Sukhoi LTS "Checkmate" #2

If the Russian Air Force starts to place large scale order for The Checkmate then it means hardly any Mig 35s and Su 30SM will be purchased.

The MiG-35 is a cheap to operate numbers plane that will be in production for the next 5 years or so... whether they want the Checkmate or not wont be decided till they can test it and that likely wont be until after 2028.

The Checkmate is a stealth fighter and will be more expensive to operate than any 4th gen fighter so they will never need enormous numbers of them... most likely large batches of MiG-35s with the drones and single engined MiG LMFSs which will likely be even smaller and lighter than the LTS and also there fore cheaper.

Essentially a stealthy LIFT.

RTN wrote:If the Russian Air Force starts to place large scale order for The Checkmate then it means hardly any Mig 35s and Su 30SM will be purchased.

So in the long term, RuAF will eventually settle for Su-34, Su 35, PAK-FA and Checkmate along with the S-70 Okhotnik-B in a Loyal Wingman role.

Ones that will no longer be purchased are Su-35s because they have always been air-superiority placeholders for Su-57

MiG-35 are barely being purchased at all

Su-30s and Su-34s will be in production and service from decades to come, all 5gen airforce is unnecessary and financially unviable so we will have Su-57 and Checkmate as high end core plus Su-30 as number filler and Su-34 as bomber component

GarryB wrote:

If the Russian Air Force starts to place large scale order for The Checkmate then it means hardly any Mig 35s and Su 30SM will be purchased.

The MiG-35 is a cheap to operate numbers plane that will be in production for the next 5 years or so... whether they want the Checkmate or not wont be decided till they can test it and that likely wont be until after 2028.

Does the Russian Airforce even care to have a cheap to operate numbers plane, though? They seem to be very satisfied with the Su-30's, 34's and 35's they currently operate as well as the Su-57.

Mindstorm wrote:
Ventral bay, in high contested air space against western type air forces, will probably host two изделие 610M or much more probably two изделие 810 because those missiles will allow not only to "punish" enemy aircraft attempting and/or capable to run away to avoid short range combat (where will be in terrible disadvantage) but also, avoiding completely initially the enemy air superiority group and destroy AWACS or tankers well behind the enemy OCA lines

Indeed that is an advantage Russia has. There are some comments to that: on the one hand, at least the R-37M (don't know about izd. 810) is a missile with a huge warhead and general size, and also relatively big drag, not optimal against fighter type of targets, either economically or in terms of effectiveness. Of course it should allows to steal the initiative (no one would keep course with such missile heading their way) and that is important enough in the scenario you mention. On the other, the thrust profile of Meteor makes it and interesting alternative, at least from what is known from open sources. So it is not clear to me what approach is more effective, specially because the reduced load that even a Su-57 could carry of such big missiles, compared to the salvo size a Western fighter with smaller bays can carry in the form of Meteor. I take for granted it is a more expensive weapon than R-37M, but I wonder what would be the cost of a Russian equivalent, and I am not sure such development has been abandoned completely. The bays of the Su-57/LTS would allow to carry 3 (or eventually 4, if very well optimized) AAM with the rough body diameter of the R-77, and the excess length of the bays could be used with a detachable booster for even longer ranges. That would provide a bigger loadout and a more capable weapon vs fighter type of targets (at least kinematically) at the same time

No western built aircraft can do the same for inescapable volumetric limits of theirs internal bay.

To be fair, the F-35 can carry generously sized ordnance like the NSM for instance, that is not at the same level of say Kh-69 but it is quite close. Of course it is unfortunate for them that such platform does not even come close in kinematics or payload to the Su-57 and would be at a distinct disadvantage when confronting it, but still it is better than the bay limitations of the F-22.

3) Wider angle of coverage of the radar complex ,distributed around the whole hull ,allowing to provide information update to launched missiles while proceeding in missile-evading direction

Are you referring to eventual (not yet seen) cheek arrays in the LTS, or to the L-band antenna in the wings? Otherwise the plane does not have a wider coverage than Western equivalents, which is IMHO perfectly acceptable for numbers plane BTW...

4) Much greater kinematic characteristics of on board missiles (particularly for изделие 810)

 
Is anything known already bout izd. 810 in that regard? Or in any regard, actually?

will allow ЛТС and even more Су-57 squadrons to adopt widely detached formations forcing the enemy aircraft ,in significative kinematic and maneuver limits disadvantage, to waste quickly theirs load of medium range missiles only to avoid to lose from the beginning the initiative and the positional battle, all of that while in the mean time selecting the missile-delivering enemy aircraft to be attacked from the most advantageous geometrical position with изделие 610M or изделие 810.

I am not yet sure about LTS in this regard, because I think that what we have been shown until now is just a monkey export version and not what VKS will receive, specifically in terms of propulsion. But in regards of what is known of Su-57 and specifically the second stage standard, the overmatch vs the West is going to be almost painful to watch. First iteration NGAD + adaptive engines are the only chance of USAF right now.

After this first phase of long range sniping, capitalizing the opponent's kinematic limits, the enemy air formation will show big coverage's holes that will be used to quickly proceed at close range where surviving enemy units will be destroyed.

This is a perfectly logical tactic for which USAF is very badly prepared. As of now, F-35 cannot even carry AIM-9 in a stealthy way. No extended use of TVC, DIRCM, platforms not optimized for maneouvering... it is one thing when you are better in one aspect and just a bit worse in the other, currently USAF seriously lacks arguments in both BVR and WVR.

Practically domestic philosophy of air superiority and air interdiction combat almost do not include a medium range clash, at least not in the western meaning of the term, but instead a first long range attrition phase followed by a very rapid transition to close combat allowed by the positional advantage that domestic design progressively gain in the first phase.

Also new medium range air to air missile products near to introduction will boast enegagement ranges signicatively superior to theirs western counter parts in observance to what previously exposed.

It is always good to have more and cheaper missiles, and when the bays and kinematics of the platform are intrinsically superior, that is going to work even with missiles that are not better.

We discussed also about the possibility of using the multimissile concept discussed for the long range interceptors, I see such possibility as extremely powerful and an optimal way of maximizing the substantial advantage in weapon bays space and quality in the Su-57 and LTS.[/quote]

According to some Chinese guy the R-77 fits:


Good job


7.7 t fuel is realistic IMHO

Study of longitudinal stability:



Sizes:


BTW, I would like to link the source, but the forum rules do not allow me to...

So in what range does 7.7 tons of fuel translate to?

They also have that new small r-77 shown in pictures that has the size of the r-73.

I guess with the fuel made for r-77M it will have a range of 80-90km which is perfect against 4th gen fighters that can't detect a su-57 further than 50-70km.

For the rest it has the r-77M.

Isn't the plane 7 or so tons ?

PapaDragon wrote:So in what range does 7.7 tons of fuel translate to?

IMHO is perfectly consistent with the stated 3000 km range. The F-35 weights 13.1 t empty and makes ca. 2800 km with 8.3 t fuel. For a good calculation many parameters are needed that we don't have, and they changed during flight, so it is not very a easy task...

Isos wrote:Isn't the plane 7 or so tons ?

You mean empty weight? If they keep it below 11 t I would consider it a resounding success.

marcellogo wrote:

LMFS wrote:

marcellogo wrote:Are it possible that the vigorous 8G turning means SUSTAINED turning at 8G? pirat pirat pirat pirat pirat pirat pirat

The MiG-29 can already sustain 9 g...

Sustained here is to be intended in opposition to Istantaneous turning rate, meaning it can turn at such without losing speed and energy i.e. an excellent performance.

The su 75 could probably out turn the Mig 29 when loaded with weapons. Just as the F-35 can take the F-16 loaded

LMFS wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:
Ventral bay, in high contested air space against western type air forces, will probably host two изделие 610M or much more probably two изделие 810 because those missiles will allow not only to "punish" enemy aircraft attempting and/or capable to run away to avoid short range combat (where will be in terrible disadvantage) but also, avoiding completely initially the enemy air superiority group and destroy AWACS or tankers well behind the enemy OCA lines

Indeed that is an advantage Russia has. There are some comments to that: on the one hand, at least the R-37M (don't know about izd. 810) is a missile with a huge warhead and general size, and also relatively big drag, not optimal against fighter type of targets, either economically or in terms of effectiveness. Of course it should allows to steal the initiative (no one would keep course with such missile heading their way) and that is important enough in the scenario you mention. On the other, the thrust profile of Meteor makes it and interesting alternative, at least from what is known from open sources. So it is not clear to me what approach is more effective, specially because the reduced load that even a Su-57 could carry of such big missiles, compared to the salvo size a Western fighter with smaller bays can carry in the form of Meteor. I take for granted it is a more expensive weapon than R-37M, but I wonder what would be the cost of a Russian equivalent, and I am not sure such development has been abandoned completely. The bays of the Su-57/LTS would allow to carry 3 (or eventually 4, if very well optimized) AAM with the rough body diameter of the R-77, and the excess length of the bays could be used with a detachable booster for even longer ranges. That would provide a bigger loadout and a more capable weapon vs fighter type of targets (at least kinematically) at the same time

No western built aircraft can do the same for inescapable volumetric limits of theirs internal bay.

To be fair, the F-35 can carry generously sized ordnance like the NSM for instance, that is not at the same level of say Kh-69 but it is quite close. Of course it is unfortunate for them that such platform does not even come close in kinematics or payload to the Su-57 and would be at a distinct disadvantage when confronting it, but still it is better than the bay limitations of the F-22.

3) Wider angle of coverage of the radar complex ,distributed around the whole hull ,allowing to provide information update to launched missiles while proceeding in missile-evading direction

Are you referring to eventual (not yet seen) cheek arrays in the LTS, or to the L-band antenna in the wings? Otherwise the plane does not have a wider coverage than Western equivalents, which is IMHO perfectly acceptable for numbers plane BTW...

4) Much greater kinematic characteristics of on board missiles (particularly for изделие 810)

 
Is anything known already bout izd. 810 in that regard? Or in any regard, actually?

will allow ЛТС and even more Су-57 squadrons to adopt widely detached formations forcing the enemy aircraft ,in significative kinematic and maneuver limits disadvantage, to waste quickly theirs load of medium range missiles only to avoid to lose from the beginning the initiative and the positional battle, all of that while in the mean time selecting the missile-delivering enemy aircraft to be attacked from the most advantageous geometrical position with изделие 610M or изделие 810.

I am not yet sure about LTS in this regard, because I think that what we have been shown until now is just a monkey export version and not what VKS will receive, specifically in terms of propulsion. But in regards of what is known of Su-57 and specifically the second stage standard, the overmatch vs the West is going to be almost painful to watch. First iteration NGAD + adaptive engines are the only chance of USAF right now.

After this first phase of long range sniping, capitalizing the opponent's kinematic limits, the enemy air formation will show big coverage's holes that will be used to quickly proceed at close range where surviving enemy units will be destroyed.

This is a perfectly logical tactic for which USAF is very badly prepared. As of now, F-35 cannot even carry AIM-9 in a stealthy way. No extended use of TVC, DIRCM, platforms not optimized for maneouvering... it is one thing when you are better in one aspect and just a bit worse in the other, currently USAF seriously lacks arguments in both BVR and WVR.

Practically domestic philosophy of air superiority and air interdiction combat almost do not include a medium range clash, at least not in the western meaning of the term, but instead a first long range attrition phase followed by a very rapid transition to close combat allowed by the positional advantage that domestic design progressively gain in the first phase.

Also new medium range air to air missile products near to introduction will boast enegagement ranges signicatively superior to theirs western counter parts in observance to what previously exposed.

It is always good to have more and cheaper missiles, and when the bays and kinematics of the platform are intrinsically superior, that is going to work even with missiles that are not better.

We discussed also about the possibility of using the multimissile concept discussed for the long range interceptors, I see such possibility as extremely powerful and an optimal way of maximizing the substantial advantage in weapon bays space and quality in the Su-57 and LTS.

[/quote]

You are indeed correct that it is thicc and craggy and can only pull 8gs max. That said it goes so damn fast, faster than the Phoenix and can pull more g. Would this still make it effective against fighters? Especially if they aren't prepared for it? But concerning its massive size and price it may be better with what you described.

TMA1 wrote:

LMFS wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:
Ventral bay, in high contested air space against western type air forces, will probably host two изделие 610M or much more probably two изделие 810 because those missiles will allow not only to "punish" enemy aircraft attempting and/or capable to run away to avoid short range combat (where will be in terrible disadvantage) but also, avoiding completely initially the enemy air superiority group and destroy AWACS or tankers well behind the enemy OCA lines

Indeed that is an advantage Russia has. There are some comments to that: on the one hand, at least the R-37M (don't know about izd. 810) is a missile with a huge warhead and general size, and also relatively big drag, not optimal against fighter type of targets, either economically or in terms of effectiveness. Of course it should allows to steal the initiative (no one would keep course with such missile heading their way) and that is important enough in the scenario you mention. On the other, the thrust profile of Meteor makes it and interesting alternative, at least from what is known from open sources. So it is not clear to me what approach is more effective, specially because the reduced load that even a Su-57 could carry of such big missiles, compared to the salvo size a Western fighter with smaller bays can carry in the form of Meteor. I take for granted it is a more expensive weapon than R-37M, but I wonder what would be the cost of a Russian equivalent, and I am not sure such development has been abandoned completely. The bays of the Su-57/LTS would allow to carry 3 (or eventually 4, if very well optimized) AAM with the rough body diameter of the R-77, and the excess length of the bays could be used with a detachable booster for even longer ranges. That would provide a bigger loadout and a more capable weapon vs fighter type of targets (at least kinematically) at the same time

No western built aircraft can do the same for inescapable volumetric limits of theirs internal bay.

To be fair, the F-35 can carry generously sized ordnance like the NSM for instance, that is not at the same level of say Kh-69 but it is quite close. Of course it is unfortunate for them that such platform does not even come close in kinematics or payload to the Su-57 and would be at a distinct disadvantage when confronting it, but still it is better than the bay limitations of the F-22.

3) Wider angle of coverage of the radar complex ,distributed around the whole hull ,allowing to provide information update to launched missiles while proceeding in missile-evading direction

Are you referring to eventual (not yet seen) cheek arrays in the LTS, or to the L-band antenna in the wings? Otherwise the plane does not have a wider coverage than Western equivalents, which is IMHO perfectly acceptable for numbers plane BTW...

4) Much greater kinematic characteristics of on board missiles (particularly for изделие 810)

 
Is anything known already bout izd. 810 in that regard? Or in any regard, actually?

will allow ЛТС and even more Су-57 squadrons to adopt widely detached formations forcing the enemy aircraft ,in significative kinematic and maneuver limits disadvantage, to waste quickly theirs load of medium range missiles only to avoid to lose from the beginning the initiative and the positional battle, all of that while in the mean time selecting the missile-delivering enemy aircraft to be attacked from the most advantageous geometrical position with изделие 610M or изделие 810.

I am not yet sure about LTS in this regard, because I think that what we have been shown until now is just a monkey export version and not what VKS will receive, specifically in terms of propulsion. But in regards of what is known of Su-57 and specifically the second stage standard, the overmatch vs the West is going to be almost painful to watch. First iteration NGAD + adaptive engines are the only chance of USAF right now.

After this first phase of long range sniping, capitalizing the opponent's kinematic limits, the enemy air formation will show big coverage's holes that will be used to quickly proceed at close range where surviving enemy units will be destroyed.

This is a perfectly logical tactic for which USAF is very badly prepared. As of now, F-35 cannot even carry AIM-9 in a stealthy way. No extended use of TVC, DIRCM, platforms not optimized for maneouvering... it is one thing when you are better in one aspect and just a bit worse in the other, currently USAF seriously lacks arguments in both BVR and WVR.

Practically domestic philosophy of air superiority and air interdiction combat almost do not include a medium range clash, at least not in the western meaning of the term, but instead a first long range attrition phase followed by a very rapid transition to close combat allowed by the positional advantage that domestic design progressively gain in the first phase.

Also new medium range air to air missile products near to introduction will boast enegagement ranges signicatively superior to theirs western counter parts in observance to what previously exposed.

It is always good to have more and cheaper missiles, and when the bays and kinematics of the platform are intrinsically superior, that is going to work even with missiles that are not better.

We discussed also about the possibility of using the multimissile concept discussed for the long range interceptors, I see such possibility as extremely powerful and an optimal way of maximizing the substantial advantage in weapon bays space and quality in the Su-57 and LTS.

You are indeed correct that it is thicc and craggy and can only pull 8gs max. That said it goes so damn fast, faster than the Phoenix and can pull more g. Would this still make it effective against fighters? Especially if they aren't prepared for it? But concerning its massive size and price it may be better with what you described.[/quote]


Well, the R-37M is rated to be effective against 8G Moving targets, so it can pull at least 40G. Many fighters would struggle to pull that 8G with a full load. Since its BVR after all.

R-33 was only used against bulky targets, while the 37M rectified that.

George1 wrote:New topic with new title also

I was wondering what happened lol. The original thread had a lot of really great pics I hope it's still accessible?

Su-30s and Su-34s will be in production and service from decades to come, all 5gen airforce is unnecessary and financially unviable so we will have Su-57 and Checkmate as high end core plus Su-30 as number filler and Su-34 as bomber component

Hahaha.... you mention finances and affordability and then you totally ignore it...

Su-30s are not affordable, it will likely be more expensive to operate than the Su-35 because it is slightly bigger with slightly more drag and slightly heavier than the Su-35.

Even the US couldn't afford an all F-15C and F-15E air fleet.... how do you expect Russia to manage the same?

What you are suggesting is an F-22 (Su-57) and F-15C and F-15E fleet (Su-30 and Su-34) but with an F-35 that was actually affordable.

Why even talk affordable when you ignore the MiG-35 and the LMFS fighter they are developing, which based solely on the model shown is clearly optimised for being a low cost 5th gen very light fighter.

Does the Russian Airforce even care to have a cheap to operate numbers plane, though?

If it wants decent fighter aircraft coverage and numbers enough to provide army units with decent air support without increasing its defence budget to US levels then yes it does.

They seem to be very satisfied with the Su-30's, 34's and 35's they currently operate as well as the Su-57.

If that was true then there would be no value in the Swifts aerobatics team and the MiG-35 would not exist and neither would the Checkmate... I mean if Russia can operate heavy twin engined fighters and that be affordable then a lighter single makes little sense because performance is going to be reduced, and being a stealth fighter it can't be that much cheaper.

I take for granted it is a more expensive weapon than R-37M, but I wonder what would be the cost of a Russian equivalent, and I am not sure such development has been abandoned completely. The bays of the Su-57/LTS would allow to carry 3 (or eventually 4, if very well optimized) AAM with the rough body diameter of the R-77, and the excess length of the bays could be used with a detachable booster for even longer ranges. That would provide a bigger loadout and a more capable weapon vs fighter type of targets (at least kinematically) at the same time

The rather large warhead of the R-37M mean any last second manouvers performed by the target can be countered simply by directing the blast and fragments in a suitable direction in the last millisecond of the interception... making out turning or dodging impossible.

Is anything known already bout izd. 810 in that regard? Or in any regard, actually?

It is quoted as having between 1.6 and 9 times the range of the izd 610M at altitudes up to 40km... which makes it sound like it probably has a scramjet motor enabling it to climb after a low altitude launch and use its fuel efficiently... unlike a solid fuelled rocket.

Lets make an assumption that max range for R-37M (izd 610) is 300km, that would make the max range of the new missile about 480km.

Presumably a lower altitude and lower speed launch would result in a range much shorter than 300km but it obviously can't be more than 480km max range so when they talk about 9 times better range that would be when the R-37M is launched from low altitude and low speed... lets say 450km divided by 9 = is about 50km which sounds about right for a Ka-52K helicopter launching an R-37M at low altitude and low flight speed because most of its solid rocket fuel will be burned up accelerating and climbing to a useful altitude and then it would turn and essentially fall onto the target.

This would suggest that in the same scenario an izd 810 fired from a Ka-52K naval helicopter could launch an attack on a target at 450km... which is astounding, but not impossible because the missile could use its fuel vastly more efficiently to gain altitude and eventually much greater speed...

I am not yet sure about LTS in this regard, because I think that what we have been shown until now is just a monkey export version and not what VKS will receive,

If they even get it at all.

You are indeed correct that it is thicc and craggy and can only pull 8gs max. That said it goes so damn fast, faster than the Phoenix and can pull more g. Would this still make it effective against fighters? Especially if they aren't prepared for it? But concerning its massive size and price it may be better with what you described.

The R-37M is designed to engage targets pulling 8g so it will be effective against most fighter aircraft, but its primary purpose is to engage force multipliers like AWACS and AEW and JSTARS and inflight refuelling aircraft at extended ranges.

GarryB wrote:

Su-30s and Su-34s will be in production and service from decades to come, all 5gen airforce is unnecessary and financially unviable so we will have Su-57 and Checkmate as high end core plus Su-30 as number filler and Su-34 as bomber component

Hahaha.... you mention finances and affordability and then you totally ignore it...

Su-30s are not affordable, it will likely be more expensive to operate than the Su-35 because it is slightly bigger with slightly more drag and slightly heavier than the Su-35.

Even the US couldn't afford an all F-15C and F-15E air fleet.... how do you expect Russia to manage the same?

What you are suggesting is an F-22 (Su-57) and F-15C and F-15E fleet (Su-30 and Su-34) but with an F-35 that was actually affordable.

Why even talk affordable when you ignore the MiG-35 and the LMFS fighter they are developing, which based solely on the model shown is clearly optimised for being a low cost 5th gen very light fighter.

Does the Russian Airforce even care to have a cheap to operate numbers plane, though?

If it wants decent fighter aircraft coverage and numbers enough to provide army units with decent air support without increasing its defence budget to US levels then yes it does.

They seem to be very satisfied with the Su-30's, 34's and 35's they currently operate as well as the Su-57.

If that was true then there would be no value in the Swifts aerobatics team and the MiG-35 would not exist and neither would the Checkmate... I mean if Russia can operate heavy twin engined fighters and that be affordable then a lighter single makes little sense because performance is going to be reduced, and being a stealth fighter it can't be that much cheaper.

I take for granted it is a more expensive weapon than R-37M, but I wonder what would be the cost of a Russian equivalent, and I am not sure such development has been abandoned completely. The bays of the Su-57/LTS would allow to carry 3 (or eventually 4, if very well optimized) AAM with the rough body diameter of the R-77, and the excess length of the bays could be used with a detachable booster for even longer ranges. That would provide a bigger loadout and a more capable weapon vs fighter type of targets (at least kinematically) at the same time

The rather large warhead of the R-37M mean any last second manouvers performed by the target can be countered simply by directing the blast and fragments in a suitable direction in the last millisecond of the interception... making out turning or dodging impossible.

Is anything known already bout izd. 810 in that regard? Or in any regard, actually?

It is quoted as having between 1.6 and 9 times the range of the izd 610M at altitudes up to 40km... which makes it sound like it probably has a scramjet motor enabling it to climb after a low altitude launch and use its fuel efficiently... unlike a solid fuelled rocket.

Lets make an assumption that max range for R-37M (izd 610) is 300km, that would make the max range of the new missile about 480km.

Presumably a lower altitude and lower speed launch would result in a range much shorter than 300km but it obviously can't be more than 480km max range so when they talk about 9 times better range that would be when the R-37M is launched from low altitude and low speed...  lets say 450km divided by 9 = is about 50km which sounds about right for a Ka-52K helicopter launching an R-37M at low altitude and low flight speed because most of its solid rocket fuel will be burned up accelerating and climbing to a useful altitude and then it would turn and essentially fall onto the target.

This would suggest that in the same scenario an izd 810 fired from a Ka-52K naval helicopter could launch an attack on a target at 450km... which is astounding, but not impossible because the missile could use its fuel vastly more efficiently to gain altitude and eventually much greater speed...

I am not yet sure about LTS in this regard, because I think that what we have been shown until now is just a monkey export version and not what VKS will receive,

If they even get it at all.

All the discussions about the composition of future air forces seems me quite flawed, in the sense that they are quite abstract as they didn't look back to t both actual composition of the force and the way it was repleted (and progress is still ongoing) with new planes in the course of the latest long time acquisition plans.

Thus the rearmament effort being IMHO an outstanding success as far as the VKS are concerned, the process in itself was dominated by a sense of urgency and structurated toward the reaching of a certain quota of modern equipment into a given time.

So, they used to acquire the available substitutes (obviously when they met a minimum standard) as soon as they became available, without waiting for more performing alternatives to became ready.

I mean, they acquired Su-27M3, Su-30Mk2, Su-30SM and Su-35S IN THE SAME PERIOD: four model of basically same plane belonging to three different sub-generations.

(continue, dog have to take a walk)

(continue)
So they in some cases didn't proceed by replacing the most oldest/outdated planes first but proceed to make substitution anyway.
So , as an example, the Su-27SM whose modernization in 2004 will be phased out before the baseline MiG-29A, made in the eighties.

Now, it's quite clear that those old Fulcrums couldn't wait the Checkmate to became ready for their own substitution.
More even, it would be counterproductive as a serial assembly line for the MiG-35 is now available and not acquiring them now, would also naturally end into ompletely ruin any perspective of selling such planes abroad.

Same with the problem of substenibility of heavier planes.
Actually, medium / light fighters are a niche in a VKS, that's instead made up almost completely of Heavy fighters/interceptors so a litte more or a little less of them would not made any substantial difference in terms of financial affordability.
Naturally thing will change radically in a perspactive case of a steady increase of plane's total number.
Naturally if something like this would happen LTS will be a natural for this aim, as it will be both affordable than absolutely high performance capable.

TMA1 wrote:You are indeed correct that it is thicc and craggy and can only pull 8gs max. That said it goes so damn fast, faster than the Phoenix and can pull more g. Would this still make it effective against fighters? Especially if they aren't prepared for it? But concerning its massive size and price it may be better with what you described.

It is a draggy missile that loses speed relatively fast, and as said it is big, expensive and essentially overkill against a fighter sized target. It does not mean it cannot be used that way, only that it is probably not the best way of using the weapons bays.

GarryB wrote:It is quoted as having between 1.6 and 9 times the range of the izd 610M at altitudes up to 40km... which makes it sound like it probably has a scramjet motor enabling it to climb after a low altitude launch and use its fuel efficiently... unlike a solid fuelled rocket.

Lets make an assumption that max range for R-37M (izd 610) is 300km, that would make the max range of the new missile about 480km.

Presumably a lower altitude and lower speed launch would result in a range much shorter than 300km but it obviously can't be more than 480km max range so when they talk about 9 times better range that would be when the R-37M is launched from low altitude and low speed... lets say 450km divided by 9 = is about 50km which sounds about right for a Ka-52K helicopter launching an R-37M at low altitude and low flight speed because most of its solid rocket fuel will be burned up accelerating and climbing to a useful altitude and then it would turn and essentially fall onto the target.

This would suggest that in the same scenario an izd 810 fired from a Ka-52K naval helicopter could launch an attack on a target at 450km... which is astounding, but not impossible because the missile could use its fuel vastly more efficiently to gain altitude and eventually much greater speed...

Looks nice, but I would need to check some sources...

This is that clip of the engine on the test stand i mentioned a week or so ago. It was assumed to be the engine for su 57 but it looks more like the engine on the su 75 Checkmate

I mean, they acquired Su-27M3, Su-30Mk2, Su-30SM and Su-35S IN THE SAME PERIOD: four model of basically same plane belonging to three different sub-generations.

I totally agree.

Now, it's quite clear that those old Fulcrums couldn't wait the Checkmate to became ready for their own substitution.
More even, it would be counterproductive as a serial assembly line for the MiG-35 is now available and not acquiring them now, would also naturally end into ompletely ruin any perspective of selling such planes abroad.

Counter productive only in the sense that if fifth gen replace all of fourth gen and then they go to sixth gen what ever the hell that is.

If the issue is cost effectiveness then the high low balance is very important and is what has become most distorted with time in the direction of heavy planes which makes operational costs too high to have the numbers of aircraft you actually want.

If you view it as.... 1990s we don't have enough money for an air fleet the size of the Soviet Union so we will focus on the most effective and longest range aircraft, so the focus was flankers of the 4th and 5th gen and then when we have the 5th gen heavy in production we can then focus on the light fighters that are numbers aircraft.

You could say that now a threshold has been crossed with the heavy 5th gen fighter and also a fighter wingman drone that can add to numbers by carrying extra weapons... together with the upgraded 4th gen fighter that was also upgraded with most of the technology developed for the 5th gen fighter but with external weapons allowing better payload options and lower operational costs.

Now the focus is a more balanced fleet with the light fifth gen fighter starting serious development (LMFS that is because the LTS has nothing to do with them), with the new technology also going into the MiG-35 which will be produced to generate revenue and fill gaps in what used to be called frontal aviation of the shorter ranged swing aircraft that these days might have a few dumb bombs that can be precision dropped using modern Avionics of the Gefest & T type with continuously computed aim points in their HUDs so they can bomb accurately in free flight to the point where they will probably only carry a couple of bombs... fly in and hit their targets and then use the rest of their armament of air to air weapons to protect the next wave of aircraft and take air control.

As the LMFS matures and develops various bits of new technology can be tested in the MiG-35s to get them mature before the LMFS even flys.

The focus for both the LMFS and MiG-35 is low cost operations, which is why the LMFS looks like a lead in fighter trainer design, but that should make it super cheap.

Whether the LTS is adopted by the Russian military... don't look a gift horse in the mouth... but if you take it for free and you have no use then expect it to be glue.

I have said before and will say it again... light 5th gen doesn't make a huge amount of sense because light is supposed to be cheap numbers aircraft and only makes sense if the bigger heavier aircraft are too expensive... the F-35 and Rafale are certainly that, but the Russian 5th gen don't seem excessively so.

Therefore light 5th gen is about affordability for export and for domestic use, but 5th gen wont be as cheap as 4th gen and as the USAF has worked out.... a really good 4th gen is better than a really expensive 5th gen... or two of them.

I suspect 5th gen fighters light and heavy will be useful but will not replace 4th gen especially light fighters.

I expect 6th gen fighters will be unmanned, so 4th and 6th gen might operate after 5th gen are replaced rather than 5th and 6th operating together.

Really that means 6th gen is actually 1st gen unmanned which is what S-70 and the new MiG drone are supposed to be.

I think for the next 5 years the MiG-35 will be made in numbers... probably 300 because it is cheaper and lighter than Flanker based 4th and 5th gen fighters so it would be more affordable, and the LMFS will not be bought in huge numbers by Russia but for export I think Checkmate and LMFS could match the claimed numbers for F-35 fairly quickly because an affordable fighter would be popular except you would expect it to be trashed by enemy fighters, but in this case it is a new 5th gen fighter that actually looks to be one of the best and I suspect the LMFS to be the same, so buying it in numbers actually makes sense...

Venezuela could buy some to operate with their Flankers and really make their neighbours think twice about helping the US with regime change plans... and do it without bankrupting the country.

Cuba could buy a few hundred and change the balance of power there too... Mexico might want to buy some... the actual list would be enormous, and the LTS would benefit from shared parts with the Su-57 for countries with a bit more money too...

Obviously such planes on their own wont stop western regime change imperialism, but it will make them less able to bully and in the case of Argentina it could bankrupt the UK... those Trident submarines wont help a whole lot for very much at all... two dozen more destroyers and maybe 4-6 cruisers might be needed... they will have to completely regiggle their budget and priorities...

Okay I'm speaking as a total layman with no experience in aerodynamics but had some of my usual goofy ideas and was looking at the paddles on the back of the fighter that people keep talking about and what their use is. I'm thinking they need to be seen totally in conjunction with the canted stabilizers. When the paddles move up with the stabilizers twisting outwards they cup the air inwards to give the paddles greater energy for upward pitch in this case. That with the thrust vectoring this thing would have incredible pitch authority.

Also I am so impressed with the intake and air ducting to the engine. It to me looks as if it is a double intake fused together. The nose of the aircraft itself gracefully turns into and acts as DSI for both intakes in the front that then wrap around the underbelly weapons bay which then flow back to the center to the engine inlet. It is beautiful.

GarryB wrote:together with the upgraded 4th gen fighter that was also upgraded with most of the technology developed for the 5th gen fighter but with external weapons allowing better payload options and lower operational costs.

External carriage actually increases fuel consumption and reduces performance, don't know why it would reduce operational costs. The issue of payload options was also discussed and the Su-57 matches the Flanker.

Now the focus is a more balanced fleet with the light fifth gen fighter starting serious development (LMFS that is because the LTS has nothing to do with them),

The focus for both the LMFS and MiG-35 is low cost operations, which is why the LMFS looks like a lead in fighter trainer design, but that should make it super cheap.

You talk about the LMFS as if it exists and you have seen it...

Therefore light 5th gen is about affordability for export and for domestic use, but 5th gen wont be as cheap as 4th gen and as the USAF has worked out.... a really good 4th gen is better than a really expensive 5th gen... or two of them.

I suggest looking at the facts instead of sticking to talking points. What other Russian fighters of any generation are being currently marketed for export for $30 m like the Checkmate?

I suspect 5th gen fighters light and heavy will be useful but will not replace 4th gen especially light fighters.

They will outlast / replace them naturally, of course they will, though they will overlap for many years. I really don't get what is this with "4G will not be replaced with 5G", that makes no sense.

I expect 6th gen fighters will be unmanned, so 4th and 6th gen might operate after 5th gen are replaced rather than 5th and 6th operating together.

Again I think we are getting lost with categories instead of facts. LTS is thought from the very beginning as unmanned, so is it 6G?

I think for the next 5 years the MiG-35 will be made in numbers... probably 300

300 in 5 years?? By now it would seem rather 5 in 300 years, they have just talked about the Swifts, as expected, and the most likely outcome is to have a token buy to encourage export customers. But with the LTS progressing at the speed it is doing, not even that is for sure. When we said it was taking too much time for finishing the MiG-35 we were not talking out of thin air, they have given time to Sukhoi to undercut them with a product which is much more modern and claims to be more economical. I am at a loss to figure out why would anyone buy the MiG-35 with the LTS being around the corner, unless in extreme need or being a MiG-29 user with not so high expectations already. UAC themselves explained that most of the costs of operating a plane derive from the engine, and with single engines you halve a good portion of them. How does worse performance and worse economics make the MiG-35 a preferable option to LTS, when they are not even done with state tests yet?

External carriage actually increases fuel consumption and reduces performance, don't know why it would reduce operational costs. The issue of payload options was also discussed and the Su-57 matches the Flanker.

Not enough to matter much at subsonic speeds.

Why does the F-35 cost the British 90K pounds an hour to operate?

It might reduce top speed and acceleration a little but having 14 external weapon hard points for missiles is a serious advantage the Su-35 has over the Su-57, which makes the Su-35 useful even with Su-57s around.

The Su-57 matches the Flanker only when it gives up its stealth advantage by carrying external stores.

You talk about the LMFS as if it exists and you have seen it...

Are you going to deny the existence of the model shown?

Are you going to assume those three models shown were 3D printed hours before the airshow started from some hard drive of one of the ideas they had?

I suggest looking at the facts instead of sticking to talking points. What other Russian fighters of any generation are being currently marketed for export for $30 m like the Checkmate?

Yes, lets look at the facts... The LMFS was put on hold until the PAK FA was in serial production, so unless something has completely changed MiG will now be receiving funding to produce MiG-35s and also to develop the LMFS, a model of which we have actually seen.

Most critical fact is that the Checkmate is a project being funded by a foreign country with no input from the Russian military, and by their own admission no interest from the Russian military yet.

30 million is probably what their MiG-29M2s cost to buy... if they wanted super cheap they would be buying those, but they are instead funding and buying MiG-35s.

I really don't get what is this with "4G will not be replaced with 5G", that makes no sense.

It appears the F-35 is already being replaced in the west... and the F-22 is over too... they are talking about 2030 to withdraw the F-22 from service.

When all the stealth fighters in the west are paper projects and upgrade F-15s and F-16s does Russia even need 6th gen fighters... 4th gen are cheaper and get the job done.

LTS is thought from the very beginning as unmanned, so is it 6G?

They never bothered to get the oxygen generating systems working in their F-22 and F-35s so they perhaps were thinking unmanned too?

300 in 5 years?? By now it would seem rather 5 in 300 years, they have just talked about the Swifts, as expected, and the most likely outcome is to have a token buy to encourage export customers.

There are clearly only a few bits holding them back from full production... once they are sorted they should be able to build them in numbers.... what part of numbers aircraft are you not getting?

But with the LTS progressing at the speed it is doing, not even that is for sure.

Progressing for the country that is paying for it, which is no business of the Russian Air Force...

When we said it was taking too much time for finishing the MiG-35 we were not talking out of thin air, they have given time to Sukhoi to undercut them with a product which is much more modern and claims to be more economical.

Claims, and there is no LTS product ready yet either.

I am at a loss to figure out why would anyone buy the MiG-35 with the LTS being around the corner, unless in extreme need or being a MiG-29 user with not so high expectations already.

Who said the Russian Air Force wants an all 5th gen fleet of aircraft?

Plans don't fall from the sky... it takes years of planning and preparation... they are not just going to change their existing plans because Sukhoi has ripped one of the engines out of an Su-57 and redesigned it as a lighter aircraft and a country has decided to pay for it.

UAC themselves explained that most of the costs of operating a plane derive from the engine, and with single engines you halve a good portion of them.

Well they are trying to sell a single engined light fighter... what else are they going to say?

How does worse performance and worse economics make the MiG-35 a preferable option to LTS, when they are not even done with state tests yet?

This aircraft has not even flown and you are making bold claims for it.... I remember claims that the F-35 was going to make all other fighters redundant and easy meat because they wont detect it and it will be better than all other fighters... and everyone will buy them so they will be cheap and the new servicing system will be a miracle and make it even cheaper. Replacing all similar aircraft will mean it is even more affordable and cheaper to operate... some sort of super plane.

Get rid of your F-16s and F-18s and Harriers and all your other planes because you wont need them...

The MiG-35 makes sense because it is in production NOW, which is preferable to the promise of something that might be flying in 5 years time... 5th gen fighters are complex... it was about 10 years between the Su-57 first taxi on a runway and serial production, and the LTS will be optimised for all sorts of different missions and flight conditions that is going to need proper testing too... The paying customer might delay it a couple of times because they want better stealth or some other such feature... like canards for better flight performance.

I'm thinking they need to be seen totally in conjunction with the canted stabilizers. When the paddles move up with the stabilizers twisting outwards they cup the air inwards to give the paddles greater energy for upward pitch in this case

The vertical stabilisers aren't really canted enough to have significant pitch effect, if they're expected to do pitch they should be canted out around 45deg.

I do think they help funnel/constrain the air flow so that a narrow but vertically much deeper than normal volume of air is diverted.