and yet it gets accused of worse atrocities than the filthy pig zionist entity you just applauded in your misguided comment.  

That said, I hope you can understand the actual overall point and question of my entire diatribe and that is despite the west blaming Russia for illegal invasions and imposing sanctions on it up the wazoo that affect all other countries that have cordial relations with BOTH, the west and Russia, how is it going to be able to export these new platforms such as the Su-57 Checkmate neverminded the Su-57 and we all know the story of the Su-35.  Can you answer that without going off on a silly & irrelevant tangent?

Anyone, even since I genuinely AND UN-ILLWILLINGLY would like to know how is this asbsolute beauty of an Su-75 in its 3 new variants including the ever so interesting unmanned loyal wingman going to be an export success with the US' threat of sanctions out there looming like a dark, overcloud that has already produced a deadly (literally) storm. It killed 2 huge Su-35S export contracts and others as well? Iran? No money only oil neither Russia nor China need. China? Gary brought up a good point besides, they don't need any 5th gen as they have their own. North Korea? No money either I think that's a fact. Tajikistan? Kazakhstan? Armenia? I bet you the UAE and or Saudiya might be the only two who might just have enough clout to give the US the middle finger but do any of you folks truly believe that? Especially Saudiya with it's 1000X more reliance of US weaponry AND security pact than Egypt which doesn't even come close to 0.0625% to that of Saudiya? Care to answer that, Isos?

Isos wrote:

Soviets were arming those countries to the teeth for a fraction of the price they would have got from the US.
They just failed miserably gain and again against smarter israeli.

From the Su-75 to Arab wars!

Anyway Egypt and the Arabs did not fail against a smarter Israel. All these wars were based on attrition and at times Israel was on the brink of capitulation. It was the US that saved them - they were able to supply weapons quicker than the Soviets. I also think that the Soviets had no intention to see Israel being wiped off the map.

Arabs lost all their wars against israel. Even if they were 20 agaibst israel they lost. I don't like them but Israeli proved to know 1 thing or 2 about military tactics and strategy. At least in the past, not so much today.

Russians should focus on their own market ibstead of running after those arab state. Just need to tell them to **** off and taste US democracy. They will quickly come back because US exists only thanks to wars and the only one left that could be good war distractions are those arab petro monarchies, Iran being too powerfull for them. Very fast they will become parias and will be left with useless western hardware against western powers.

They are very well aware of this but still think russians are desparate to sell the anything they want and protect them like they protected Syria. If they feel it's not the case anymore they will quickly come back and knock at the russian door.

Same for indians.

This is going to be a big leap towards 6th gen fighter aircraft, where you can have only ONE mainframe but with three different detachable forward sections - depending on the specific mission at hand. Plug and Play with have to be quick though!

Not really... all three are different. If they did what MiG did with their MiG-29M, MiG-29M2, MiG29K, MiG-29K2, MiG-35 single and two seater models... they all have the same airframe with the same cockpit canopies for two crew, but can be set up with one or two crew depending on what you want.

The carrier based model has a larger area folding wing and tail hook but all have the same airframe that is shared across the types.

To me, it seems the US is much keener on a financial punitive campaign on the large & lethal export platforms than a technological one because the latter is much more detrimental than the former.

Most of the countries weak enough to be effected by this economic bullying would not be buying more than a dozen or two aircraft... no matter how many they buy the US could amass enough forces to negate any advantage they might be able to achieve.

They don't fight fair.

It gains more from Russia suffering financial weapons export revenues (which is the basic concept of sanctions in general) than any technical intelligence information that can still be acquired by other deceiving methods.

Right now the US MIC would literally give an arm and a leg to get their hands on a Zircon missile, I think you are underestimating the value of such intel.

yeah I know you think countries that have and will succumb to the threat of CAAATSA are nothing but pure pussy ass vassal bitch ass states bending over stankhole wide open with no pride

Being an independent country that works in the interests of your own people over threats and bullying from any other country or group of countries is not easy, and you really do have to pick your fights carefully... but at the end of the day sometimes you have to take the hard choices that might have negative effects for a short period to create a future that is healthy and good for you. Abusive or toxic relationships that have no future should be ended... no matter how good the makeup sex is or how pretty he or she is... crazy is crazy...

Of Egypt is not ready to wear big boy pants and buy what it wants from whom it wants then that is OK, that is just a choice they make for themselves.

I am not going to judge.

Look at Germany and Japan and most of the EU and the UK are all bitches to the US of A.

That's NOT a decision a well-in-tuned leader/president takes lightly just for the sake of bravado and to appease a bunch of keyboard warriors.

It is nothing to do with impressing me, it is about respect and the US clearly does not respect Egypt and clearly Egypt does not respect itself...

2) the US simply has a huge monopoly & hegemony over world economic exports that it could sanctions hundreds of countries in the flick of a finger not to trade with culprit country exacerbating said country's already critical and vital economic condition. These are the difficult decisions GOOD leaders such as president Sisi MUST make for the betterment of the country because think of the alternative of having all those gorgeous 30 Beautiful Su-35SEs for the EAF and the unbearable cost of the above mentioned when your country is basically neutered in full and hence completely irrelevant. But hey, it has 30 shiny brand spanking new Su-35Ss whoohooo

You have it upside down. You are denying your own independence to remain in an abusive relationship with the US. To be fair you have joined BRICS, which is essentially a self help group to work together for a better future without the west and its toxic behaviour, but it is an ongoing thing that is going to take time.

Russia didn't break from the west in one day... it was spread over a couple of decades... starting mostly in 2008 and accelerating in 2014 and now they are growing and developing and they did it with the help of the rest of the world who don't want to play the stupid games the west plays.

Well now Russia is in good shape and she is trying to help other countries get out of the toxic relationship with the west and Egypt has taken the first steps by joining BRICS.

Now there is an alternative for countries to grow and develop which does not require them to sell all their valuable assets and resources to western companies for peanuts there is a good chance the world will actually accelerate and grow and develop faster and better.

Lots of fear of AI but only a computer could process all of human knowledge and allow rapid further advances to be made in lots of areas like medicine etc.

Even just town planning so more people can live comfortably and safely and affordably.

Joint production and technology transfer agreements are also being considered.

If Egypt wont buy Su-35s to avoid upsetting the US then there is no chance they will join the Su-75 programme so the Chinese light stealth fighter is the only other horse in the race.

I don't think Russia will blame Egypt for this... they clearly weren't prepared to properly fund the full development of the AESA equipped MiG-35 AFAIK and put it into service in numbers so they can't really blame Egypt for anything really.

The country at fault is the US.

If Egypt requires thousands of tanks they could have easily gotten a license to make the T-90 tank just like India did.

Continuing to rely on US weapons only means that Egypt must continue to bend the knee to both the US and Israel. In case of conflict with Israel, Egypt would be in serious trouble. Would you rather those tanks failed before a conflict with Israel or right in the middle of one?

The advice to any alcoholic is simple. Stop drinking alcohol. Simple but obviously not easy for the alcoholic.

Even if Egypt wants to radically change situation (which I don't know if they even want), it will take some years to turn the ship.

It is not going to change over night, but it is never going to change if you don't turn the wheel and change direction. Entry into BRICS is a good thing, but openly opposing US attempts to tell you what you can or cannot buy for your countries defence is another and I think it is perfectly reasonable.

The US has weaknesses too and it would not take long to work out a response if the US decides to punish Egypt in a way that damages something the US cares about and does not hurt Egyptian interests...

The US has not imposed major sanctions on India for its relationship with Russia because the US wants to create conflict between India and China to damage China so it needs to keep India on side so it ignores S-400 purchases and Su-30MKI purchases and upgrades etc etc.

what is Russia doing to mitigate them to a certain extent?

Well Russia and a group of other countries have created this group called BRICS and Egypt has managed to join... which is not something that could have happened if Russia opposed that.

The US dominates international trade and economics and various international organisations and has a very powerful military... even the Europeans with their high opinion of themselves grovel on the floor when the US is present... Egypt joining BRICS is part of the solution but it is going to take time for Egypt to pivot away from dependence on the US and BRICS is working on creating new mechanisms and new markets so its member countries can trade without US or western interference.

Which then begs the ultimate question; how is Russia going to circumvent CAATSA

They don't have to, they are already selling Su-35s and the Su-75s will also likely sell rather well simply because even poorer countries will be able to afford them in useful numbers.

BRICS will eventually create alternatives to US dominated systems and groups and orgs so they will have less strings to pull... but certainly the current turn away from American weapons is a good start, but so many alternative weapons like those made in South Korea have US parts and US law seems to suggest anything with a whiff of anything American in it gives them the veto option for sales forever...

Which makes Chinese and Russian weapons even more attractive in my biased opinion.

They just failed miserably gain and again against smarter israeli.

Israel has the full backing of a superpower. One fart and the US will deliver 1,000 tons of pullup pants for the elderly overnight.

Simply divide and conquer with the Israelis pulling some very underhanded shit including shooting US intel vessels that were listening in to their dirty tricks.

Now Israel bomb out of anyone there with impunity.

There are limits to what they can do in Syria, but otherwise I would say you are correct.

Israel acts in the ME region like the US acts around the world.

The only fault that can be attributed to Russia is that it incurred the sanctions on itself but those are debatable as to whether they are in fact Russia's fault or not.

So no fault at all. The US decided on this sanction and they are the ones that impose it on some countries and not on others depending on how they feel at the time.

This is all the US.

It is pretty simple. Russia will beat the crap out of whatever the West sends into Ukraine. And then once the conflict is over the Russian MIC will have huge spare capacity to flood the world with weapons. Just like it did after WW2. By that time it is also extremely likely that different payment mechanisms will have appeared which will blunt the threat of US dollar payment sanctions due to CAATSA.

Over time BRICS will create alternatives to what the west offers so the ability of the US to cut you off will diminish... in fact look at Turkey... they bought S-400 and it cost them a part in the F-35 programme which would have had them making parts for all F-35s produced. They made a choice and it cost them. But it also cost the US because now that Turkish companies were no longer making parts for F-35s they had to find other companies to make those parts and get production up and running ASAP.

What leverage does Egypt have... why not buy Su-35s and anything else you want and if the US threatens sanctions then look at those sanctions and devise sanctions of your own. You control a major transit hub from the med to the indian ocean. Block US military ships going through the canal until the sanctions are dropped. Stop buying and using US weapons completely until the sanctions are stopped. In the short term there will be pain but if they don't respect you that is how you will be treated... like a door mat.

Note their sanctions against Russia failed because it pushed Russia to do things for itself and to find alternative customers and markets that don't try to bully them.

When you find those customers and those markets you will realise what an abusive relationship you have been in and wonder why you never split up with those bastards before.

GarryB wrote:

Mir wrote:This is going to be a big leap towards 6th gen fighter aircraft, where you can have only ONE mainframe but with three different detachable forward sections - depending on the specific mission at hand. Plug and Play with have to be quick though!

Not really... all three are different. If they did what MiG did with their MiG-29M, MiG-29M2, MiG29K, MiG-29K2, MiG-35 single and two seater models... they all have the same airframe with the same cockpit canopies for two crew, but can be set up with one or two crew depending on what you want.

All three are different designs BUT I think you missed the patent from December 2023 with the detachable sections of a modular design, which not only facilitates ease of production (as with the Mig-29M/35), it also dramatically increase the versatility of a single operational aircraft. It is quite a revolutionary step and it is the first time anyone has taken this approach in aircraft design.

The idea is for example if you have a dangerous SEAD mission you can attach a unmanned front section to the mainframe etc. etc.

The technical result is an increase in the versatility of the aircraft. The modular single-engine aircraft contains the fuselage, wings, tail, power plant and air intake. In this case, the fuselage consists of a base part and interchangeable fuselage heads. Moreover, on the front side of the base part of the fuselage there is a transition zone in which mounting points are installed, as well as connectors and fittings of electrical, hydro and other systems designed to interact with the mating connectors and fittings of interchangeable fuselage heads. In this case, the removable fuselage head is a single-seat cockpit of a manned aircraft, or a two-seat cockpit of a manned aircraft, or the head of an unmanned aerial vehicle. 3 ff.

The technical result, which the claimed invention is aimed at achieving, is to increase the versatility of the aircraft without affecting its base platform.

That's good on paper but in reality they need 3 canopy for every su-75. Making it expensive which is not the goal.

If they come with only one canopy, they will interchange both and have the same cobfiguration as before. 1 drone 1single seat, 1 drone 1 sibgle seat. Obly for specific purpose it is good like buying 16 dual seat canopy with a fleet of let's say 64 single seat, you can switch them for training purpose.

I don't it's that good.

All three are different designs BUT I think you missed the patent from December 2023 with the detachable sections of a modular design, which not only facilitates ease of production (as with the Mig-29M/35), it also dramatically increase the versatility of a single operational aircraft. It is quite a revolutionary step and it is the first time anyone has taken this approach in aircraft design.

Not really different from the MiG approach where all three types and a fourth type for an unmanned version use the same airframe and shape... the difference is the number of crew positions which could be one or two or none... in the latter case the two seat cockpit canopy used for the two and one seat versions could be removed and replaced with aircraft skin fairing.

You only make one airframe type and they can decide on the front line what they want. The number of seats can be changed from one or two or none with the space left by the removed seats and cockpits fitted with fuel tanks to further extend range in the single seat and no seat model.

Having a modular front piece means having x number of one seat modules and y number of two seat modules and z number of unmanned modules... do you buy x + y + z number of airframes? Probably not.

With the MiG-29M model all your aircraft can be one or two seat aircraft as required and when the aircraft is running out of flight hours you can take both seats out and use it as an unmanned platform.

You could even replace the two seats and two cockpits and that expensive and heavy AESA radar with a nice big bomb in case while flying that unmanned platform you spot a juicy target.

But Modern fighters are just too expensive to be drones IMHO and I don't think the idea makes sense.

MiG have not displayed a MiG-29/35 based drone by the way, I am just suggesting if they wanted that they could do it...

But they do have a single engined 5th gen wingman drone that is much cheaper than a model base on an existing aircraft type.

BTW 30 million for a Su-75 would likely make a very cheap wingman drone even at maybe 20 million with the AESA radar removed and lots of systems removed too, but only cheap compared with western unmanned drones.

Russian unmanned drones will more likely be previous generation aircraft modified for remote control.

The idea is for example if you have a dangerous SEAD mission you can attach a unmanned front section to the mainframe etc. etc.

I would think sending in a Kh-101 or Calibre missile would be cheaper with platforms like the Su-57 monitoring enemy communications and launching attacks on any AD that tries to stop them...

Long range ARMs would make more sense... a scramjet powered Kh-31 flying at mach 9 with a flight range of 800km would be interesting in that regard... with that sort of range your manned Su-75s could carry them externally and sit well back and take out targets relatively quickly.

That's good on paper but in reality they need 3 canopy for every su-75. Making it expensive which is not the goal.

Managing it would be tricky, but I suspect many customers will just want the single seat model and others will want the two seat... I don't think any export customers of Russia will be rich enough to want an unmanned fighter till AI performance has improved... it would just be too expensive to be considered expendable.

Two seat models are useful in SEAD intensive environments where a full time job is flying, but you also want someone that can help monitor things threatening your aircraft and also attack them and any missiles heading towards your aircraft too... a full time job... obviously if you can get AI to handle that then you can have one crew but if not then a second crewman makes sense for some operations other than operational training.

GarryB wrote:Two seat models are useful in SEAD intensive environments where a full time job is flying.

That job will be delegated to the S-70. SEAD in the near future will be enforced exclusively by UCAVs. The Su 35, Su 57, Su 75 will come into play only after the S-70 has fulfilled its objectives.

GarryB wrote:Not really different from the MiG approach where all three types...

It's not really a "MiG approach" - I just used MiG merely as an example. The whole Sukhoi family was developed this way years before the MiG. The Su-27UB is a good example where the aircraft was fully combat capable but could also be used as a OCU trainer - or vise versa. The Mig-29UB was developed solely as a OCU trainer with very little combat capabilities. It was only decades later that MiG caught on.

The Su-75 takes this much much further. Many customers would probably not go for this unique feature, but in a heavily contested conflict it may well be very useful when a squadron of Su75's could be configured differently to suit a particular mission. This could save a lot of pilot's lives.

A more elaborate example could be something like this: You can divide your squadron in four flights of three - each of the flights with a different mission to take down the same objective.

You assign three unmanned Su-75's in the SEAD role to take out radars and SAM sites. This is followed by three unmanned Su-75's doing real time recce to asses the damage.

Three single seat Su-75's takes out the left-overs and other detected threats - whilst three two seaters provide top cover against possible enemy fighters.

With the radar and missile threat gone - the three unmanned recce versions can team up with the two seaters for a final missile strike on the Zelenski Hotel.

All this can be done by ONE squadron Su-75's. Pretty neat!

That job will be delegated to the S-70. SEAD in the near future will be enforced exclusively by UCAVs.

They haven't got any S-70s in operational service right now and not every country that is going to buy the Su-75 is going to buy S-70s either...

plus that would mean you would have to ensure you have enough S-70s to provide air protection for all your aircraft and even with S-70s are flying wild weasel for your fighters and strike aircraft those fighters and strike aircraft still need to be aware because they may still need to dodge or evade missiles that the S-70 has failed to jam or shoot down or destroy ground based support systems for.

In the future all aircraft could be unmanned... but they will be putting seats in planes for some time to come.

The Su 35, Su 57, Su 75 will come into play only after the S-70 has fulfilled its objectives.

That might be the plan, but if the S-70 can perform the SEAD role then why not have it perform all the other roles too and you can save money by not bothering to buy any of the fighter types?

It's not really a "MiG approach" - I just used MiG merely as an example.

I wasn't suggesting MiG invented and somehow owned the concept, merely labelling it as the concept they applied.

If anything they learned from the MiG-29 MiG-29UB situation where the two seater didn't have full capabilities with only a tiny ranging radar, while the Su-27UB had two seats and a full sized radar and eventually became the Su-30 family of two seat Su-27s and Su-35s.

They just took it one step further by making the cockpit canopy and cockpit so that you can have one or two crew so the airframe itself is the same.

The Su-75 takes this much much further.

No it doesn't... it is essentially the same as the Su-27 and Su-27UB and the Su-35 and Su-30... they are different aircraft and you can't swap between them easily once they are made.

All this can be done by ONE squadron Su-75's. Pretty neat!

Not really... the same mission could be completed by a flight of 8 Su-57s and half a dozen S-70s... the likely number of radars needing to be taken out will dictate how long that takes but as more than half will be turned off and therefore invisible I don't think any country should expect to perform a single SEAD mission and expect to get the job done.

Enemy major SAM sites would be better taken out with hypersonic missiles like Iskander and Kinzhal and Zircon... with drones distracting and activating the air defences.

With 5th gen aircraft I would expect the strike armed aircraft could use their sensors to determine if the attack was successful or not without needing another set of aircraft to fly into harms way... the planes flying top cover could also monitor the attacks too.

Against most targets they might not even need 12 Su-75s... having S-70s to carry extra weapons so the Su-75s can remain stealthy, and also ground and air launched hypersonic missiles able to be launched from quite a distance away but still hit targets rather quickly the planes are becoming more real time onsite sensors than actual weapon trucks.

The advantage of drones is they are expendable, but with high tech sensors and weapons on board they are not really actually expendable, so using standoff weapons still makes a lot of sense and as the enemy tries to defend itself it will expose its air defence systems and communications which can be attacked by light fighters and the heavy fighters and drones operating with them in real time as the light up.

GarryB wrote:

Mir wrote:
The Su-75 takes this much much further.

No it doesn't... it is essentially the same as the Su-27 and Su-27UB and the Su-35 and Su-30... they are different aircraft and you can't swap between them easily once they are made.

So the modular concept for operational Su-75's doesn't appeal to you - fair enough. I think it's quite revolutionary.

As far as I'm concerned Sukhoi has really shown itself to be leading the way in fighter design. The latest design changes on the Su-75 seems to continue that trend from the Su-57.

The control surfaces on the Su-75 is quite unique - or maybe even revolutionary! It would be interesting to see what effect the extreme angle the inner flaps would have on aerodynamics (esp maneuverability). The beaver tail is yet another quite unique innovation.

GarryB wrote:but if the S-70 can perform the SEAD role then why not have it perform all the other roles too and you can save money by not bothering to buy any of the fighter types?

In the fullness of time it will happen.

UCAVs, exemplified by the S-70, are poised to replace manned aircraft in SEAD and most other missions.

So the modular concept for operational Su-75's doesn't appeal to you - fair enough. I think it's quite revolutionary.

It is an interesting idea but I don't think it is as practical.

Having 500 aircraft.... how many noses are you going to have? 500 of each?

That is 1,500 noses with 1,500 AESA radars and IRST sensors and 1,500 ejection seats. It will have 1,500 cockpit displays too with none in the 500 unmanned aircraft, but one in the 500 single seat aircraft and two in the 500 twin seat aircraft.

With the MiG design you make 500 planes and you can install two seats and two cockpit displays in all 500 if you want, or or one seat and one cockpit display in all 500, but there is only one AESA radar and one IRST in each of the 500 planes so it is still simple to change between one and two seats but all you need is the cockpit displays and ejection seats... and an extra fuel tank you can strap in and hose up if you are only fitting one seat.

The MiG idea is simpler and probably cheaper... but both make the aircraft more flexible.

I don't see the unmanned option being used too much because the S-70 drone is cheaper and simpler and a MIG-35 and a Su-75 is always going to be too expensive to be considered expendable.

The beaver tail is yet another quite unique innovation.

It is a good substitution for a horizontal tail surface, as the levicon is also a good substitution for a canard foreplane... the forced airflow through there would be like a wind tunnel with the engine exhaust massively increasing the airflow and increasing the effect of the control surfaces there... the differential use would allow roll control effects with a single engine with thrust vectoring. Even a 3D engine nozzle would only give pitch and yaw effect, you would need this beaver tail or two engines used differentially to achieve roll control...

UCAVs, exemplified by the S-70, are poised to replace manned aircraft in SEAD and most other missions.

Not there yet.

GarryB wrote:
It is an interesting idea but I don't think it is as practical.

I have no idea but I would imagine it would take a good couple of hours to convert a two seat MiG to a single seat with an extra fuel tank at the back - and visa versa. You are welcome to provide verifiable facts to the contrary, but doing it in real combat situations would probably prove problematic as it would likely need quite some time to reconfigure the MiG.

The Su-75 is a plug and play setup where everything is designed to just "plug in" to all the connectors and wet lines. It is unlikely that we will see F1 GP speeds here but it should be all done in pretty good time.  

GarryB wrote:Having 500 aircraft.... how many noses are you going to have? 500 of each?

That is 1,500 noses with 1,500 AESA radars and IRST sensors and 1,500 ejection seats. It will have 1,500 cockpit displays too with none in the 500 unmanned aircraft, but one in the 500 single seat aircraft and two in the 500 twin seat aircraft.

By your own sample it would rather be 1000 seats and IRTS's and cockpit displays. Radars would depend on the unmanned configurations - probably not all of them would need expensive AESA radars, whilst others may even operate with far more expensive radars as an AWACS? These may even come with a plug and play nosecone section for the different missions? Who knows - but it will most certainly be flexible in mission design! Unlike anything we've seen before.  

GarryB wrote:The MiG idea is simpler and probably cheaper... but both make the aircraft more flexible.

I would think the MiG would be more complex compared to the Su-75's plug and play method that I mentioned previously. Speed and ease of use would be paramount in the Su-75's design.

GarryB wrote:I don't see the unmanned option being used too much because the S-70 drone is cheaper and simpler and a MIG-35 and a Su-75 is always going to be too expensive to be considered expendable.

Dead pilots are even more expensive!

GarryB wrote:It is a good substitution for a horizontal tail surface, the forced airflow through there would be like a wind tunnel with the engine exhaust massively increasing the airflow and increasing the effect of the control surfaces there...

I can't see how the engine exhaust gasses will have a "massive" effect on the beaver tail? The beaver tails are set on either side quite far from the engine's jet blast.

GarryB wrote:as the levicon is also a good substitution for a canard foreplane...

It is a Leading-Edge Vortex Controller (LEVCON) and is far more than a "good substitute" for a canard. Compared to a LERX the LEVCON changes and - to a far greater extend than a canard - controls the overall airflow around the aircraft, producing more energized vortices, which in turn strengthen each other and are induced onto the main wing. This in turn improves the flow across the wing, significantly enhancing lift and stall characteristics. When combined with the TVC, the aircraft's controllability at extreme angles of attack is increased even further!  

Some more Sukhoi magic right there!

I have no idea but I would imagine it would take a good couple of hours to convert a two seat MiG to a single seat with an extra fuel tank at the back - and visa versa

Without doubt... I really don't think it is a case of fuelling up the aircraft and while they are putting the weapons under the wings you decide whether you want one crew or two. You probably can't do it on smaller airfields and forward airstrips I suspect, but equally I don't think they would have to go back to the factory to be remade either.

They will have a certain number of single seaters and a certain number of twin seaters and they wont often change them unless they find one is more useful then they can send a couple away to be converted and get them back the next day or something.

I would guess remove the canopy and the on the single seater lift out the extra fuel tank and drop in the cockpit and seat and put the canopy back on and you are done. For a two seater it would be lift out the cockpit displays in the rear and the ejection seat and install a fuel tank and connect its pipes and strap it in tight and put a cover over it and put the canopy back on. Might take a couple of hours... it will be designed to be removable so a few bunches of connectors... perhaps all bundled together in a big plug to attach the cockpit or remove it and a few bolts to hold it in place. It isn't rocket science.

You are welcome to provide verifiable facts to the contrary, but doing it in real combat situations would probably prove problematic as it would likely need quite some time to reconfigure the MiG.

If you think the modular nature of these Sukhois means it is like thunderbirds where you push a button on a screen to choose the payload for thunderbird 2 and it is mounted on as it moves to the runway so you just jump in and take off then I think you are mistaken too.

The mission planning wont leave deciding on how many crew they want till the last minute... their squadrons will have a mix of types and they will be allocated jobs as suited... there wont be deciding before takeoff.

These are 5th gen fighters anyway... most of the time single seats will get the job done... it would have to be a very target or threat rich environment to require two crew very often.

The Su-75 is a plug and play setup where everything is designed to just "plug in" to all the connectors and wet lines. It is unlikely that we will see F1 GP speeds here but it should be all done in pretty good time.

So you do expect it to be thunderbird 2?

By your own sample it would rather be 1000 seats and IRTS's and cockpit displays.

Wow the great one made a mistake...

500 single seaters have 500 seats, 500 unmanned have no seats, but 500 two seaters have 1,000 seats, which makes 1,500 seats and cockpit displays.

I am assuming the whole point of using the aircraft for the role of unmanned platforms is that they will still carry their sensors to be useful... otherwise they are blind.

I would think the MiG would be more complex compared to the Su-75's plug and play method that I mentioned previously.

Why? A drop in three piece cockpit display with three main bulk plugs for all the displays on the three parts of the console, and the ejection seat.

You do know ejection seats and cockpit displays are removable anyway... when you make a plane you have to install these things...

Plus as I said they wont be changing them like a modern child changes genders... there is no need.

More importantly would be training... if you have a unit it is quite different flying a single seat aircraft from flying a two seater... roles and jobs are different... you need to communicate and cooperate and work together to know what the other person is doing. Having two sets of eyes in a plane is not useful if you both look the same way at the same time or both are looking down because you think the other guy is keeping watch.

Dead pilots are even more expensive!

Quite true but recklessly sending pilots to their doom suggests bad command decisions... having unmanned models and sending them to their doom means you end up with a hangar full of single and two seat noses for aircraft that don't have an airframe to attach to so even the unmanned versions are not that expendable and not just because of their cost.

I can't see how the engine exhaust gasses will have a "massive" effect on the beaver tail?

Based on airflow.

Do this experiment. Take a big plastic bag and take a big breath in and put the end over your mouth and blow and then close the end of the bag. You will find you don't fill the bag up simply because a human beings lungs don't actually hold a huge amount of air at any one time. Squash the air out of the bag and take another big breath in but this time instead of putting the bag over you mouth hold it a few centimetres away from your face so the air you are blowing into the bag drags air around into the bag too. The airflow will pull more air into the bag than you can fit into your lungs.

The vertical tail surfaces will form a channel that the air flowing over the fuselage will follow... when it gets to the jet engines the exhaust will accelerate that airflow and pull it through essentially creating a wind tunnel effect.

The location of those control surfaces will benefit from that airflow effect.

For the same reason the two vertical tails are angled to take advantage of the energised air from the LERX.

[quote]The beaver tails are set on either side quite far from the engine's jet blast.
[quote]

the biggest piece on both sides is between the single engine nozzle and the two vertical tails...

It is a Leading-Edge Vortex Controller (LEVCON) and is far more than a "good substitute" for a canard. Compared to a LERX the LEVCON changes and - to a far greater extend than a canard - controls the overall airflow around the aircraft, producing more energized vortices, which in turn strengthen each other and are induced onto the main wing. This in turn improves the flow across the wing, significantly enhancing lift and stall characteristics. When combined with the TVC, the aircraft's controllability at extreme angles of attack is increased even further!

And when deployed to its lowest angle setting rather blocks the engines from in front and slightly above from enemy radar too.

All without blocking the pilots view and with no risk of ever stalling.

Some more Sukhoi magic right there

Agree... very clever.

GarryB wrote:Wow the great one made a mistake...

Hard to believe but yeah it can happen

GarryB wrote:I am assuming the whole point of using the aircraft for the role of unmanned platforms is that they will still carry their sensors to be useful... otherwise they are blind.

I thought I made it very clear. They would obviously have the necessary sensors for the job in hand.

Mir wrote: Radars would depend on the unmanned configurations - probably not all of them would need expensive AESA radars, whilst others may even operate with far more expensive radars as an AWACS? These may even come with a plug and play nosecone section for the different missions? Who knows - but it will most certainly be flexible in mission design!

GarryB wrote:So you do expect it to be thunderbird 2?

The whole modular idea is actually patented - so they are likely planning on using it.

GarryB wrote:You do know ejection seats and cockpit displays are removable anyway... when you make a plane you have to install these things...

Exactly - but it takes quite a bit of time to fit all those separate components - whilst ONE modular piece of the complete front section would be MUCH quicker and MUCH simpler to fit.

GarryB wrote:And when deployed to its lowest angle setting rather blocks the engines from in front and slightly above from enemy radar too.
All without blocking the pilots view and with no risk of ever stalling.

Unfortunately that idea will not work at all during sustained flight! Besides the Su-57 has radar blockers that are fitted well into the air ducts for that purpose. That is why they lower the LEVCON like that on the apron - to hide those blockers from prying eyes.  


With the LEVCONS set "to its lowest angle" it will act as huge air brakes and would likely force the aircraft into a steep dive. The pilot would probably pass out from the extreme negative G's!

GarryB wrote:The vertical tail surfaces will form a channel that the air flowing over the fuselage will follow... when it gets to the jet engines the exhaust will accelerate that airflow and pull it through essentially creating a wind tunnel effect.

The location of those control surfaces will benefit from that airflow effect.

Sorry mate but that's just BS. The only thing that will effect those beaver tail control surfaces is the airflow over the wing/fuselage area. The "vertical tail surfaces" will also have little to no effect on the beaver tails as they are set too high and well out of the way.  In fact the airflow over the wing/fuselage will actually help to force the extremely hot jet gasses away from the beaver tails. The jet flow from the engine WILL NOT have a "massive" effect on the beaver tail at all.

There is probably a very good reason why the beaver tail's design (or any other horizontal stabilizer) is angled away from the engine's piping hot jet blast    

kvs wrote:The angle marked in red looks too narrow.   Thrust vectoring requires a wider angle.

These are only patent drawings but regarding thrust vectoring - the nozzle will only move up and down if its going to be 2D.
From what I've seen on the Saturn engine - even if it's 3D the movement from left to right will be in a very narrow band so it will probably be sufficient as is.

Hard to believe but yeah it can happen

And that is the value of discussion with people with different views... often they will point out things that seem obvious but you never thought of them.

For instance in the 1990s I thought the western claims about Soviet tank autoloaders often removed arms of tank crew trying to load ammo manually.

But as the people I was chatting to said... they have parades all the time so where are all the one armed tank crews hidden?

If the autoloader fails you don't continue battle hand loading rounds... how do you get them out of the underfloor autoloader? When your rifle fails you don't use it like a bolt action, you pick up another weapon from the dead or injured and keep fighting, in the case of a tank you head back and get the autoloader fixed and head back out into battle.

I thought I made it very clear. They would obviously have the necessary sensors for the job in hand.

So all of your 500 unmanned noses now have modular sensor options... do you need 1,000 more where 500 has everything and 500 only has radar and 500 only has IRST?

Because when you fit them to the aircraft and you lose them because they didn't have IRST and Radar and were blind then one of your airframes is now lost and you only have 499 bodies left.... you saved money on the AESA radar but losing the body and engine will be a problem anyway.

I would say the aerodynamic and weight differences rather than having an unmanned version it would be cheaper to have a single and two seat model that can fly with on one on board... and doing it the way MiG has done that you can change between single and two seat versions in a day or two at most.

I am sure the aircrew would appreciate knowing if they are on their own or flying with a crewmember in the back or if they are the crewman in the back more than ten minutes before they take off.

The whole modular idea is actually patented - so they are likely planning on using it.

Lots of things get patented and never happen because they don't actually make sense. The patent is for the idea... you might be able to make it so it works brilliantly... for example with an Air to Air missile like the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the idea was brilliant and the Soviets changed the way they designed and made air to air missiles because they got a look at that design. It was simple to make it was simple to maintain, you could upgrade parts while still using other parts as they became obsolete or a new part became available.. they even took it a step further with the AA-10 family of missiles which was fully modular and came in dozens of different versions including different rocket motor options and seeker options etc etc.

There are patents for moustache guards that prevent you spilling soup on your moustache... have never ever seen anyone actually use one... except possibly on an episode of Blackadder with General Melchet.

Exactly - but it takes quite a bit of time to fit all those separate components

It does normally because most cockpits are designed to be fixed and not removed except for overhauls and replacements.

Having cockpit displays that can be removed in blocks would also make upgrades and improvements easier too, as I said you could bundle the cables together in one big plug that connects everything but remove individual screens and lights and switches by removing them from the display and the cabling.

A few bolts hold things in place so it is easy to install and easy to remove.

whilst ONE modular piece of the complete front section would be MUCH quicker and MUCH simpler to fit.

But if the front wasn't designed to be modular then it could be a pain in the arse to remove.

The noses of the Su-75 planned design will be designed to be removed and reinstalled... a few important bolts and cable connections and it will be quick and easy and I am saying that MiG would have done the same if their intention was to make the installation and removal of seats and cockpits and extra fuel tanks... which it was.

Unfortunately that idea will not work at all during sustained flight! Besides the Su-57 has radar blockers that are fitted well into the air ducts for that purpose. That is why they lower the LEVCON like that on the apron - to hide those blockers from prying eyes.

You showed a picture of them at full deflection... but when flying low from an enemy perspective from altitude even half that deflection would block their direct view of the engines inside the engine intakes.

If you wanted to you could use the thrust vectoring engines angled downwards to give lift so the body of the aircraft could be angled down to further obscure the engine intakes in flight... essentially trimming the aircraft to a body angled downwards... not ideal aerodynamically, but when enemy AWACS are scanning for you it might be a useful angle to adopt while being scanned.

Equally, even with a nose up angle the levicons at half angle will redirect enemy radar signals entering the air intake and bouncing off the blockers or the engines when they come out and hit the downward angled levicons away from the direction they came from.

With the LEVCONS set "to its lowest angle" it will act as huge air brakes and would likely force the aircraft into a steep dive. The pilot would probably pass out from the extreme negative G's!

And the thrust vectoring engines could be deflected to counter that force and keep it nose up and 1 g.

There is probably a very good reason why the beaver tail's design (or any other horizontal stabilizer) is angled away from the engine's piping hot jet blast

You are not listening.

I never said the hot engine exhaust blew over these surfaces to increase their effect.

Imagine a tube and out past that tube you set up a rocket motor pointing away from the tube. The tube is not the intake for the engine because the engine is a rocket but the rocket exhaust is creating a powerful airflow away from the tube. Even if the rocket is not part of an aircraft and is not pushing the tube through the air the local airflow will lead to air flow through the tube, so any control surfaces you put in the tube will effect that airflow.

If there isn't then why bother with any control surface between the vertical tails?

You do understand that the engine exhaust doesn't go anywhere near the wing control surfaces but they work just fine too...

GarryB wrote:You showed a picture of them at full deflection..

I showed a picture of the LEVCON in full deflection - because of what you said. There is no other possible interpretation when you say "lowest angle setting" that "blocks the engine from in front".

GarryB wrote:And when deployed to its lowest angle setting rather blocks the engines from in front and slightly above from enemy radar too.

The LEVCON is purely an aerodynamic aid during flight - in short it is a moveable LERX.
The radar blockers in the air ducts do the job you want the LEVCON's to do - they defuse the radar signals...

GarryB wrote:I never said the hot engine exhaust blew over these surfaces to increase their effect.

But you did...

GarryB wrote:It (the beaver tail) is a good substitution for a horizontal tail surface, the forced airflow through there would be like a wind tunnel with the engine exhaust massively increasing the airflow and increasing the effect of the control surfaces there...

So sorry mate to continue this headless chicken conversation with you is rather pointless.

Mir wrote:

So sorry mate to continue this headless chicken conversation with you is rather pointless.

TLDR, Sukhoi doesn't know how to build planes, only MiG does. But they are more corrupt and ruthless and that's why VKS keep buying only Sukhois.

Don't blame you!  

With all the cleansing going at the Russian MOD MiG is probably looking forward to the newly opened prospects in the second hand and scale model markets