New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021

Hole wrote:

I didn't know the bottom of the intake was canted up in the middle like that. That looks more like a big single DSI from this angle

Here's what The Drive said about it. The latest article is actually ok.

The aircraft's intake has been one of its most debated features over the last week. New imagery shows the angular ventral inlet, which wraps around the lower nose section, to share features with a diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) design, but exactly how mature Russia's take on this concept is, remains to be seen.

All the ragging on Mig in this thread by the troll. Mig is full time tasked with Mig-41. It saves the Russian government money
for Sukhoi to develop the single engine fighter jet instead of building up Mig where that would require hiring new workers and
just duplicating Sukhoi's capacity.

Backman wrote:

Hole wrote:

I didn't know the bottom of the intake was canted up in the middle like that. That looks more like a big single DSI from this angle

Here's what The Drive said about it

The aircraft's intake has been one of its most debated features over the last week. New imagery shows the angular ventral inlet, which wraps around the lower nose section, to share features with a diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) design, but exactly how mature Russia's take on this concept is, remains to be seen.

The Drivel's incompetence is beyond doubt.

kvs wrote:The quibbling over 8 and 9 g is meaningless.   No airframe is rated for max tolerable g.  That would mean that pulling a "rated" 8 g
would risk catastrophic failure.   So the F-35 "9 g" is more than likely a push to the tolerance limit to sell its "superiority".   The 8 g
quote for the Su-75 is a more conservative one.   All of these aircraft can handle over 9 g but should not be operated with such loads
to prevent their early retirement.  

While I will not put my hand on the fire for the structure of the F-35 after the massive "diet" it went through during the design process, the 8 g of the LTS compared to the tried and tested 9 g of other planes is not an advantage in any way, much less when an unmanned version is foreseen from the very beginning. I entertain the idea that maybe the engine limitations for export is what determines such decisions as this rather low g limit or the lack of a gun. For a premium domestic version, izd. 30 could be used, and therefore a 9 g structure may be possible. I would also assume in that case a gun would be on the requirements list of the VKS too. Also additional control surfaces mean more weight, and Sukhoi went for the real minimum with the LTS.

Broski wrote:If the export price of Checkmate is $10 Million cheaper than the export MiG-35 (based on the price of MiG-29M's sold to Egypt @$40M each), that'll put a massive dent in the MiG-35's export prospects, even if it takes another 5 years for the Su-75 to be ready.

If the development time of the LTS is kept more or less in line with the statements, it is difficult indeed to see how anyone not in a completely dire need would buy the MiG-35 instead of waiting a few years for the plane from Sukhoi, unless the prices of the MiG are reduced seriously.

My point to LMFS was that the Su-75 doesn't need to be a Su-57 as that would be redundant, it'll be fully multirole just like the Su-57 but with half the payload, 2/3rds the range and with less air superiority capability.

I agree that the high end of the air superiority is for the Su-57, but a light fighter is normally considered to be nimble and mainly focused in A2A. Strike role is more challenging, and getting a bay like that of the LTS in a single engine plane is quite hard. But they did the plane big enough, squeezed every tool for the role (incl. a big EOTS) in the airframe and took compromises to make sure the A2G was eminent in the plane and not secondary. The Su-57 in turn is a beast both for A2A and, with twice the A2G ordnance of the LTS or F-35, also for strike role.

Scorpius wrote:I will slightly dilute the discussion with a memo for fans of the Western approach to the perception of new Russian technology.

Genius!

mnztr wrote:I think this is kinda silly. The GSH-30 used in most Russian planes is incredibly light at 101lbs. Seems crazy to eliminate such a capability for such a tiny weight loss.

Now add mounts, ammo, extractor, structural reinforcement against the vibration, service access etc. and it will not be that light...

WHat are the tail air intakes for? IR masking?

Probably heat exchangers and cooling like in the Su-57

Backman wrote:I didn't know the bottom of the intake was canted up in the middle like that. That looks more like a big single DSI from this angle

Yeah, it seems like a DSI with a bump not in one plane but continuous at the bottom and sides of the nose, it is quite interesting indeed... it allows to keep the section of the nose more circular, use more of the Su-57 and also get a bigger radar.

BTW, very interesting one of the things that have been said about the LTS: the frontal section will be exchangeable so that the same airframe will allow to build a manned or unmanned version

kvs wrote:.....Mig is full time tasked with Mig-41.    It saves the Russian government money
for Sukhoi to develop the single engine fighter jet instead of building up Mig where that would require hiring new workers and
just duplicating Sukhoi's capacity.

Really?

So why is MiG begging for scraps with those hilarious scale models then?

I mean if they are so busy with MiG-41 why all the panhandling?

More like they are about to f*ck up MiG-41 as well and Sukhoi will be called in to clean up their shit yet again

"You don't f*ck with the eagles unless you know how to fly" - Brother Bluto

dino00 wrote:The aircraft is created with the broadest use of supercomputer technologies. This made it possible to develop an optimal aerodynamic design, achieve high performance and conduct a full cycle of virtual tests even before the first prototype was made.

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=2&nid=553545&lang=RU

General Director of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) Yuri told in an interview with Interfax columnist Ekaterina Maltseva Slussar.

I think the interview deserves being quoted in full:

UAC head: Checkmate fighter will be able to "exclude from the game" attack drones and sixth generation aircraft

Moscow. July 20. INTERFAX - How Russia is going to "turn the tide of the game" on the global arms market with the help of a new fifth-generation single-engine fighter, how this aircraft was created and when it first took to the skies, General Director of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) Yury told in an interview with Interfax columnist Yekaterina Maltseva Slussar.

- At MAKS-2021, the UAC shows a new military aircraft. What are the features of the project and what place will the new vehicle take in the corporation's military product line?

- Decent. It is a light tactical aircraft (LTS). Checkmate or "checkmate". Sounds ambitious, but there is a reason for it. The aircraft is fundamentally new, single-engine, with enhanced capabilities for solving shock missions. It is created as a multi-functional platform. We forecast a high export potential. Therefore, the project initially assumes maximum opportunities for adaptation to the needs of a specific client, minimum operating costs, versatility.

Our country has experience of global leadership in the segment of light single-engine vehicles - the legendary MiG-15, MiG-21, the series based on the Su-17 have been literally hits on the international market for many decades. Today we return to this field. We are making a multifunctional, affordable, well-armed aviation complex with the capabilities of tomorrow. Our ambition is to change the existing status quo, in a sense, "turn the tide of the game" on the global market.


- Apparently, this is where the chess allusions come from? Is this such a philosophy of the project?

- Sure. The global market is a competitive space. In principle, this constant rivalry can be compared to a game of chess. In this logic, the LTS is an easy but effective piece in experienced hands, capable of deciding the outcome of the game - check and checkmate. The Russian engineering culture is highly intellectual and strong not only at the applied mathematical level, but also by the ability to strategize. And in chess, we traditionally have everything in order ( laughs ).

But, seriously speaking, LTS has low visibility, unique characteristics of onboard equipment, outstanding range, speed, and carrying capacity for aircraft of its class. At the same time, an important advantage of the new aircraft is the low cost of a flight hour. This is often the defining moment for market success. In our country, it is predicted to be about seven times less than that of an aircraft such as the F-35, and is comparable to the cost of a flight hour of the Gripen NG. At the same time, the combat capabilities of LTS Checkmate are significantly higher than the latter.

The combination of the properties and cost of operating a new aircraft is the basis that allows us to count on a "revolution" in the market.


- How long ago began work on the creation of the aircraft?

- Some years ago. One of the trends in the world market is a steady demand for single-engine light class machines. In addition, the number of potential buyer countries is growing in the world who would like to see in their Air Force a modern, well-equipped aircraft, but at the same time quite versatile and inexpensive to operate. It is clear that not everyone can afford to deploy infrastructure for fifth-generation heavy aviation systems. On the other hand, many countries are considering building up the capabilities of their air forces at the expense of new generation light vehicles. Of course, an important addition for us was the analysis of the results of the use of strike aircraft systems in Syria.

These factors became the input for the creation of a new generation "workhorse" - an aircraft that is optimal for most combat missions, taking into account the "war economy" factor.


- How did you manage to get the first result in such a short time?

- Today we are showing a demonstrator plane. LTS Checkmate is created in a short time on the basis of the scientific and technical groundwork obtained during the development of the Su-57 fighter (by unifying the elements of the airframe, cockpit, on-board systems and engine), taking into account the experience of using aircraft systems in real combat conditions. During the development of the new aircraft, the most modern fully finished and proven equipment of the fifth generation was used.

With the help of the computing power of Russian supercomputers, for the first time, designers were able to carry out calculations and digital tests before the manufacture of prototypes of the aircraft. All this together made it possible to create the aircraft in record time and significantly reduce the cost of development and testing.


- Is this an order or an initiative project? Who are the main partners?

- In order. LTS is a project that is being implemented on an initiative basis. In the world, there is an obvious trend towards an increase in the cost of developing combat aircraft. This is due to the constantly increasing complexity of aviation systems, numerous prototype tests. Often, the introduction of an unjustifiably large number of technical innovations affects the reliability of the aircraft, increases the time for fine-tuning the machine and leads to a significant increase in the cost of the entire program. Experts often cite the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) as an example. The cost of this program, according to some analysts, is already $ 1.7 trillion and continues to grow.

To avoid such problems, we approached the development of LTS differently. When creating the aircraft, a strict balance was observed between proven, sophisticated technical solutions and innovations. The aircraft is created with the broadest use of supercomputer technologies. This made it possible to develop an optimal aerodynamic configuration, achieve high performance and conduct a full cycle of virtual tests even before the first prototype was made.

In addition, we initially approach the formation of cooperation for the creation of an aircraft in a risk-sharing partnership with key industrial partners. From our point of view, this will make it possible to effectively manage the implementation of this project, use the cooperation potential of the entire Rostec aviation cluster. And at the same time to design and create new blocks of a new aircraft in a short time and at a given product cost. This includes the engine and the fifth-generation cockpit, an advanced complex of fifth-generation onboard equipment, electronic warfare, and other systems developed by the enterprises of the Rostec aviation cluster.

At the same time, already at the design stage, we laid the possibility of seamless implementation in the future of even more advanced units in the aircraft design. Thus, the aircraft is initially created as a designer and has great potential for further modernization. Checkmate can become the base platform for a whole family of aviation complexes.


- Do you already have an understanding of who the potential customers are?

- This project is primarily focused on the external market. On our traditional partners who have experience in operating domestic aircraft. But, of course, to new markets as well. At the same time, taking into account the philosophy laid down in the project and the technical solutions that we propose, LTS can be useful to our anchor customers of the Ministry of Defense and find their place in the system of Russian aerospace forces of the future. The aircraft has already become a hit at the current air show. Delegations from the countries of Southeast Asia, the Middle East and South America are showing great interest in the car.


- Who are your competitors? What unique UAC can offer its potential customers?

- The main competitors for the new project are 4+ + and fifth-generation aircraft. Speaking of the fourth generation, I mean aircraft with an increased resource, the growth of which will reduce the cost of a flight hour and the purchase cost. This applies to both machines in operation due to the extension of the resource, and newly built aircraft of the latest modifications (for example, new modifications of the F-16).

Aircraft of the fifth generation, to which our LTS belongs, are superior to their predecessors in terms of their low visibility characteristics and, as a consequence, in terms of their ability to counter modern and promising air defense systems. Moreover, the cost must be competitive. In this segment, the well-known product of our American colleagues is characterized by an extremely high cost of a flight hour, a purchase price, and at present its deliveries are impossible to a large number of countries for political reasons, unlike LTS.

LTS is an aircraft created using Su-57 technologies, but has a smaller combat radius, payload and operating cost. This is a rational choice for a large number of countries in countering regional threats. The aircraft is capable of effectively destroying land, sea, and air targets, including foreign fifth-generation aircraft.

In addition, our new aircraft is being designed to withstand the sixth generation systems that may appear in the coming decades.


- Did foreign companies participate in cooperation on the creation of a new aircraft? Do you plan to involve them in the next stages of development?

- This is a domestic product. Although, of course, we were guided by the various requirements of our foreign partners in the formation of framework requirements for the new aviation complex.

If foreign partners are interested, we do not exclude the creation of international cooperation. The possibility of technology transfer is traditionally one of the advantages of Russian weapons.


- Do you envision the possibility of creating a two-seater modification of the aircraft?

- Are you sure that the pilot will be needed in a promising aircraft?


- Are you talking about unmanned modification?

- Of course. The aircraft was originally created as a combat platform for a number of vehicles. We are planning to create an optionally piloted and unmanned aircraft modification.

Unmanned modification is not just a tribute to fashion. Already at an early stage of the project, we lay in it ample opportunities for use in network-centric military operations. The aircraft will be able to exchange information and direct other aviation complexes and unmanned aerial vehicles to targets. The use of unmanned versions of the vehicle will allow, among other things, to implement new tactics.

If we go back to your last question, then yes, we are also planning to create a two-seat modification of Checkmate.


- On the question of drones. To what extent do you think the active development of military drones, which have proven their effectiveness in a number of recent conflicts, can be a hindrance to new manned aircraft systems on the market?

- First, as I have already noted, we are planning to create an unmanned version of the LTS. If we talk about cheap shock UAVs that are popular today, then their recent successes should not mislead specialists. So far, their successful use is possible only in the absence of an echeloned air defense system, not to mention fighters.

An aircraft such as the LTS will be able to "exclude from the game" light attack UAVs. To do this, he will be able to use not only a wide range of ASPs with a maximum combat load of 7400 kg, but also built-in electronic warfare systems.


- When are you planning the first Checkmate flight?

- Next year we plan to start static tests of the aircraft. And in a year or two, the plane will be able to make its first flight.

Scorpius wrote:
I will slightly dilute the discussion with a memo for fans of the Western approach to the perception of new Russian technology.
Stages of adoption of Russian equipment:
1. Does not exist, will be closed.
2. Layout, imitation, fake.
3. They will not be adopted.
4. They will not purchase.
5. They will buy, but not enough.
6.They were not used in combat.
7. You're all lyiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!!!
Check the box next to the stage where you are currently located.

Its already in Orange stage

LMFS wrote:Using the canted stabs for pitching roles will demand to deflect them symmetrically and therefore create a lot of drag... better to use the TVC and the small elevators at the sides of the nozzle.

Are you saying those ends at the base of the canted V-stabs are movable surfaces?  That's new to me.  Have we seen them move in the past few days or in the video presentation I might've missed?  That would be incredible if they had that function, but something tells me those are about as fixed as they can be.  At first I thought maybe also more of a reason because if they house the rear-facing radars in them, but the Su-35 and the Su-57 both have the AESA radar mounted in the leading edge flaps of the wings and those are moving surfaces, so the radar might not be a big deal I suppose.  But I'm still a bit skeptical about those things being movable at all.  

The ones of the Berkut were much larger and thinner and looked a lot more like H-stabs and hence functioned that way very well.  But these, here?  I'm not doubting you or trying to give you a hard time, just tough to be convinced without seeing more TBPH.

LMFS wrote:Some people are saying the lack of big horizontal control surfaces is the reason for the 8 g limitation, I don't know if that is true, but it is an interesting theory.

Curious to know what their reasoning was.

"Some people are saying the lack of big horizontal control surfaces is the reason for the 8 g limitation, I don't know if that is true, but it is an interesting theory."


Well its a "shoot an arrow to the sky and hope to hit a bird" kinda thing, since its really hard to tell the reason behind the G limit due to the amount of factors.
We dont even know if it is a lowball or conservative measure regarding how much it could sustain for long periods.
It also raises questions about the YF-23.

Eh we saw a static test prototype, the plane isn't even meant to be flying. No Ram coatings etc.

It will be years upon years before we see concrete feature-wise, I expect the body of the plane will change over time also

Gomig-21 wrote:Are you saying those ends at the base of the canted V-stabs are movable surfaces?  That's new to me.  Have we seen them move in the past few days or in the video presentation I might've missed?  That would be incredible if they had that function, but something tells me those are about as fixed as they can be.  At first I thought maybe also more of a reason because if they house the rear-facing radars in them, but the Su-35 and the Su-57 both have the AESA radar mounted in the leading edge flaps of the wings and those are moving surfaces, so the radar might not be a big deal I suppose.  But I'm still a bit skeptical about those things being movable at all.  

The ones of the Berkut were much larger and thinner and looked a lot more like H-stabs and hence functioned that way very well.  But these, here?  I'm not doubting you or trying to give you a hard time, just tough to be convinced without seeing more TBPH.

I am talking about the horizontal surfaces at the sides of the nozzle:


Apart from being articulated and carefully separated from the canted tails, they appeared already at the MiG 1.44. Observe that the tails themselves have a notch at the lower side, so they don't collide with the elevators when the first are deflected inwards and the later upwards. They are literally identical to those I included in my model, so there was little doubt to me when I saw them...
They are small, but not that small, and as trimmers for the plane, for additional pitch and roll authority, redundancy for the TVC and braking they would be very useful. It just makes sense to have them.

I cannot see your images BTW, but if it was the Berkut that you linked, I know what you mean.

Curious to know what their reasoning was.

Basically that the lack of h-stabs precludes the plane from having enough authority to turn hard enough to generate that overload... but it has TVC, and at some altitude and speed I doubt that contribution plus the elevators at the nozzles plus the intrinsic tendency to pitch the nose modern planes have cannot create enough turning load. As of now I tend to think that it may be an issue of weight limitation because of engine availability for export.

Atmosphere wrote:Well its a "shoot an arrow to the sky and hope to hit a bird" kinda thing, since its really hard to tell the reason behind the G limit due to the amount of factors.
We dont even know if it is a lowball or conservative measure regarding how much it could sustain for long periods.
It also raises questions about the YF-23.

Yes, I am not totally convinced either, see above. The canted tails in the YF-23 were much more inclined that in LTS in any case.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Eh we saw a static test prototype, the plane isn't even meant to be flying. No Ram coatings etc.

It will be years upon years before we see concrete feature-wise, I expect the body of the plane will change over time also

Yeah, that is the kind of useless comment we have come to expect from you. The UAC officials have said that one is the airframe that will fly in a couple of years, go figure.

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:

Great CGI, and nicely illustrates the fact that the "Su-75" will be based on technology and solutions developed for the Su-57. UACs stated schedule for the project seems realistic given this fact.

Is it a coincidence that 75 is an anagam of 57? I think not.

medo wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Su-30 was export oriented and look at it now

Also if Sukhoi actually did take the initiative on this then it's just another nail in MiG's coffin and another proof of it's redundancy and obsolescence

MiG doesn't have the balls to develop crop duster on it's own and you expect them to compete with Sukhoi? Get real, man...

Wrong. Su-30 was Russian air defense oriented as group command post. Money shortage in Russia and F-15E debut in Gulf war push Sukhoi to remade it in multirole fighter bomber for export. RuAF start buying Su-30, when financial situation allow them and first they buy Su-30M2 in 2009 and later Su-30SM in 2012.

MiG have plans to made multirole MiG-31BM, but didn't went with it and MiG-31BM is still interceptor only.

The Su-30M2 was purchased exclusively as a combat trainer since the Su-27UB was almost completely sold out, 20 pieces for 4x5 regiments.
Then the plans changed (Crimea , etc...) and the Su-30SM was put in for this task, in fact in Besovets and Khotilovo they are using planes lent from Kursk

Well, this fighter seems more like a successor to the MiG-21 in a 21st century version, frankly I do not think that the VKS will buy this, although I would not be surprised if some would endorse it, since some believe that the VKS is a sales catalog of OAK


https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4354511.html

- The sample presented bears the side number "75". Presumably, at the Sukhoi Design Bureau, the project was carried out under the designation T-75. In turn, Bulatov said that the Design Office proposed to assign the Su-75 index for the "internal" version of the aircraft.


- The aircraft is considered officially developed by the OAK on its own initiative without the allocation of the Russian Defense Ministry and with OAK's own funds. It can be assumed that, in fact, part of the funding came from the Russian Ministry of Industry and Commerce (as was the case at one point in the PAK FA program) and, apparently, the work was still coordinated with the military. . Part of the funding may come from a foreign source (the United Arab Emirates may, according to the 2017 agreement).

- The first flight of the LTS prototype is scheduled for 2023, the construction of the next flight prototypes - for 2024-2025, the completion of state tests - for 2026. The first delivery to customers should take place in 5.5 years, that is, at the end of 2026.

- From the characteristics of the LTS aircraft in the presentation, it was reported that it should have a speed of up to M = 1.8-2, a flight range of 3000 km, a ceiling of 16.5 km, a permissible overload of 8g, a payload 7400 kg maximum. LTS chief designer Mikhail Strelets said the LTS "has the greatest flight range for 'light' aircraft and the length of loitering when searching for a target or awaiting target designation, the highest payload capacity."

- The LTS avionics are apparently based on the Su-57 avionics, and the radar with AFAR will presumably be a scaled-down version of the N036 radar with the Su-57 in terms of the number of modules. For LTS radar, the possibility of simultaneous tracking of 30 air targets and shooting six of them is declared (this is about half of the previously announced indicators for H036).

- It is claimed that both the manned versions of the LTS and its unmanned modifications will be able to operate in a network-centric combat system and function as part of a group of manned and unmanned aircraft. "We are planning to carry out such tests," said the chief designer of LTS Strelets.

- Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov said that the Russian Federation has an anchor customer for the new Checkmate light fighter.
"We already have it, we are doing it for him," Borisov said at the MAKS-2021 airshow. He explained that we are talking about a foreign air force.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4354165.html

- The LTS Checkmate has the most spacious internal armament compartment among aircraft in its class, allowing the use of a wide range of Aircraft Weapons (AAS) in a discreet fighter configuration. In addition to classic missiles and bombs, it is possible to install additional fuel tanks, suspended cannon containers, as well as other cargo for various purposes in the compartments. Thanks to the spacious compartments and the presence of external suspension points, the aircraft has a record payload for this class: 7,400 kg.

- The low cost of one hour of flight is possible thanks to perfect aerodynamics, a modern engine and on-board equipment, as well as the minimization of aircraft maintenance costs. Compared to its main competitor, the F-35, Checkmate LTS will receive seven times less cost for an hour of flight.

- The on-board equipment of the aircraft with integrated radar with AFAR (set of antennas in active phase) is capable of attacking six and tracking up to 30 air targets. If we talk about land and sea, then LTS can accompany two targets at the same time.

- Both the manned versions of the Checkmate LTS and its unmanned modifications are capable of operating in a network-centric combat system, that is, working as part of a group of manned and unmanned aircraft. We are planning to conduct such tests.



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4353892.html

The vehicle will be equipped with a high-efficiency power plant. "The engine will be in the 14.5-16t class. This engine is built on the basis of preliminary work by United Engine Corporation, and it will be even more advanced on this aircraft," said Alexey Bulatov, Deputy Chief Designer at Checkmate. during the presentation of the machine.

Compared to analogs, Checkmate has a higher performance. "If we compare it to the American F-35 fighter, its closest analog, this is a different aircraft. More speed, more range, greater payload. New qualities. Much better stealth is implemented here.

Several new aircraft will be created based on the modular Checkmate platform. "Various options are planned to be developed, including naval and unmanned versions. Shipborne, unmanned, two-seater. The adaptation for these versions will be with minimal changes," Slyusar said. According to him, the production aircraft will be offered to customers in 2026.

The UAC chief expressed the hope that the new light fighter and its unmanned version will be of interest to the Russian Aerospace Forces. He stressed that the aircraft is a development of its own initiative, and is currently being negotiated with the military department as a potential customer.

In the next 15 years, the company will produce 300 single-engine fighters. "The business plan is worth 300 planes. We expect this to happen in the next 15 years," Slyusar said.

As the head of the UAC explained, this figure is due to the market analysis carried out by the UAC. "When I say the number 300, this is not just our dream, it is the indicator that was calculated specifically for countries and regions. We deeply research the customer. The numbers that we name, we name them responsibly," he said.

If you were trying to make MiG look good by listing all the amazing features of Sukhoi LTS you accomplished opposite effect

If that info is even partialy true then it's bye bye MiG ahead of schedule

They couldn't even complete LMFS, there's no way they can handle MiG-41, at best they will slap MiG label on Sukhoi interceptor as a goodbye gesture and pull the plug

When the engine in this thumbnail started circulating, there was some guesses that it was for the J-10 or the su 57. But it was for the LMFS. It appears that this exhaust nozzle is exclusive to the LMFS. Seeing that engine around 2+ years ago proves that they have been serious about this thing for years.

The LMFS still has the phase 1 engine. But it has a different tip than the phase 1 engine in the su 57

(wait. ****. thats the F-35 engine i think. well, you know the engine im talking about. another one of these nutty YT channels)

scaled down version of N036 radar, in other words that translates to its a failure. Time to go back to paying attention to the Su-57 and see if project megapolis is a success. I mean yeah I get it that KRET and RTI stated the country is 10 years behind on MMICs, but still using the old N036 radar as a baseline with reduced modules instead of saying we got newer smaller modules with more than 10+ years of time to match the count on the F-35 but yet thats not implemented? That 25-30 million dollars an aircraft is starting to make more sense.

Please use this aircraft for export production, don't go domestic production with how it currently is to make Russian pilots be served as cannon fodder to the west.

I doubt that any real crippling of its detection abilities will be designed. We have no real information about such details.

There is so much butthurt over this jet. Every NATzO fanboi is scrambling to dismiss it.

I think the arrival of the Su-75 is due to the approaching completion of the second stage engine for the Su-57.

kvs wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Scorpius wrote:please also note that it is necessary to take into account the conversion factor of about 2.5 for any dollar prices from Russia. So the real price, estimated at purchasing power parity for the Su-75, will not be $ 30 million, but about 75. I hope now it does not seem to anyone too small a price for a fifth-generation aircraft ))

Purchasing power parity does not work like this, sorry.

PPP is a normalization factor.  If 30 million is the nominal conversion rate price.   Then the PPP equivalent is 75 million.    Just like
Russia's GDP is not less than that of Portugal in real terms, its nominal exchange prices are not "real".   It gives Russia an export
advantage to have a PPP of 2.5 (at lowest).     But an apples to apples comparison requires the low export price to be scaled up
by the PPP factor.

PPP is what can be purchased domestically for a given amount of local currency converted to US$. (a standard basket of goods) but there is no normalization of exports. If this plane can be sold economically to the RuAF an equivalient of US$30M then it can be exported economically for approx the same price. If Russia wants to sell it so cheap, - that is a policy issue.

People use nominal dollar amounts as a gauge of the "true value". For those people, the PPP scaling is a way to offset their nonsense.
Nothing prevents PPP adjustment of export prices. If they are conversions of rubles into dollars using the exchange rate. The PPP
factor can be applied to the exchange rate. That is what the PPP scales.

Anyway, the 30 million price tag for this jet is a great deal.

thegopnik wrote:scaled down version of N036 radar, in other words that translates to its a failure. Time to go back to paying attention to the Su-57 and see if project megapolis is a success. I mean yeah I get it that KRET and RTI stated the country is 10 years behind on MMICs, but still using the old N036 radar as a baseline with reduced modules instead of saying we got newer smaller modules with more than 10+ years of time to match the count on the F-35 but yet thats not implemented? That 25-30 million dollars an aircraft is starting to make more sense.

Please use this aircraft for export production, don't go domestic production with how it currently is to make Russian pilots be served as cannon fodder to the west.

That is ridiculous. I'll repost my reply to you from secretprojectsuk.

"It isn't that simple. Remember we are probably talking about around half the energy generation of the su 57 and it is smaller. This is not a bad thing it is meant for many different roles. Besides that the ruskies have improved on their mmic tech and have developed newer GaAs modules with over double the power ratings of the originals. It will be plenty enough for this aircraft. Firstly let's say this aircraft cab detect aircraft at 3 square meters at 200km. This is plenty enough as even with the most advanced missiles like r77m and amraam er the engagement distances will almost surely be at most 120 to 70 km 98 percent of the time. Also one on one fights are pretty rare and combined arms abilities of the US and Russia with their network centric warfare abilities are both very good. I more imagine these t75 aircraft in quiet recieve mode while taking active radar data from an su57 or something.

Anyways the smaller radar is not as much my concern as is the cost per vehicle/maintenance, success of the logistics of the program itself, aftermarket care capabilities, and lower on the list stuff like the success of the sensor fusion of the various parts etc.."

The t-75 is NOT the f-35. Already saw another guy on that forum saying to put a French or Chinese (lol) radar in it! Chinese, though they would scream and deny, are at the exact same level in GaAs tech, and also no way they would switch out radars but I'm going off subject. A GaAs radar with 200km detection range for 3 square meter cross section target is more than fine for an aircraft like this. This aircraft does not need to be lobbing r37m's at enemies from 100 to 120 km away. It will have r77m missiles which is fine and the detection range is fine. Also as I said earlier this thing will be interconnected with tons of other ground and airborne sensors.

thegopnik wrote:scaled down version of N036 radar, in other words that translates to its a failure. Time to go back to paying attention to the Su-57 and see if project megapolis is a success. I mean yeah I get it that KRET and RTI stated the country is 10 years behind on MMICs, but still using the old N036 radar as a baseline with reduced modules instead of saying we got newer smaller modules with more than 10+ years of time to match the count on the F-35 but yet thats not implemented? That 25-30 million dollars an aircraft is starting to make more sense.

Please use this aircraft for export production, don't go domestic production with how it currently is to make Russian pilots be served as cannon fodder to the west.

What?

You are aware these are 10-15w GaAS modules.  This would put it on par with the most advanced Jets out.

And that is if these are 10-15w modules. We don't know what N036 officially uses either.

ffs... I know it is pointless but I just want to point out that this is the type of poster complaining about ruskie aircraft. These are the same kind of posters who think DSI is an absolute necessity in every case and that stealth equals shiny metallic looking exterior.

Edit: messed up in inserting the tweet.