Sukhoi LTS "Checkmate" #2

GarryB wrote:They are also working on new long range missiles with multiple mini missiles to engage groups of targets at great distances too.

Does this mean that the missile will be a long range missile (200kms +) that will go deep inside enemy airspace and then release a number of mini missiles that can independently target a few aircraft of the adversary?

I would assume so, and I suspect the new long range missile would be the missile they would base it on as a version for use in specific situations.

For instance firing one R-33 150km to a target to shoot down a cruise missile is not a very efficient use of that rocket motor when 50kgs of HE are used to obliterate one cruise missile.

In comparison... you could take five Igla-S missiles and remove their rocket motors so they weigh about 5kgs each around a core warhead with an IIR seeker.

At 150km range the entire missile would have been lofted to high altitude to reach that distance so all these separate warheads will be falling from a great height down on the target area... lets say they fall from 30km altitude as it is coming down the core IIR seeker can look for targets... the solid rocket motor could have been dropped to reduce drag and as the warhead compartment falls a central core with an IIR sensor and a 10kg warhead could scan for individual targets... the nose fairing could pop off and expose the missile seekers of the Iglas which could be cued by the IR view from the core warhead and released or ejected to follow their own path against their own target... the biggest target could be locked on by the core warhead/payload section and it can attack that while the other warhead/payloads steer towards the other targets.

If done right the core will hit the plane and the small missiles any weapons the plane has launched, or other nearby planes.

No radar emissions and once the fairing is dumped these incoming missiles will take a few seconds to heat up due to friction of falling at mach 3-4 so the targets might not get much warning at all they are under an attack...

Igla-S has a proximity fuse so it can take out small targets like cruise missiles and other standoff munitions.

They might have versions for medium range missiles as well as long range heavy missiles... and it would actually make sense to do the same with SAMs where the biggest S-400 missile with a range of 400km probably would not need a 150kg HE warhead.

In fact you could probably pack the 9M100 missiles without rocket motors as warheads for other heavier missiles too in the same way as they will already have IIR seekers and digital datalinks.

Chinese copy of the Checkmate?) 

If so they have brain issue or copying is somehow orgasmic.

IMO it's a new j-31 for export. So f-35.

Any link about that ? When are they showing it ?

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:Chinese copy of the Checkmate?) 
.....

I predict side intakes and horizontal stabilizers

It doesn't seem to have full wings. Maybe a naval j-31 with folding wings.

Isos wrote:It doesn't seem to have full wings. Maybe a naval j-31 with folding wings.

Looks like the outline of that stealthy j-10

[quote="TMA1"]

Isos wrote:It doesn't seem to have full wings. Maybe a naval j-31 with folding wings.

Looks like the outline of that stealthy j-10-like aircraft. Chinese always try to steal Russias thunder. I think even checkmate took the chicoms by surprise. I hope Russia goes all the way and sells them at first at a loss to build up export numbers. Dont expect China to get same treatment from the western world that Russia does. Our leaders are totally corrupted by the Chinese. I can guarantee caatsa won't be used for any single engine fighter that china sells. Just russia. Worse, the chinese will try to undercut russia.

TMA1 wrote:

TMA1 wrote:

Isos wrote:It doesn't seem to have full wings. Maybe a naval j-31 with folding wings.

Looks like the outline of that stealthy j-10-like aircraft. Chinese always try to steal Russias thunder. I think even checkmate took the chicoms by surprise. I hope Russia goes all the way and sells them at first at a loss to build up export numbers. Dont expect China to get same treatment from the western world that Russia does. Our leaders are totally corrupted by the Chinese. I can guarantee caatsa won't be used for any single engine fighter that china sells. Just russia. Worse, the chinese will try to undercut russia.

Looking how chinese expends, nato will have to buy checkmates and su-57 one day or another.

Isos wrote:Any link about that ? When are they showing it ?

Dambiev (Asian Russian-speaking military informant) Telegram channel. He said that this is a light single-engine fighter for export

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:Chinese copy of the Checkmate?) 

The idea as always is to create a product by copying/ reverse engineering an existing Russian, Western design forcing the original manufacturer/ designer to suffer major financial losses.

Chinese keeping it classy, as always.

As of today their copies were totally shitty a.d not widely sold. Never sold j-11 or hq-9 for exemple. And the tanks they sold like t-55/62 copies to iraq were easy targets for enemy tanks.

So no one suffer from their copies.

Of course the Chinese are going to adopt clever solutions and ideas... why wouldn't they... why shouldn't they?

A light low cost but advanced fighter is what the F-16 was and it was what the F-35 was supposed to be but isn't.

Who would not want an affordable fighter.

The Russians said they developed the checkmate for the JF-17 market of affordable but 5th gen fighters for Asia and Africa and central and south America.

Odds are it is still going to be a capable aircraft... not F-22 or Su-57 good but a working aircraft which makes it better than the F-35 and other vapourware competition others are proposing.

The best thing about Chinese copies is that they can make them very cheap, but often too cheap in some cases... not a problem if you only ever use them in parades, but if you have to take them to war then a serious problem...

GarryB wrote:I would assume so

Does this missile have a name, even an experimental one?

GarryB wrote:I suspect the new long range missile would be the missile they would base it on as a version for use in specific situations.

For instance firing one R-33 150km to a target to shoot down a cruise missile is not a very efficient use of that rocket motor when 50kgs of HE are used to obliterate one cruise missile.

I would suspect that the mini missiles that this long range missile will release will all have the same type of guidance.

If let's say one of the mini missile is IR guided, the other radar guided a third electro-optical then guiding these missiles to their target will be difficult.

If so they have brain issue or copying is somehow orgasmic.

To be fair a light cheap 5th gen fighter is what everyone wants and what everyone starts out designing... even the F-35 was supposed to be affordable so it could be bought in enormous numbers...

Does this missile have a name, even an experimental one?

I think LMFS posted some information about their work on such weapons in the air to air missiles thread.

Strictly speaking it is not a totally new concept, because the Soviets had cluster munition warheads for the cruise missiles where the missile to could fly to an enemy runway and then just fly low and fast down the length of the runway popping up cluster munitions that would be a mix of rocket powered concrete piercing munitions and also anti vehicle mines to make holes the length of the runway and to damage any vehicles trying to repair the runway... The AS-18 could also carry such a warhead and perform such an attack...

I would suspect that the mini missiles that this long range missile will release will all have the same type of guidance.

I would agree, though IIR offers night and all weather capacity and would also be effective against stealthy targets, but then a passive radar homing seeker included as well and it could attack targets scanning to try to find you... the launch platform too...

If let's say one of the mini missile is IR guided, the other radar guided a third electro-optical then guiding these missiles to their target will be difficult.

I agree, but then if the target is a C-17 that has 1,000 stealthy standoff munitions it is seeding/launching, then the core missile could be ARH and hit the not stealthy C-17 or B-52 or B-1B which are not particularly stealthy even from the front let alone from high altitude... if the mini missiles are IR guided their seekers could be directed by ARH radar in the same way a MiG-29s radar can be used to track targets and point IR guided missiles to look for and lock targets before launch.

The advantage of this is that if you have 4-5 lock on after launch IIR guided missiles there needs to be coodination and communication or they might all lock onto the same target... having them locked onto different targets before launch eliminates that problem.

Of course with new generation missiles mixed guidance systems makes them more flexible and more capable... for instance just a standard R-37M going after an AWACS.... it might just home in on radar emissions, but if the AWACS shuts down its radar it would need to switch to ARH, but a clever multi sensor design could look at where the radar emission it was homing in on and if the radar emission stops or even if it doesn't it could look for the IR spike you get with a high energy radar antenna that is operating creating lots of heat even after the radar is turned off. ARH could be the last resort... or for inflight refuelling aircraft, or troop carrying aircraft... or JSTARS.

GarryB wrote:The problem for the US is that the Russians don't rely on AWACS to detect and track enemy targets, they use OTH radar with much greater range and much better performance to detect and track targets very early on.

U.S operates AWACS over/close to enemy territory.

How does a Russian OTH radar placed in Russia help to detect targets in Syria or Afghanistan?

RTN wrote:

GarryB wrote:The problem for the US is that the Russians don't rely on AWACS to detect and track enemy targets, they use OTH radar with much greater range and much better performance to detect and track targets very early on.

U.S operates AWACS over/close to enemy territory.

How does a Russian OTH radar placed in Russia help to detect targets in Syria or Afghanistan?

Ask the f-35 pilots that were detected in Iraq by a russian radar from russian soil.

RTN wrote:

GarryB wrote:The problem for the US is that the Russians don't rely on AWACS to detect and track enemy targets, they use OTH radar with much greater range and much better performance to detect and track targets very early on.

U.S operates AWACS over/close to enemy territory.

How does a Russian OTH radar placed in Russia help to detect targets in Syria or Afghanistan?

Dude, have you seen ranges on those things?

Also Russia operates AWACS as well, it's not a new thing

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:Chinese copy of the Checkmate?) 

Disinformation. It was just a J-20

RTN wrote:

GarryB wrote:The problem for the US is that the Russians don't rely on AWACS to detect and track enemy targets, they use OTH radar with much greater range and much better performance to detect and track targets very early on.

U.S operates AWACS over/close to enemy territory.

How does a Russian OTH radar placed in Russia help to detect targets in Syria or Afghanistan?

Doesn't NORAD, Filingdales and Oman have US made equivalents?

RTN wrote:

GarryB wrote:The problem for the US is that the Russians don't rely on AWACS to detect and track enemy targets, they use OTH radar with much greater range and much better performance to detect and track targets very early on.

U.S operates AWACS over/close to enemy territory.

How does a Russian OTH radar placed in Russia help to detect targets in Syria or Afghanistan?

OTH and wave riding radar emit long wve beams that bounce back on higher layers of atmosfere (or sea surface in case of wave riding ones) and get reflected on surface, the return echo do the same.
You need obviously a lot of emitting power to do that hence why they have fixed installations,.
Main advantage is that due to that they are completely impervious to any type of RCS reduction, main con is that they are strictly 2D ones.

You can however go to the thread "russia radar"s and you will get any further information you would need.

JohninMK wrote:

RTN wrote:

GarryB wrote:The problem for the US is that the Russians don't rely on AWACS to detect and track enemy targets, they use OTH radar with much greater range and much better performance to detect and track targets very early on.

U.S operates AWACS over/close to enemy territory.

How does a Russian OTH radar placed in Russia help to detect targets in Syria or Afghanistan?

Doesn't NORAD, Filingdales and Oman have US made equivalents?

Surely, tech is well know by decades: I am however unaware if modern western ones are capable to deal with tactical fighters size target like Voronezh are specifically designed to do.
In the end it can be just the same than it was with all the new AD system and modernization of older one they have made in the last 30 years: all effortsdirected against ballistic missile threat and nothing against atmosferic ones.
Found nothing about Oman one but Iran got russian Resonans-NE radar and developed a local version of the same called Quasir.

Filingdales, Thule and Beale are clearly described to be used only against such threats.