Sukhoi LTS "Checkmate" #2

Actually it seems the maiority of Mig-29 in russian service are UB model used to train foreign pilots, to act as a sort of aggressor squadron or to mantain reserve pilot flight proficency.
It seems that they even prefer to use the older models for thins until they are still flyable while keeping the newer MiG-29SMT aground.

GarryB wrote:Certainly very carefully vetted to ensure nothing actually secret was revealed, and with specific areas of the factory hidden or just not visible.

Totally secret, yes

They are getting a 5th gen fighter cheaper than their current 4th gen fighters by a wide margin if we talk about countries with access to western fighters... it needs to be acceptable, it does not need to be a superstar in terms of performance.

Agreed, but still being cheap, renewing the fleet of fighters is a huge investment for many countries and there is a strong concurrence in the market. 8 g airframe is acceptable, not stellar.

As Mindstorm alludes I don't think this is going to be a Russian F-16 at low speeds and low altitudes on a front line... I suspect from his comments about the control surfaces either side of the engine mean this is a super cruiser that operates at altitude that delivers attacks and strikes from distances... which is rather odd because traditionally that is the role of the heavy fighter (F-22).

I am not sure what you mean, all fighters today try to use stand-off weapons and F-16 is certainly not a CAS plane. The elevators are an elegant way of using that space and the airfoil shaped fuselage, nothing to do with supercruising. that I can imagine.

It will be very reliant on its TVC nozzle for manouver performance at lower speeds which will be interesting and is not to say it wont be manouverable, but its actual flight performance needs to be seen...

Any fighter with TVC would rely mainly on it for low speed maneouvering...

An early prototype... what does he have on his desk to play with now?

That MiG of yours

The Purpose of MAKS is to display what you are doing to attract attention and get customers... are they supposed to keep it all completely secret and pretend they are doing nothing at all?

They had many MAKS for that and they just hyped the MiG-35, it seems that does not cut it anymore...

They showed three models... it is hilarious that your warped mind can accept they are developing a naval fighter with two engines, but ignore the single engined land based fighter they already said they were working on that they also showed. They said they were working on a twin and a single engined light 5th gen land based fighter and by showing one as a ground based and one as a ship based they have showed us both versions of the planes they plan to develop and also the drone they plan to offer to operate with both aircraft.

You mean, that trainer aircraft?? Tell me you are joking please

For the reason that Russia does not print its money like America does and cannot waste money pissing it away on lots of fighter programmes at one time.

Maybe, I don't know.

Not MiGs problem. For all we know the LTS might be a special plane with very specific capabilities and performance that really does not suit most countries, so they might only buy a few and use them as supercruising 5th gen fighters... that while affordable leave a gap of light weight high manouver bomb trucks.... hey... lets fill that gap with MiG-35s.

Now read that again and tell me you are not kidding me... an export multirole cheap plane marketed for the widest possible customer base that in reality is designed as a super expensive, specialised, redundant supercruiser carefully crafted so that only few units are sold... that really takes the cake

Do you want to check the payload / range performance of the LTS compared to the MiG-35 please? Don't even bother, it is a 15% above in the first and 50% in the second, not even counting the effects of external stations on the performance of the MiG-35...

Sensitive has different meanings... in terms of sales to the US sensitive means giving away Russian defence secrets... ie examination of the S-400 will help them defeat Russian S-400s defending Russia, which is not the case, but it would be sensitive in the sense that it would teach US engineers how to build a decent SAM system that is effective and capable, sensitive in the sense that it could be used by US military forces to continue their rampage of murder and pillage around the planet...

They knew the US would be too proud to openly accept such an offer... the more so because if they spent a few billion making the US safer, they would know those billions would go to making S-400PMU2 etc etc, which would only make their position worse... and there are few enemy air forces contemplating an attack on the US anyway so it would not be useful even if it was possible.

When they sell it to a NATO country it means they don't give a damn about US getting their hands on it, pretty much. Turkey is infiltrated by the US to the bone, still to this day, and the political course of the country can change anytime and a new puppet put in place of Erdogan.

The MIG model had one engine if you take a second look... does your bias and hate effect your eyesight and memory so badly?

The criticism of the MiG model was that it looked like a LIFT... which is what you would expect a light 5th gen fighter that is cheap but still manouverable and useful to look like isn't it?

Some members here have described the Rafale as looking like a LIFT too.. with its awkward fixed inflight refuelling probe...

Sorry, I could not imagine that you were talking about that trainer as if it was a fighter.

It is amusing you come up with all this as though you had inside knowledge.

Presenting a case that Checkmate is all anyone needs... without knowing all its details and purpose, or any comment from the VKS is amusing, but it does not explain a lot of things that I and others have brought up.

Inside knowledge also known as common sense?

Tell me all those things unexplained please

They wouldn't be testing it if it had not been fully developed... or do you think they hand over an early prototype and say hey... test this and get back to us on what needs to be developed.  Microsoft testing. F-35 testing.

They close the development when they are done with state testing. To be fair, in the case of the MiG-35 and some other projects considered low risk, they order VKS owned planes as part of that process, in new products they never do that.

Ah, it's funny to see fanboys in work for the Checkmate, the same guys who used any and all chances to trash talk the F-35.

Shoes on the other foot now ain't it, but unless Russia or a major country provides funding this project is dead in the water. The plan has only just started its development phase and even a "cheap stealth fighter" is by no means cheap to produce or develop.

The checkmate better hopes it gets some super-rich and patient backers otherwise this plane will become vaporware, after all the Russian Gov isn't assisting with funding for the aircraft.

If they do manage to produce it we will see how good it is. I had the same attitude with the F-35 and I'll have the same attitude with this plane.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Ah, it's funny to see fanboys in work for the Checkmate, the same guys who used any and all chances to trash talk the F-35.

The F-35 program is a failure, it doesn't get trash-talked as much as it should

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Shoes on the other foot now ain't it, but unless Russia or a major country provides funding this project is dead in the water.

You mean like the UAE?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:The plan has only just started its development phase and even a "cheap stealth fighter" is by no means cheap to produce or develop.

Good thing the Su-57 has done most of the work for the Checkmate, Russian ingenuity at its best.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:The checkmate better hopes it gets some super-rich and patient backers otherwise this plane will become vaporware, after all the Russian Gov isn't assisting with funding for the aircraft.

A 5th Generation plane for $30M becoming vaporware, lmfao.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:If they do manage to produce it we will see how good it is. I had the same attitude with the F-35 and I'll have the same attitude with this plane.

Just remember to add extra salt and seasoning to that crow you'll be eating by 2027.

Try harder troll

It's not that cheap actually since it's just using tech developed for su-57 which was costly.

IMO they are aware su-57 won't be a success at export since only China and India can buy a lot of them and they won't. Other countries can't afford tens/hundreds of big twin engine 5th gen fighters. US sanctions are also a big pain in the ass.

They developed this one as a continuation of su-57 to attract smaller countries and IMO it will be a success.

This plane is just half of a su-57. It's part of su-57 program.

Isos wrote:It's not that cheap actually since it's just using tech developed for su-57 which was costly.

IMO they are aware su-57 won't be a success at export since only China and India can buy a lot of them and they won't. Other countries can't afford tens/hundreds of big twin engine 5th gen fighters. US sanctions are also a big pain in the ass.

They developed this one as a continuation of su-57 to attract smaller countries and IMO it will be a success.

This plane is just half of a su-57. It's part of su-57 program.

The only thing that matters is the price to the consumer. You are going to have to demonstrate an explicit subsidy if you are going
to try to claim that the cost of production is "actually" high.

Everything new has startup costs. There is no such thing as late stage economies of scale at the onset.

It seems that they even prefer to use the older models for thins until they are still flyable while keeping the newer MiG-29SMT aground.

Most of the older MiG-29s were intended for use in Frontal Aviation for short range operations so long range navigation and other operations were not something they were equipped for.

Now that they are producing MiG-35s they might start using them as front support aircraft and start filling out frontal aviation type units.

Totally secret, yes

You can't take metallurgy samples from a photo...

Agreed, but still being cheap, renewing the fleet of fighters is a huge investment for many countries and there is a strong concurrence in the market. 8 g airframe is acceptable, not stellar.

There are plenty of those +9/-3 g fighters you think everyone has that can't pull more than 5 g with certain load outs on board... amusing you think that one g is so critical.

Any fighter with TVC would rely mainly on it for low speed maneouvering...

I would say bullshit, but obviously in this case a plane with no horizontal tail surface and no canards would have to rely on it.

Close in views of MiG-29OVT fighters flying around the place show they use TVC AND conventional control surfaces during their manouvering... if the MiG-29OVT didn't use its horizontal tail surfaces then it would actually make a lot of sense to remove them to reduce drag and reduce weight...

That MiG of yours

When it comes back from the MAKS airshow... obviously they would make only one.

They had many MAKS for that and they just hyped the MiG-35, it seems that does not cut it anymore...

Perhaps they view MAKS as a chance to show what is coming... last MAKS that was still MiG-35, but they are being delivered, so now the future is three new projects... though none of the three were MiG-41s of course either.

You mean, that trainer aircraft?? Tell me you are joking please

It honestly looks like a Yak-130 with a single engine... and there was supposed to be a light fighter prototype of the Yak-130 with a single engine for use as a cheap fighter... which makes sense.

If they have a new engine... presumably with more power... so currently they are at about 9 tons thrust with the engines for the MiG-29/35 so a new 10-12 ton thrust engine would make an interesting light fighter below the Checkmate that would probably slot right in to that JF-17 gap in the market.... a real MiG-21 cheap fighter that any country could afford to buy and to operate.... hey... even New Zealand...

Maybe, I don't know.

We do know... the light 5th gen stealth fighter programme has been on hold while the 5th gen PAK FA programme has been completed...

Perhaps MiG is so slow because funding is minimal or it is under funded...

an export multirole cheap plane marketed for the widest possible customer base that in reality is designed as a super expensive, specialised, redundant supercruiser carefully crafted so that only few units are sold... that really takes the cake

What do export customers want from a 5th gen fighter? A slow low flying target for HATO forces to overwhelm with numbers after they destroy their airfields with long range cruise missiles?

A supercruiser covers lots of airspace quickly and can move from threat to threat while having the best radar perspective of the battlefield and giving its weapons max reach.

How can that be redundant?

Do you want to check the payload / range performance of the LTS compared to the MiG-35 please? Don't even bother, it is a 15% above in the first and 50% in the second, not even counting the effects of external stations on the performance of the MiG-35...

Is it as good as the anticipated F-35 performance or the Achieved performance.... because it is the latter that actually counts.

Sorry, I could not imagine that you were talking about that trainer as if it was a fighter.

You total Snob.

All this bullshit from you about MiG-35s being to big and heavy and too much like an Su-35 for them to bother needing it as well and MiG shows a light fighter that is clearly ACTUALLY light and you discard the very idea as being too light.

Then the MiG-21 and F-5 were both probably too light as well but they seemed to be successful because of that, rather than in spite of it.

Inside knowledge also known as common sense?

I am right because I am smart and you disagree so you are not just wrong but also stupid.

Common sense in the west is that Russia is stupid and broke and about to collapse... just after they attack us all and invade.

Common sense is knowledge via poll, and by definition is prone to being bullshit.

Tell me all those things unexplained please

Repeat them again... if you didn't listen the first time will repeating them make any difference at all?

Ah, it's funny to see fanboys in work for the Checkmate, the same guys who used any and all chances to trash talk the F-35.

When you say trash talk... a little balanced criticism might have saved that programme by leading to solutions instead of shifting the goal posts... I rather suspect 2030 will see the US with F-15s and modified F-16 in production, so the race for a new Russian light 5th gen fighter is not really anything like urgent or critical really...

LMFS complains that MiG-35 is late... well it is not later than the F-15 and F-16s the Americans will be making in the next few decades.

Shoes on the other foot now ain't it, but unless Russia or a major country provides funding this project is dead in the water.

What are you talking about... they are just fishing for customers... this is a new light plane assembled from the bits of the bigger plane they are already putting into production. If America was not so dumb and didn't compromise the F-35 design to need to include VSTOL capability then they could have done what Sukhoi are doing now with their F-22... no need for 1.5 trillion in funding and development and it probably would already be in mass production with 3,500 already made.

It wouldn't be stealthy enough to matter a damn but would be a step up from what they had... unlike the F-35.

The plan has only just started its development phase and even a "cheap stealth fighter" is by no means cheap to produce or develop.

Looks like they just need structural tests and then this thing is ready to fly.

I don't think it is going to be a dancer, but what western fighter is?

The checkmate better hopes it gets some super-rich and patient backers otherwise this plane will become vaporware, after all the Russian Gov isn't assisting with funding for the aircraft.

This project is backed and in much better shape than most 5th gen light alternatives except ironically Chinese who have the money to make theirs on their own.

This plane is going to sell well simply because it will be affordable to buy and to actually use.

I had the same attitude with the F-35 and I'll have the same attitude with this plane.

The F-35 was handicapped by stupid decisions all through its development. Spreading production to make it congress proof made it expensive. Cutting costs meant using substandard and cheap materials and short cuts which leads to 800 plus problems with the aircraft and its design including 20 odd very serious life threatening things. The dispersed production means transport costs alone make it expensive to buy and operate and the supply and logistics system was so complicated they are not going to make it... what sort of impact will that have I wonder.

Making it ship and land based should not be the end of the world but making it VSTOL capable was.

A 5th Generation plane for $30M becoming vaporware, lmfao.

The queue will be forming around the corner and down the street.

Even sweeter than that all the HATO countries locked into contracts for F-35s are going to cry salty tears and bleed from the defence budget for years over this.

IMO they are aware su-57 won't be a success at export since only China and India can buy a lot of them and they won't. Other countries can't afford tens/hundreds of big twin engine 5th gen fighters. US sanctions are also a big pain in the ass.

That is important... US sanctions will limit the number of countries wanting to get ostracised and abused by US and her cronies, so a dozen Su-57s wont be enough if it gets violent...

Everything new has startup costs. There is no such thing as late stage economies of scale at the onset.

Buying Russian made aircraft can be very cheap, but India for example demanding local production and the integration of local and foreign equipment can make it much much more expensive...

Aside from politics, fourth gens of the same Weight class have nothing to offer against such an airplane, they're more expensive, carry less, very probably less Agile especially with external stores, and have avionics architecture/aerodynamic modeling that belongs to the 90s and early 2000s

Agree with the sentiment of what you said, but don't go overboard. An F-16 with 7 tons of external stores flys like a dog but loaded out with AMRAAMs and Sidewinders it can fly just as well as if it is clean, and the same with the MiG-35.... they are designed to carry external ordinance.

This Checkmate is going to sell very well when it is ready... it is clearly not going to take 20 years to develop but it is equally not going to be ready next year either.

Considering other light 5th gen fighter projects I think this would be a very good one to invest in... any country considering a Gripen purchase might be having second thoughts now.

As I mentioned though, if you need something now then a MiG-35 is not the worst plane you could buy and it seems there will be a very light 5th gen fighter on its way to follow it up.

BTW I think it is enormously Ironic that LMFS (the member) dismisses the MiG single engined design as too light because I kept telling him that a twin engined model would be better and he claimed it would be too heavy... so which is it?

The land based twin engined model is likely very similar to the twin engined carrier design shown, but I suspect the Russian AF want a very light front line swing aircraft to operate with CAS aircraft and helicopters and perform attack and fighter missions... flight ranges of 3,000km being irrelevant, and payloads of 7 tons ridiculous... small and light and cheap and in numbers.

GarryB wrote:You can't take metallurgy samples from a photo...

It is a moot point Garry, they have cleared Su-57 for export. You can think they have a fully separated metallurgy for things like the plane structure in domestic and export versions, I think they haven't. But in any case, once the plane can be sold abroad, it means it does not matter, customer can have both Su-57 and/or LTS and do as he pleases with them.

last MAKS that was still MiG-35, but they are being delivered, so now the future is three new projects... though none of the three were MiG-41s of course either.

Of course no PAK-DP, that is a real program.

MiG-35 was already being delivered in the last MAKS. And in the MAKS before too...

What do export customers want from a 5th gen fighter? A slow low flying target for HATO forces to overwhelm with numbers after they destroy their airfields with long range cruise missiles?

A supercruiser covers lots of airspace quickly and can move from threat to threat while having the best radar perspective of the battlefield and giving its weapons max reach.

How can that be redundant?

Supercruising as per the strict interpretation, the only meaningful one, means >1.5 M, that is reserved to F-22 and second stage Su-57. It demands a specific, expensive, big airframe that is justified for the highest end air superiority platforms. That feature is not critical for a light, cheap numbers tactical plane, but of course it would be always a "nice to have". LTS with the current engine will not be able to supercruise other than maybe marginally, with the izd. 30 and followers it may be different though. It is redundant because they have the Su-57 already.

All this bullshit from you about MiG-35s being to big and heavy and too much like an Su-35 for them to bother needing it as well and MiG shows a light fighter that is clearly ACTUALLY light and you discard the very idea as being too light.

It is too small to carry internal weapons and enough fuel and equipment for 5G operational requirements, this should be trivial to see.

LMFS complains that MiG-35 is late... well it is not later than the F-15 and F-16s the Americans will be making in the next few decades.

Maybe MiG can sell it to the US for their upcoming 4.5G fighter program to replace the F-16, that one that they should start in 6 or 7 years  

BTW I think it is enormously Ironic that LMFS  (the member)  dismisses the MiG single engined design as too light because I kept telling him that a twin engined model would be better and he claimed it would be too heavy... so which is it?

A 4.5G plane with two engines, sized like the MiG-29, is overlapping a lot with the Flanker types, it is intrinsically more expensive than a single engine plane and brings extra operational headaches since it has no commonality with the heavy fighters. Going to 5G, internal bays mainly increase the platform size, you see with LTS the minimum airframe size that fits the internal compartments capable for meaningful tactical capabilities and still can use the same engine of a heavy fighter, the size is such, that they can even reuse fuselage elements. The difference with 4G is that reducing the size a bit and getting a proportional reduction in performance is not possible, because those bays will not fit anymore and then you would need to develop a whole new range of lower performance weapons just for your new half arsed plane.

The single engine plane MiG has presented is a tiny thing, probably to be propelled by one RD-33 sized engine, if not something smaller or even without AB, and is small even by 4G standards. You can see from the wing design what kind of supersonic performance you can expect from it...I mean, it is basically a trainer and you are saying it is a single engine Yak-130 yourself

The land based twin engined model is likely very similar to the twin engined carrier design shown, but I suspect the Russian AF want a very light front line swing aircraft to operate with CAS aircraft and helicopters and perform attack and fighter missions... flight ranges of 3,000km being irrelevant, and payloads of 7 tons ridiculous... small and light and cheap and in numbers.

We will see, I am not going to repeat again the calculations and arguments that we have gone over already.

Mine two kopecks on the possible outcome of this program....


For start we must not discard, in a preconceived way, any of the critical or skeptical positions -included those of SeigSoloyvov, whatever would be its true intentions -; only that will assure that the debate will not reproduce the typical western self-referential ramblings where anyone limit its critical thinking only within the boundaries of all the elements and variables on the positive side of the favoured object.


The program at today is still in the phase one of technological feasibility and design validation and while several of its technologies and even singular key systems are truly already completed (because have received letter O1 in other programs ....and not only from Су-57's one) majority of those relative to its glider'design , airflow management and above all hull material composition and construction - that should assure a true abatement of the costs of production and maintenance of the airframe without a significative degradation of the reduction of its effective area of dispersion, at the cost of some slight reduction of its mechanical characteristics - are still in theirs infancy.


On the financiary side the things are a lot less bleak than what portrayed in foreign media: ОАК has already collected, from internal reserves and foreign advance, all the funds necessary to complete research and development in phase one and two and produce and tests the first ground and flying prototypes.

Taking into account the huge impact that the successful completion of validation phase would have on the international military aviation market (above all for the technological breakthrough realtive to the reduction at times of the man's hours maintenace and average hour of flight costs) also for traditional not-OTAN buyers of US-made aircraft products, the unique real possibility of failure of the program is an engeenering one.

That possibility of failure ,even if not probable, anyhow cannot be excluded from the off.

@Mindstorm

the program can fail for a million of reasons, as any other complex undertaking can, and we all know it. That has nothing to do with current criticism, which comes from the West as predicted and, as normal, is devoid of technical merit and based on pure opportunism, butthurt and intellectual dishonesty. To somehow vindicate SS' argument of "design is not done" is unfortunate, he is just abusing the vagueness (for those not familiar with that activity) of the concept "design" and on top of that, already hedging for the case he is proven wrong, just to incite suspicion on people's minds that Sukhoi are not trustworthy.

As to the status of the program: once a prototype is being built, the design of the airframe needs to be done, it cannot be otherwise. It is not a final design to the last cable and screw, obviously, that will only happen years after the plane is serially produced and operating in the field, but all fundamental steps and decisions have been taken, the air vehicle is defined and countless simulations of the structure, aero, RCS, loads and many others have been completed. The big question IMHO about this program is how effectively the digital design paradigm is going to reproduce reality and Sukhoi, as per their usually outstanding approach to risk management, have been wise enough to use an existing plane, system and technologies as a base. This allows them to reduce the development time and cost (apart from obviously the price per unit), but also and very importantly, to detect flaws in their models and methods right at the beginning, because the pieces they are using are already fully qualified and therefore they have many of the results of the real world tests to calibrate their simulations. Not perfect, but a huge advantage.

Would Sukhoi, UAC, Rostec and the Russian leadership endorse the MAKS presentation as a pure stunt based on a poorly researched, incipient design, just to know they are going to be caught in a lie few years ahead and shown as a bunch of amateurs at best, and dishonest partners at worst? Everyone can have their own opinion, from the MIC responsible for the Avangard, Tsirkon, Su-57 etc. I don't have a reason to expect such poor judgement and in fact I have for almost a given that, when they have taken the step of going public, the level of certainty they have about the technical viability of the provided specs and costs is extremely high. The way Su-57 is progressing and more recently, the highly paced development of the Okhotnik are a clear sign that Sukhoi are in pretty good shape and there is no reasonable evidence that they should be taken for incompetent, providing the basis for such ill informed decisions.

To conclude: scepticism is always a healthy attitude and a must for anyone with a technical background, but throwing it for an agenda and without evidence has no merit and is, for those of us experienced, very easy to spot.

@GarryB

See this from the last interview to UEC's Remizov:

A serious product fork is the question of developing a new generation engine to replace the RD-33/93. In my opinion, this is an important and promising product niche. A number of new twin-engine platforms are currently being developed around the world, focused on engines of this size. We do not yet see such a promising platform in the plans of our key internal customer.

It is quite frequent that MoD does not say anything official about a product until it is ready and tested, they allow developers to put their own skin in the game instead of subsidizing their projects of happy engineering. It is an expedient way of handling MIC, it does not mean they actually have or not interest in one product.

https://tass.ru/interviews/11912687

LMFS wrote:the program can fail for a million of reasons, as any other complex undertaking can, and we all know it. That has nothing to do with current criticism, which comes from the West as predicted and, as normal, is devoid of technical merit and based on pure opportunism, butthurt and intellectual dishonesty. To somehow vindicate SS' argument of "design is not done" is unfortunate, he is just abusing the vagueness (for those not familiar with that activity) of the concept "design" and on top of that, already hedging for the case he is proven wrong, just to incite suspicion on people's minds that Sukhoi are not trustworthy.

I understand perfectly what you say, and probably the behind the scene purposes are just those highlighted byu you, but in mine opinion we must avoid anyway to ostracize those positions to avoid to reproduce western PR approach to dissent and plurality of thought that is, in reality, the exact opposite of what enunciated in theirs façade principles and underline instead those characteristic of our historical national tradition strongly and deeply inferential and facts-based.

LMFS wrote:As to the status of the program: once a prototype is being built, the design of the airframe needs to be done, it cannot be otherwise. It is not a final design to the last cable and screw, obviously, that will only happen years after the plane is serially produced and operating in the field, but all fundamental steps and decisions have been taken, the air vehicle is defined and countless simulations of the structure, aero, RCS, loads and many others have been completed. The big question IMHO about this program is how effectively the digital design paradigm is going to reproduce reality and Sukhoi, as per their usually outstanding approach to risk management, have been wise enough to use an existing plane, system and technologies as a base. This allows them to reduce the development time and cost (apart from obviously the price per unit), but also and very importantly, to detect flaws in their models and methods right at the beginning, because the pieces they are using are already fully qualified and therefore they have many of the results of the real world tests to calibrate their simulations.

The reduction of several times in production and maintenance/flight-hour costs of an aircraft with the planned characteristics of ЛТС ,that should surpass in almost all key metrics those of foreign counterparts in the same class such as FC-31 or F-35, will be not achieved by employing some solutions already developed and validated in other programs and with AI-aided modeling and virtual testing that simply shorten of several years the pre-prototype phases of design selection and modeling and technical solution integration and validation.

This approach has been firstly applied in the MiC by China several years ago for two of its most promising aerospace programs and is widely adopted today not only in Federation's Bureaux in several of its perspective programs but also in western MiC (it has been applied at example in the NGAD program in the US and by BAE in Europe in its Tempest program).

The reduction in unit procurement costs at the level of 25-30 ml (for the basis configuration obviously) and flight-hour costs to under Gripen level will be instead mainly the product of two technologies related to material science and single component making robotization and secondarily of a new integrated group of in-built sensors for diagnostic and a related software's algorithm.

Now those are the achievements that, while already developed, need in reality to be proved possible to integrate in a working aircraft (even more so complex and smbitious like ЛТС).

In facts, at example, a new easy to additivize composite with the planned electrical conductivity, plastic deformation threshold ,resistance to ossidation and high thermal tolerance, literally perfect for realize a very low effective area of dispersion airframe with dozen of times less susceptibility to wear and tear in comparison with existing solutions could in live test prove to be inefficient by something so trivial such as buffetting vibrations causing joint points to progressively deformate.

Obviously if specialists at Сухой would prove right US should really invent something new because even CAATSA would result totally ineffcient at prevent F-35 to be totally ousted from the market of not-OTAN nations.

It is a moot point Garry, they have cleared Su-57 for export. You can think they have a fully separated metallurgy for things like the plane structure in domestic and export versions, I think they haven't. But in any case, once the plane can be sold abroad, it means it does not matter, customer can have both Su-57 and/or LTS and do as he pleases with them.

That is true, but when China says they want to buy two planes they will say no.

Of course no PAK-DP, that is a real program.

Because they haven't finalised the design yet I rather suspect, and the final design is most likely going to be determined by what sort of engines will be used.

Supercruising as per the strict interpretation, the only meaningful one, means >1.5 M, that is reserved to F-22 and second stage Su-57

The strict definition is bullshit American propaganda... the key is maintaining supersonic flight speed in dry thrust... how you get to super sonic speed is meaningless, who gives a **** if you have to turn on the AB for five seconds to cross into supersonic speed... that is meaningless BS one way or the other... the critical thing is maintaining supersonic flight speed in dry thrust... that is what gives you the range performance... and the ability to launch missiles faster...

It is too small to carry internal weapons and enough fuel and equipment for 5G operational requirements, this should be trivial to see.

If it is too small they have a twin engined carrier design as a backup...

Besides... what sort of weapons capacity does it need... it could easily have conformal R-77M positions along its belly and fuselage weapon locations for WVR AAMs for air to air use. Once air targets have been dealt with external weapons for ground targets should be fine.

Strike missions deeper into enemy territory will be performed by larger aircraft and ballistic weapons... hell 100km strikes will be Hermes missiles against enemy armour rather than fighters.

Maybe MiG can sell it to the US for their upcoming 4.5G fighter program to replace the F-16, that one that they should start in 6 or 7 years

So you acknowledge that the Main enemy of Russia and main producer of opposing forces aircraft is even further behind than MiG... good.

A 4.5G plane with two engines, sized like the MiG-29, is overlapping a lot with the Flanker types,

MiG isn't talking about 4.5G aircraft. Their carrier design looks as stealthy as the Sukhoi LTS...

it is intrinsically more expensive than a single engine plane and brings extra operational headaches since it has no commonality with the heavy fighters.

You keep saying that but the Russian AF seems happy with Flanker fleets so far so it clearly isn't a critical factor now is it?

Going to 5G, internal bays mainly increase the platform size, you see with LTS the minimum airframe size that fits the internal compartments capable for meaningful tactical capabilities and still can use the same engine of a heavy fighter, the size is such, that they can even reuse fuselage elements. The difference with 4G is that reducing the size a bit and getting a proportional reduction in performance is not possible, because those bays will not fit anymore and then you would need to develop a whole new range of lower performance weapons just for your new half arsed plane.

So you keep saying, but that twin engine carrier plane MiG are designing likely is the ground based twin engined alternative if their single engined model is too small.

The single engine plane MiG has presented is a tiny thing, probably to be propelled by one RD-33 sized engine, if not something smaller or even without AB, and is small even by 4G standards.

Why would it be without AB?

And anyway if this LTS is using the current engine with a MTOW of 24 tons it is massively under powered too isn't it?

You can see from the wing design what kind of supersonic performance you can expect from it...I mean, it is basically a trainer and you are saying it is a single engine Yak-130 yourself

It is for Russia... what are your expectations for a light 5th gen fighter?

The whole point of a light 5th gen fighter is light and cheap... a jet trainer is light and cheap... a gripen is light and cheap... what is wrong with you... you want an L39 in cost and an Su-57 in performance?

We will see, I am not going to repeat again the calculations and arguments that we have gone over already.

Good.

just to incite suspicion on people's minds that Sukhoi are not trustworthy.

Well if MiG are lazy and incompetent and don't know what they are doing, Sukhoi is fair game too.

Would Sukhoi, UAC, Rostec and the Russian leadership endorse the MAKS presentation as a pure stunt based on a poorly researched, incipient design, just to know they are going to be caught in a lie few years ahead and shown as a bunch of amateurs at best, and dishonest partners at worst?

Would they have the time and the access to the models and engineering to do the calculations and work out it can be done in the time available?

Do you think the people behind the F-35 even talked to their own engineers before telling the money people sure... they can fix that... just give us more time and more money...

A serious product fork is the question of developing a new generation engine to replace the RD-33/93. In my opinion, this is an important and promising product niche. A number of new twin-engine platforms are currently being developed around the world, focused on engines of this size. We do not yet see such a promising platform in the plans of our key internal customer.

It depends on what the aircraft is intended for, if it is a light fighter just above jet trainer the it would not need a super powerful engine... the MiGs wings clearly show it is not meant to super cruise but how often would a frontal aviation MiG-29 go mach 2.3 in service?

For lower altitude transonic use the wing shown would be ideal and the lower thrust requirements would make the aircraft cheaper to buy and operate.

The new RD93M has 9.3 tons of thrust, which would make it a useful engine to begin with and success could spur the development of a decent 5th gen fighter engine replacement... perhaps ballpark 12 tons thrust...

The twin engined carrier based design shown could use the same new engine... in fact a land based twin engined design looks a lot like the LTS with its problems fixed... it has canard wings for better flight performance... and having two engines means TVC would be much more effective even in super stall conditions...

He is hardly going to talk about secret programmes yet...

At 2:23 the underneath shot of the single engined MiG model shows two large area bays and a small front bay on the belly... the small front one will be the nose wheel, but the two main bays are huge... way to big for main wheels, while there are clearly side fuselage bays that could contain the main wheels in a MiG-23 like compact main gear arrangement...

But lets not give it any further thought or discussion because MiG are stupid and lazy... and there can only be one new Russian fighter at a time and the LTS got dibs.

Mindstorm wrote:I understand perfectly what you say, and probably the behind the scene purposes are just those highlighted byu you, but in mine opinion we must avoid anyway to ostracize those positions to avoid to reproduce western PR approach to dissent and plurality of thought that is, in reality, the exact opposite of what enunciated in theirs façade principles and underline instead those characteristic of our historical national tradition strongly and deeply inferential and facts-based.

I totally agree and I think this board's tolerance is remarkable, I have been in other boards and I know how Western "tolerance" works, from lynching to censorship to shadow banning, in order to ensure compliance even at the level of an inoffensive online discussion. I just think fact based discussion should be reinforced and blatant sophistry should be called out.

The reduction of several times in production and maintenance/flight-hour costs of an aircraft with the planned characteristics of ЛТС ,that should surpass in almost all key metrics those of foreign counterparts in the same class such as FC-31 or F-35, will be not achieved by employing some solutions already developed and validated in other programs and with AI-aided modeling and virtual testing that simply shorten of several years the pre-prototype phases of design selection and modeling and technical solution integration and validation.

This approach has been firstly applied in the MiC by China several years ago for two of its most promising aerospace programs and is widely adopted today not only in Federation's Bureaux in several of its perspective programs but also in western MiC (it has been applied at example in the NGAD program in the US and by BAE in Europe in its Tempest program).

The reduction in unit procurement costs at the level of 25-30 ml (for the basis configuration obviously) and flight-hour costs to under Gripen level will be instead mainly the product of two technologies related to material science and single component making robotization and secondarily of a new integrated group of in-built sensors for diagnostic and a related software's algorithm.

Now those are the achievements that, while already developed, need in reality to be proved possible to integrate in a working aircraft (even more so complex and smbitious like ЛТС).

Maybe I missed something from the presentation, but I was not aware of those systems or at least not in that way.

- I don't quite get what you mean with that single component robotization, I don't know if that is connection with the point below about new materials for additive manufacturing?
- The sensors you talk about sound related to the airframe monitoring system the 2nd stage Su-57 should incorporate, is that what you mean? Then, predictive maintenance is also being addressed pretty much all over the world and is part of the now defunct ALIS logistic system of the F-35 and also of ODIN its successor. To be quite honest, the extent to which those algorithms can prevent downtime by actually detecting a damaged component before it actually fails is quite questionable. The potential is there but it will need many years to be fully employed.

Rather, the way I see the slashing of costs in LTS, without having anything but swallow information from the available sources:

- First and foremost, the completely different financials of Russian vs Western MIC, the later drowning in debt and bloated with underlying inflation, vs the lhe low value of the Ruble and effective setup of the Russian MIC.
- The lack of competition for 5G and advanced 4.5G light fighters in the international market allows the West to sell at exorbitant prices
- The use of already developed solutions. In military aircraft, the overhead coming from development and setup of the supply chain and production sites is very substantial due to the reduced size of the production, and LTS is very intelligently every possible element from the Su-57, essentially at cost zero. The program is taking this approach to a level unseen before, to the point that I understand GarryB saying that the LTS is a version of the Su-57 rather than a new plane. I don't agree at a global level, but a sub-airframe level, this is mostly true.
- The reduction of development time, for the same reason of reducing development overhead on the cost of single units
- To put that in context, they have talked about reducing the maintenance costs to those of a Gripen, which is a Western lighter but intrinsically more expensive plane for the reasons exposed above. I do think Russia can achieve that, simply by following the rationalization measures named above and by not being outright abusive like the West is.  

In facts, at example, a new easy to additivize composite with the planned electrical conductivity, plastic deformation threshold ,resistance to ossidation and high thermal tolerance, literally perfect for realize a very low effective area of dispersion airframe with dozen of times less susceptibility to wear and tear in comparison with existing solutions could in live test prove to be inefficient by something so trivial such as buffetting vibrations causing joint points to progressively deformate.

It would be interesting to know more of this, I am not aware of fiber based materials that can be 3D printed, and I would think this is pretty fundamental research to be applied on a fighter for which reliability, time to market and cost are a non negotiable condition. Risk management is king in this kind of program.

Obviously if specialists at Сухой would prove right US should really invent something new because even CAATSA would result totally ineffcient at prevent F-35 to be totally ousted from the market of not-OTAN nations.

 
They would need to bring their arm twisting to a whole new level indeed...

GarryB wrote:The strict definition is bullshit American propaganda... the key is maintaining supersonic flight speed in dry thrust... how you get to super sonic speed is meaningless, who gives a **** if you have to turn on the AB for five seconds to cross into supersonic speed... that is meaningless BS one way or the other... the critical thing is maintaining supersonic flight speed in dry thrust... that is what gives you the range performance... and the ability to launch missiles faster...

No it is not the same, until 1.2-1.3 M the transonic drag applies and it is huge. You don't want to waste fuel needing three times the thrust to go 0.3 M faster, that is retarded. You need to go beyond 1.5 M to for it to make sense, and the faster you go, the more difference it will make in your favour. The way Russians have designed the Su-57 tells you this is not just US BS.

Besides... what sort of weapons capacity does it need... it could easily have conformal R-77M positions along its belly and fuselage weapon locations for WVR AAMs for air to air use. Once air targets have been dealt with external weapons for ground targets should be fine.

A R-37 M is as big as any heavy piece of A2G ordnance. You need very long and deep bays to carry those, 4.5 x 1.2 x 0.7 m at least. Look how many planes out there have them...

So you acknowledge that the Main enemy of Russia and main producer of opposing forces aircraft is even further behind than MiG... good.

They have their head so deep up their **** that it does not even count... it is truly mind blowing.

And stop that thing with MiG, I have nothing against them.

So you keep saying, but that twin engine carrier plane MiG are designing likely is the ground based twin engined alternative if their single engined model is too small.

I put you above a quote from UEC saying they are not aware of any such project, I can apply that argument the same you say VKS has no use for the LTS.

Why would it be without AB?

With those wings it does not seem to have any use of supersonic flight. I might be wrong, but they are quite straight and seem optimized for subsonic flight.

And anyway if this LTS is using the current engine with a MTOW of 24 tons it is massively under powered too isn't it?

Certainly TWR is not the strongest point, unless they have made a true breakthrough with the empty weight. I think the version presented is a monkey model for export, the proper engine for which this plane is thought is the izd. 30 and followers.

It is for Russia... what are your expectations for a light 5th gen fighter?

That it is a fighter...

Well if MiG are lazy and incompetent and don't know what they are doing, Sukhoi is fair game too.

I have not said that. Sukhoi has done an outstanding job getting on top of the key technologies at an early stage and they have been lucky to win the PAK-FA and have money from export market. Competition is a bitch.

Would they have the time and the access to the models and engineering to do the calculations and work out it can be done in the time available?

Yes, I expect the highest level of professionalism from them, failing to do those checks thoroughly would be a massive failure.

Do you think the people behind the F-35 even talked to their own engineers before telling the money people sure... they can fix that... just give us more time and more money...

You always bring up the F-35 program.

The twin engined carrier based design shown could use the same new engine... in fact a land based twin engined design looks a lot like the LTS with its problems fixed... it has canard wings for better flight performance... and having two engines means TVC would be much more effective even in super stall conditions...

It is funny seeing you defend the canard, now MiG bets on it  

The message of the interview is that the military has no use for a 5G engine in the size of the RD-33, so there is no official program for a 5G fighter using it.

He is hardly going to talk about secret programmes yet...

Of course, that is the same I said when you told me there is no interest in the LTS by the VKS

At 2:23 the underneath shot of the single engined MiG model shows two large area bays and a small front bay on the belly... the small front one will be the nose wheel, but the two main bays are huge... way to big for main wheels, while there are clearly side fuselage bays that could contain the main wheels in a MiG-23 like compact main gear arrangement...

Of course they are supposed to be weapon bays, but check the dimensions I provide above and try to fit them in that plane... good luck.

But lets not give it any further thought or discussion because MiG are stupid and lazy... and there can only be one new Russian fighter at a time and the LTS got dibs.

I have not said such words about MiG.

BTW, a new video from Rosoboronexport from MAKS, with new, good takes of the LTS:

LMFS wrote:- I don't quite get what you mean with that single component robotization, I don't know if that is connection with the point below about new materials for additive manufacturing?

Intelligenti pauca

LMFS wrote:- The sensors you talk about sound related to the airframe monitoring system the 2nd stage Su-57 should incorporate, is that what you mean? Then, predictive maintenance is also being addressed pretty much all over the world and is part of the now defunct ALIS logistic system of the F-35 and also of ODIN its successor. To be quite honest, the extent to which those algorithms can prevent downtime by actually detecting a damaged component before it actually fails is quite questionable. The potential is there but it will need many years to be fully employed.

Yes Матрешка is an automated logistic support system, fundamentally very similar to ODIN, major differences with the F-35 system are the extension of the monitoring sensor suit and the presence on-board of a true AI (that will also allow complete robotization of the aurcraft) capable to process all the status data and promote variations to flight's dynamics without the need of theirs transference and remote processing.

LMFS wrote:It would be interesting to know more of this, I am not aware of fiber based materials that can be 3D printed, and I would think this is pretty fundamental research to be applied on a fighter for which reliability, time to market and cost are a non negotiable condition. Risk management is king in this kind of program.

Maybe the research was already carried out for another program with much more demanding kinematical characteristics but the mechanical performances of the material do not comply with those mandatory requirements ?
But for an aircraft with relatively relaxed characteristics, central rerquirements for affordability of acquisition and maintenance and main high-altitude flight profile, that same material can become a recipe for achieve what no competitor at world has managed to ?

@Mindstorm:

if those elements are indeed being worked on for the first iteration of LTS, then this program is not a serious market contender but simply overkill... I mean, it could very well come online without them and transition in the medium to long term to such features, which are basically what I would classify as belonging to 6G, as a way of reducing risk, and still be ahead of the pack. We saw some biomimetic structure for the Su-57, so this seems indeed something being researched by Sukhoi. For an aircraft manufacturer, building relatively small series of planes, additive manufacturing would be the definitive way of being able set up flexible and relatively cheap production lines, and importantly too, whose throughput can be ramped up and down with relative ease. So I can definitely see the point of going this way.

Thanks for the heads-up, I will be keeping an eye on those issues indeed...

No it is not the same, until 1.2-1.3 M the transonic drag applies and it is huge. You don't want to waste fuel needing three times the thrust to go 0.3 M faster, that is retarded. You need to go beyond 1.5 M to for it to make sense, and the faster you go, the more difference it will make in your favour. The way Russians have designed the Su-57 tells you this is not just US BS.

The advantages of travelling at supersonic speeds in dry thrust don't pivot on whether you are going mach 1.2 or 1.7, they pivot on the fact that most other aircraft that don't supercruise have to go full AB to chase you tripling their fuel consumption and massively reducing their operational range.

Needing to do it in a specific way for it to be counted as supercruising is the US bullshit.

A R-37 M is as big as any heavy piece of A2G ordnance. You need very long and deep bays to carry those, 4.5 x 1.2 x 0.7 m at least. Look how many planes out there have them...

Lets not look at the R-37M because when it was designed they were not going to be carried internally... the izd 810 which is designed for internal carriage should fit rather better and presumably there is a standardisation of weapon bay sizes if they expect to carry more than one type of missile in there.

The belly weapon bays on the MiG single engined fighter are enormous.

They have their head so deep up their **** that it does not even count... it is truly mind blowing.

It certainly is amazing, but Russia should take advantage of the situation to not rush to this or that solution and just try to get it right.

I can apply that argument the same you say VKS has no use for the LTS.

The VKS will have very specific needs and wants and they need to have a look at all their options before deciding what will or wont work.

Your position is that you have seen the Sukhoi submission in a tight little black dress, it is cleverly using bits from a plane they have already built so it should be possible to build them in existing factories that are building Su-57s which will be potentially free when this thing is ready to start serious testing... or they might get a huge export order and build more factories, which would create even more places the LTS could be built so even better, and you are writing off MiG and any solution they could possible put forward without even giving it a moments thought.

You have to ask yourself lots of important questions.

They have an all Flanker fleet really... do they want medium or light fighters and what will they use them for.

Do they want medium fighters like the MiG-35 because they have more growth potential because they are bigger... so absolute low cost is not a consideration.

Remember they could have been producing MiG-29Ms right now if they needed planes and they wanted them to be cheap, so they clearly want capability too.

Maybe they want super cheap planes like the single seat LIFTS to be airfield hacks to defend in close to all airfields and protect and monitor local air space, while larger Su-35 and Su-57 based aircraft go off and do their jobs.

MiG said they had two light fighter designs.... a single and a twin engined model, they have shown two aircraft designs and a drone design, they have called one a carrier aircraft and one a light fighter, but the carrier based aircraft just looks to be to be very much like an LTS but with more conventional air intakes and canards and two engines...

These planes are not light years apart and if any critiicism is due it is that a 24 MTOW is probably too heavy for the LTS to be a good light fighter... perhaps that is with a 7 ton payload which it will never carry.

With those wings it does not seem to have any use of supersonic flight. I might be wrong, but they are quite straight and seem optimized for subsonic flight.

How often would a light fighter burn is limited amount of precious fuel in full AB trying to achieve supersonic flight?

Certainly TWR is not the strongest point, unless they have made a true breakthrough with the empty weight. I think the version presented is a monkey model for export, the proper engine for which this plane is thought is the izd. 30 and followers.

Or maybe they realise that planes rarely go straight into a dogfight immediately on take off with a 7 ton payload and full internal fuel and figured nose pointing is the important thing so they are going with a TVC engine for that.

Competition is a bitch.

Yeah, when it becomes a monopoly you end up where America is with their MIC.

Yes, I expect the highest level of professionalism from them, failing to do those checks thoroughly would be a massive failure.

The design is not even finalised yet and you expect everyone to have crunched the numbers to be sure it will work as marketed... optimistic much?

Obviously the people designing it should have done those calculations, but UAC and Rostec and everyone else really needs to wait for the flight testing to see if the numbers match reality.

You always bring up the F-35 program.

I do... it is the single engine 5th gen light fighter that is the benchmark... 600 already made and in service... the plane from which many lessons can be learned.

It is funny seeing you defend the canard, now MiG bets on it

Only on the carrier aircraft, not the light fighter with a conventional horizontal tail.

The message of the interview is that the military has no use for a 5G engine in the size of the RD-33, so there is no official program for a 5G fighter using it.

Yet they continue to upgrade the RD-33 for export sales in a niche market that seems to be rather popular.

Of course, that is the same I said when you told me there is no interest in the LTS by the VKS

The VKS should show interest in any new 5th gen fighter programme where they could purchase the final product.

They have a duty to perform a mission and if a new system can help that do better then they should look at it... including in private.

Yes Матрешка is an automated logistic support system, fundamentally very similar to ODIN, major differences with the F-35 system are the extension of the monitoring sensor suit and the presence on-board of a true AI (that will also allow complete robotization of the aurcraft) capable to process all the status data and promote variations to flight's dynamics without the need of theirs transference and remote processing.

Another difference is that it should work and is funded...

For an aircraft manufacturer, building relatively small series of planes, additive manufacturing would be the definitive way of being able set up flexible and relatively cheap production lines, and importantly too, whose throughput can be ramped up and down with relative ease. So I can definitely see the point of going this way.

Good for special variants or versions like Jammer aircraft or carrier based aircraft.

GarryB wrote:You have to ask yourself lots of important questions.

Yes, I have devoted a certain amount of thought to this issue as you know. I am not dismissing MiG lightly, I expected a plane like LTS coming from them actually, but it was Sukhoi and they not only addressed the more obvious issues like size and philosophy of the platform, but came up with totally disruptive innovations beyond my best expectations. In parallel MiG shows some plastic models and say they are working on something. Ok, when they show us a prototype of that something or the VKS announces some program I will consider it an actual development program, until I assume this is internal work of the type all bureaus do regularly.

These planes are not light years apart and if any critiicism is due it is that a 24 MTOW is probably too heavy for the LTS to be a good light fighter... perhaps that is with a 7 ton payload which it will never carry.

I have told several times that I expect VKS to order this plane with the izd. 30 among other improvements.

Yeah, when it becomes a monopoly you end up where America is with their MIC.

I have explained also how I consider this can be avoided without needing to replicate efforts and without giving contracts to certain bureaus out of pity.

The design is not even finalised yet and you expect everyone to have crunched the numbers to be sure it will work as marketed... optimistic much?

I do... it is the single engine 5th gen light fighter that is the benchmark... 600 already made and in service... the plane from which many lessons can be learned.

It is the biggest scam and failure of the history of military procurement and you pretend it is valid to portray every Russian program you don't like. Get real.

Good for special variants or versions like Jammer aircraft or carrier based aircraft.

That is not what I am referring to. All fighter planes (in Russia and almost everywhere) are produced in quite limited numbers and that causes the high costs of the line and industrialization process needing to be diluted into a very reduced number of airframes (to avoid that by sheer scale was the intent of JSF for instance) . But if you have (to say something half crazy before we have more details) a huge 3D printer capable of producing different, big sized pieces of different aircraft just by changing the prograding and material, that just changes radically and the digital design paradigm can be implemented in full, with costs and industrialization / iteration times getting slashed.

I have told several times that I expect VKS to order this plane with the izd. 30 among other improvements.

This is a low cost budget plane.... what if the izd 30 triples the operating prices?

I have explained also how I consider this can be avoided without needing to replicate efforts and without giving contracts to certain bureaus out of pity.

It is not a question of pity, you are assuming what would appeal to the rest of the world actually appeals to the Russian military... if they wanted a cheap numbers plane they could have ordered MiG-29Ms that could have been in full scale production for a while, but that is clearly not what they want... they want something better...

You are assuming they also want this plane too.

It is the biggest scam and failure of the history of military procurement and you pretend it is valid to portray every Russian program you don't like. Get real.

It is proof that even the most powerful and richest and most influential bully on the planet can take what are essentially good common sense ideas and **** things up.

You are essentially stating that MiG has already done that because they have wasted all this time and essentially come up with a MiG-35 40 years too late... why didn't they offer this plane in 1992?

But it is OK because their primary threat and primary enemy still hasn't come up with a MiG-35 yet because they don't make anything that cheap to buy or cheap to operate.

But if you have (to say something half crazy before we have more details) a huge 3D printer capable of producing different, big sized pieces of different aircraft just by changing the prograding and material, that just changes radically and the digital design paradigm can be implemented in full, with costs and industrialization / iteration times getting slashed.

Yeah, prices are slashed, but the wait time is like the 1970s waiting to get time on the main frame because everyone wants to use it for everything so they are all standing waiting in line with their punch cards...

GarryB wrote:This is a low cost budget plane.... what if the izd 30 triples the operating prices?

A serious aspect of the new engine is also a reduction in the cost of the machine's life cycle - less maintenance costs, more overhaul life, ”Marchukov said about the new power plants.

https://nplus1.ru/material/2019/03/06/engines

“This is a fundamentally new engine, so it takes a long time to create. The engine has a 30% less specific gravity (than 117C - approx.), The life cycle cost is also 30% less, and it itself should be cheaper, "- said E. Marchukov.

https://vpk-news.ru/news/13148?utm_source=warfiles.ruhttps://www.ruaviation.com/news/2012/11/15/1341/?h

I don't use to make up things

You are assuming they also want this plane too.

Yes I do, they would be fools not to.

But it is OK because their primary threat and primary enemy still hasn't come up with a MiG-35 yet because they don't make anything that cheap to buy or cheap to operate.

To this day you still have no data about the operational costs of the plane or the price to the domestic customer, but you "know" it is by far the cheapest all around...

Yeah, prices are slashed, but the wait time is like the 1970s waiting to get time on the main frame because everyone wants to use it for everything so they are all standing waiting in line with their punch cards...

There is quite a few info in the threads about the dramatic reduction in waiting times in repairs, rapid prototyping and other areas derived from the use of 3D printing. It is above an order of magnitude, sometimes significantly more.