New combat aircraft will be presented at MAKS-2021

Backman wrote:Aviation Week did a podcast with Steve Trimble and another guy on the su 75. They take the jet itself at face value. But the main takeaway to them is the usual BS.
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/podcast-sizing-russias-new-light-fighter

hoom wrote:

Do you remember when was that?

I don't remember dates & don't seem to be able to find the thing I recall reading about rollback but some referencesto buffeting issues:

Actually, it's all those other projects that may give Russia reason to go with a cheaper jet in numbers so they have more disposable income to fund other projects.

Gomig-21 wrote:You mentioned the forward landing gear shifted over to the left side in your drawing? You were able to see that with the tarp on? That's amazing and sorry I missed that! I was surprised when I only noticed it from that bottom view in @Backman's post. Awesome.

Hopefully now we'll see more pics of this beauty in natural lighting, instead of all that purple lighting effects etc.

Backman wrote:Aviation Week did a podcast with Steve Trimble and another guy on the su 75. They take the jet itself at face value. But the main takeaway to them is the usual BS. UAC has a lot of debt , this is basically a glorified plywood model. And they must find financing from a buyer to develop it yadayada. And of course , they bring up India backing out of FGFA. Yet Russia fully developed that and put it into production without India. And having India involved would have actually slowed down the project rather than speed it up.

He said even if one of these does fly, it could still be a glorified mockup that still needs to be developed. It's impossible with these guys. So now even if they rolled that thing out of the pavillion and flew it, they would still say it's a mockup that needs money. No

Then he says Northrop development a similar jet for export out of its own pocket and of course Rostec and UAC can't do that. Even though it looks like that is exactly what UAC is doing and has done to this point.

From what I can see, Russia can finance this with a buy order. That's probably all it needs. If they get an order , they can fill it. It doesn't need financing to just develop it. Even though UAE might put in some money. Because they are trying to diversify their economy. And they've put money in the Aurus car and MC-21 for the same reason.

All and all , it's su 57 2.0. They were writing that the su 57 was cancelled in the same year that it went into production.

Backman wrote:Aviation Week did a podcast with Steve Trimble and another guy on the su 75. They take the jet itself at face value. But the main takeaway to them is the usual BS. UAC has a lot of debt , this is basically a glorified plywood model. And they must find financing from a buyer to develop it yadayada. And of course , they bring up India backing out of FGFA. Yet Russia fully developed that and put it into production without India. And having India involved would have actually slowed down the project rather than speed it up. 

He said even if one of these does fly, it could still be a glorified mockup that still needs to be developed. It's impossible with these guys. So now even if they rolled that thing out of the pavillion and flew it, they would still say it's a mockup that needs money.   

Then he says Northrop development a similar jet for export out of its own pocket and of course Rostec and UAC can't do that. Even though it looks like that is exactly what UAC is doing and has done to this point. 

From what I can see, Russia can finance this with a buy order. That's probably all it needs. If they get an order , they can fill it. It doesn't need financing to just develop it. Even though UAE might put in some money. Because they are trying to diversify their economy. And they've put money in the Aurus car and MC-21 for the same reason.

All and all , it's su 57 2.0. They were writing that the su 57 was cancelled in the same year that it went into production.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/podcast-sizing-russias-new-light-fighter

Backman wrote:And of course , they bring up India backing out of FGFA. Yet Russia fully developed that and put it into production without India. And having India involved would have actually slowed down the project rather than speed it up. 

lyle6 wrote:

Backman wrote:Aviation 

Jesus Christ, never link directly to these shit sites. Put it in the archive first so they never get clicks, ever.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:@Iso

It's not DESIGNED.

It's got a lengthy development cycle ahead of it IF the project even gets the funding it needs. Which unless a lot of foreign backers appear, I doubt it will. Russia is busy with the 57 and 70 like you said. Plus they are talking about upgrades to the S-57, not to mention other aircraft models that need replacements.

Also, those were export versions again not domestic ones.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:@Iso

It's not DESIGNED.

It's got a lengthy development cycle ahead of it IF the project even gets the funding it needs. Which unless a lot of foreign backers appear, I doubt it will. Russia is busy with the 57 and 70 like you said. Plus they are talking about upgrades to the S-57, not to mention other aircraft models that need replacements.

Also, those were export versions again not domestic ones.

LMFS wrote:Despite the butt-hurt of some sore losers, it IS designed, and more than that it is built and is getting ready for testing

Isos wrote:

And I still hardly considere this plane as a prototype. Just look at the picture of the belly, it is made quickly and seem to be some raw materials.

GarryB wrote:
I totally agree with you but from a financial aspect a cannon is quite expensive for something they don't intend to use a lot.

The Americans made this same mistake with the F-4 Phantom... missiles would do everything, cannon were heavy and expensive and unlikely to be used so they removed them and then the war in Vietnam came up and they realised their mistake.

If, however you want to make an aircraft cheaper, removing a fixed gun frees up space and weight, but it also massively reduces maintenance because every flight you fire that gun and even flights you don't it has to be cleaned. Also in action there is always a risk of a build up of explosive gases that can cause damage or fire, and of course cannon generate significant force on the aircraft structure... firing 100 30mm cannon shells a second exerts serious force from a 6 barrel 30mm gatling gun on the MiG-27 for instance, and while the 23 x 115mm round is much less powerful firing at a cyclic rate of 12,000 rpm generates a huge amount of vibration and energy on an Su-24 and MiG-31.

Not having to clean it, not having to carry it, these are important issues for some aircraft that may not use their guns very much at all... mainly because they don't want to have to fly that close to targets on the ground  or in the air.

And I totally agree... Russian aircraft guns are works of art... the Americans think their gatlings are best, but the 23mm Russian cannon has double its rate of fire and is much lighter and is gas powered so it does not need an electric motor to make it fire... saving more space and weight. The American round has a higher muzzle velocity but the Russian round has a much heavier HE payload making it more effective on target. Put a projectile in the Russian shell and you would get similar high muzzle velocities but higher rate of fire, lighter and rather more compact.

This plane is for export however and most countries will never use it in combat so not having an internal gun wont be a huge issue.

Russia already has gunpods with cannon... including pods that allow the cannon to elevate and traverse to follow targets... ie you can open fire in a dive and then pull up 30 degrees and keep the barrels on the target as you continue to fire...

It's not DESIGNED.

miketheterrible wrote:

thegopnik wrote:@TMA1

But the F-35 is a small aircraft as well and is doing just fine with energy generation. The F-35 is also meant for many different roles. I know they have improved in MMIC technology, but have they put those new MMICs to work on their radar or got their size to  be a little more smaller to make 1500 still fit but on a smaller radar? The only thing the source is saying using a smaller amount of modules that was on the N036, they said N036 not N036M or anything like we have a new version radar for the Su-57 that will be shared as a smaller scale. Having an aircraft with a 3m2 at 200(250 kms is the actual distance of same 3m2 target by latest fga-35 radar)kms against an aircraft that can see a 3m2 target at 200 miles or 321 kms is a major fucking difference. 321(1.1 / 3) ^ .25 the target that the F-35 would see as a reference point would be a 1.1m2 target while the fga-35 at that distance can only see a 3m2 target. I still would not want to pump out 300 of these and I think its going to be a no-brainer that EW modules being used would be the same old shit as the Su-57 but with less jamming power which is also a factor.

@miketheterrible

Where are you getting 10-15 watts? https://www.niip.ru/upload/iblock/4c8/4c89c11ae741be234a5f900b3fb41e86.pdf this was from 2015 and on pdf page 35 are stating 5 watts. The N036 is an older radar than that article. If they were mass producing these aircrafts more than the U.S. producing F-35s this would be a great idea.

The modules they are getting from are NPO Istok.  They have had modules of GaN and GaAS of multiple ranges.

What they say back then vs reality now are different.  5W modules was their first back in early 2000's before they even made quad module packs to deal with the cooling.

Edit: the modules you are eluding to where used in the Zhuk AE back in 2006. Nothing said about N036.

Also, occured to me it's kind of pointless. Power delivery is key and a single jet engine may only provide roughly 7KW of power for the radar anyway.  15KW is for N036 on Su-57.

Isos wrote:Hardly developed if you ask me. They just started.

And this thing was developed by sukhoi with their own money. The design on computer is cheap. The use of su-57's stuff and work is also cheap since they did it before this aircraft and with money of russian gov. There is no way they keep the work and build actual prototype with no money invested.

And I still hardly considere this plane as a prototype. Just look at the picture of the belly, it is made quickly and seem to be some raw materials.

Seig wrote:LoL no it ain't that was just a mockup model.

Prototypes aren't meant to be flying for years and that's if the plane gets the budget and entry into service by 2027 is extremely generous, there will be delays etc that is again assuming it gets the funding needed.

Nice delusions you have there tho.

miketheterrible wrote:It seems that no one pointed out that the comment about debt in UAC, that all debt was actually forgiven - meaning Russian government paid it off for them. Or just outright written off.

hoom wrote:There may need to be changes from the ground testing but if as we speculate its reusing (with minimal changes) wings, tail, cockpit, main bay, engine & a bunch of the electronics from Su-57, those already were designed, tested & validated in the Su-57 program.

Atmosphere wrote:For the Checkmate, i suspect the reason why it is there is simply to compensate for the lack of all round IRST vision like on Su-57. So it would make sense to use it in this form Because it doubles as an IRST.

miketheterrible wrote:It seems that no one pointed out that the comment about debt in UAC, that all debt was actually forgiven - meaning Russian government paid it off for them.  Or just outright written off.

hoom wrote:

It's not DESIGNED.

It is though.
Unless they're lying this display is of a flight capable prototype built for at least ground testing, that means the structure is designed and built.

There may need to be changes from the ground testing but if as we speculate its reusing (with minimal changes) wings, tail, cockpit, main bay, engine & a bunch of the electronics from Su-57, those already were designed, tested & validated in the Su-57 program.

They'll need to confirm that it all works in this combo but as long as loads are within previously validated range they won't need to fully test those elements again.

Big_Gazza wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:It seems that no one pointed out that the comment about debt in UAC, that all debt was actually forgiven - meaning Russian government paid it off for them.  Or just outright written off.

That's the power of publicly-funded State Capitalism, and why the elite capital-owners of the Western deep state establishments are so desperate to undermine Russia (and China) - to prevent either of them from categorically proving the advantages of such a system.  Successful state capitalism is a deadly threat to Western neoliberalism and its endless promotion of private ownership, deregulation and free-trade for the enrichment of our corrupt elites.

So so it ISN'T DESIGNED. If it was they would have a flyable prototype

I am getting tired of hearing about reused SU-57 parts.

This is an export plane, it's not going to have domestic SU-57 parts in it.