New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021

On the same subject an old design known as project 33 that was sold to China in the 90s.

On Tuesday, it will be known whether it is a mock-up or a prototype. If the prototype makes an impression.

Isos wrote:On the same subject an old design known as project 33 that was sold to China in the 90s.

I see the nose wheel is already buckling under all the pressure!

It is big!

LMFS wrote:

It is big!

Dammit woman, my woood is hard enough already!!!

Arrow wrote:The question is whether this is only for export or the VKS will return to single-engine fighter again?

There is absolutely no way in hell that Sukhoi would even think about starting something like this without a go ahead from VKS, AKA their main, largest and primary customer

Mir wrote:Mig will now have to really pull up their socks, but having competition usually spurs the best from somebody. I'm pretty sure we'll see the Mig-41 and a new light fighter from Mig in the very near future.

MiG's light fighter market segment just flew away and will not be coming back, ever

Only thing they have going for them now is MiG-41 so they would be smart to double down on that and get it done right and on time before they get taken behind the woodshed

Mir wrote:...VTOL...

I'll eat two chocolate cakes if it is!

Oh no, please don't, think about your family...

LMFS wrote:

It is big!

It can be seen that the air intakes are shifted forward

I actually like the idea of bringing the intake up into the sides. It reduces the depth of the fuselage so it won't look like the pig X-32

Is it possible that its a whole new engine ? I hope  not. But doesnt it seem too big to be built around a su 57 engine ? I thought it would be more practical to be a little smaller.

And to all the Mig bashers. There are 25 countries with functional Mig 29's in service. Including the US. That's more than the F-16.

If it has no horizontal tails , the USA fanbois are going to hate it so much. Because that is one of the features of 6th gen. The commenters at the Drive are fat shaming it.

Light Gray

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:It can be seen that the air intakes are shifted forward

Yes, this is necessary in order to have space for the weapon bays.

Backman wrote:I actually like the idea of bringing the intake up into the sides. It reduces the depth of the fuselage so it won't look like the pig X-32

Still nothing makes me think the plane is different from Borisov's one. The plane already showed there a LERX starting at the corner of the intake, but the view was from the side and with bad resolution. Still, the plan view could be estimated by its shadow on the side of the intake. Now we see that it seems to have some kind of notch or dogtooth. Still all compatible with what we know, it may change but until now I am not convinced.

X-32 is not what we saw at the desk either...

EDIT: this is the notch at the LERX I refer to, everything new is old in reality:

owais.usmani wrote:Some one did this speculative artwork at paralay boards for a F-35B analogue:

Not compatible with ventral intake. Let us see.

GarryB wrote:I agree, but the main problem is that the likely main customers of F-35 could never even pretend to consider a Russian aircraft... performance and cost have nothing to do with that.

True.

My guess would be that Russia did indeed learn something new, possibly groundbreaking, and this project is what was left on the side after they properly understood the potential for any domestic technological implications. Either that, or the groundbreaking aspects are the constituent technologies already present in the Su-57, and this aircraft is the result of white-listed technologies derived from it.

Gomig-21 wrote:
Between that pic and this one here showing the crease of the cover, it seems to have a very interesting inlet that starts at the top and wraps around the sides and back down below.  Very unique.  Also, is the radome painted black?

I would dare to say an EXTREMELY interesting intake.
It is a wrap up one like in old planes (Mig-21, Su-17) but V-shaped instead than cylindrical.
So such intake start both at the top and the bottom before the cockpit and the FLIR/IRST mounting while on the sides it go (slightly) backward.
So it give the possibility to install a large radar antenna with an enough large F.O.V. and in the same time to operate at an high AoA.
Front wheel is lodged behind the FLIR and intake, so it need not a mud guard.
Looking the plane from the front it's quite evident the advantage of such an intake compared to a purely ventral or side mounting one in term of integration with the (diamond shaped) fuselage.
Main wheels are so mounted in the frontal part of such fuselage and when extended go backward instead than sideway lik in Flankers and Felon, allowing to save additional space for bomb bays.
I would so hypotize them to be almost as big than the S-70 ones if not even than the main Su-57 ones.

All of that in a lean and streamlined plane, lighter than F-35 but with no compromise in both performances than in internally carried payload.
Calling for Checkmate maybe is too much but define it a Knight Move fit perfectly, (even if with such intakes it make me think about Bishop piece instead).

One last thing: during Trump presidency there was a project to put forth a new fighting plane every 5 years through a spiral like development and using components taken for previous ones.
With new administration such idea, that was facing a lot of problems on its own, was ditched almost immediately.
Now, Su-57 in 2020/21, S-70 in 2024, Checkmate in??? PAK-DP in ???
Trump promised, Russia deliver.

PapaDragon wrote:

I'll eat two chocolate cakes if it is!

Oh no, please don't, think about your family...

No ways I'm way to selfish for that! I'll have my cake and eat it too!

From the way the main landing gear open, it can be theorized that there may be some weapon bay above (at the wing root maybe) they don't want to interfere with...

And we see from the shape of the door, that the lower side of the wing is not flat but has a bump, probably for the folded struts. They seem to go backwards and act as booms for the tail. Maybe it is a flat fuselage (BWB) that will increase internal volume, help with the landing gear and even with quick bays for AAMs... in fact I am seeing what I think is a panel gap where quick bays would be placed above and forward from the landing gear doors

The camouflage is that of the Su-57

BTW, QuadroFX did some amazing hi-res processing of the pictures, many details are surfacing with help of them.

The great minds of the Internet have determined the approximate dimensions of the novelty: the height of the cockpit is 3.4 m, the keels are 4.3 m, the length is 17.3 m. 

Approximate shape of the air intake

So many questions. It looks like there is a bump between the nose and canopy similar to the F-35. It could be a sensor housing or maybe the canopy pivots at the front. I guess we'll know soon enough.

The idiocy is going to be fun to watch. Some clowns on Twitter are surmising that Russia found the Japanse F-35 that was lost at sea.

Maybe it's an optical location station?
Same thing on Su-57:

That would be so funny if it is actually the case and they show it and destroy f-35's market.

But the plane doesn't seem to be an "f-35ski" like they call it.

The similarities are quite normal. Internal bays, parallele lines for stealth and single engine with angled stabilizers. At the end when you respect all of that there aren't hundreds of diferent designs possible so they all look alike.

What will mainly be different are the wings and other control surfaces.

The F-35ski will cost over 100 times less as a program and do the job better than the yanqui wunderwaffen.

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:The great minds of the Internet have determined the approximate dimensions of the novelty: the height of the cockpit is 3.4 m, the keels are 4.3 m, the length is 17.3 m. 

Approximate shape of the air intake

If they have video, then they can tell how much flapping of the cover there is. From the stills it is hard to tell of there is
an inlet or winglets. But I think that this is probably the best approximation to reality produced so far.

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:The great minds of the Internet have determined the approximate dimensions of the novelty: the height of the cockpit is 3.4 m, the keels are 4.3 m, the length is 17.3 m. 

So, same lenght of Mig-35 and one meter and an half more than the F-35...

Longer than Typhoon also.

marcellogo wrote:

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:The great minds of the Internet have determined the approximate dimensions of the novelty: the height of the cockpit is 3.4 m, the keels are 4.3 m, the length is 17.3 m. 

So, same lenght of Mig-35 and one meter and an half more than the F-35...

Longer than Typhoon also.

That will give it more space for a decent load out. Well at least a lot better than the F-35.

That's almost the size of a f-22.

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:The great minds of the Internet have determined the approximate dimensions of the novelty: the height of the cockpit is 3.4 m, the keels are 4.3 m, the length is 17.3 m. 

Approximate shape of the air intake

Wait, wait,wait, I see another interesting thing there:

Main carriage doors open forward not laterally and wheels themselves just fall down.
Once retracted they really occupy just a minimal space, so allowing a missile to be possibly carried both before (on the internal part sideways to the cockpit) than behind them (this time externally).

marcellogo wrote:Main carriage doors open forward not laterally and wheels themselves just fall down.
Once retracted they really occupy just a minimal space, so allowing a missile to be possibly carried both before (on the internal part sideways to the cockpit) than behind them (this time externally).  

The landing gear takes the same space. In the LTS it is a bit shorter than it would, if it was anchored at the height of the wing, because apparently there is a transition section between the main fuselage and the wing (consistent with BWB design) and therefore the anchoring points seem to be lower than it would be otherwise. The plane sits very high on the landing gear, maybe to have better access to ventral bays (?)

As to the covers opening inversely to normal, this may help to clear the opening of other doors (quick bays for AAM?) above / outboards of the landing gear. There are quite a few of smart details to understand in the plane yet, that is clear.