Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,219
Reaction score
653
Two other thoughts that have occurred to me: first, in the same way as the 5 AAM load (implying 3 MRAAMs in the main bay) has implications that read across back to the Su-57, so could the internal laser designator. Second, if this thing hits Mach 1.8 - 2.0 with a fixed intake and the same engine, might that indicate that there is something to the rumours of the Su-57 with its variable intakes being *very* fast indeed? Or at least, that it supercruises extremely fast, if its top speed isn't far in excess of Mach 2.0 (think Concorde, where supercruise was essentially the same as top speed, limited by materials).
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
1,204
So, as jeffb mentions, we could potentially have commonality in forward fuselage & cockpit (including equipment & avionics), wings, fins, main weapons bay, landing gear and engine. It's stunning to contemplate that such a high proportion of primary structure from an aircraft *twice* the size could come together into a coherent and even fairly elegant design! I can't think of a recent example that would quite match this feat

I'm not sure re-use is quite that extensive, but there's the reported sourcing of the Su-27IB/Su-34 nose from izdeliye 54 as a precedent https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...s-izdelije-54-tactical-bombers.419/post-81820

And of course there's the Fisher P-75....

ETA: and EAP used a Tornado aft-fuselage and fin (which is why Typhoon has a single tail rather than the initially planned twin-tail) and the RB199. Though that was due to German funding shenanigans which meant MBB dropped out of building a composite aft fuselage, rather than being a design choice. In fact it was initially assumed the first 20 (or more?) Eurofighters would have RB199s, but EJ200 completed development early enough that wasn't needed.
 
Last edited:

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
715
The EOTS is annoying me as well, why design the plane with the landing gear to of-Center like the Su-25. Sukhoi Should have put the EOTS system to the rear of the radar without affecting the landing gear. I hope that come the full production variant Sukhoi gets this sorted out.
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,219
Reaction score
653
I'n bit sure re-use is quite that extensive, but there's the reported sourcing of the Su-27IB/Su-34 nose from izdeliye 54 as a precedent

That's actually a pretty good example that I admittedly hadn't considered, but falls far short of the scale seen here and of course only the Su-34 ever saw the light of day. While we're at it, the same forward fuselage also found its way onto MiG's Izd. 7.01 interceptor, which of course makes it notable for actually crossing the OKB boundary.

And of course there's the Fisher P-75....

"recent" :) Else various WWII or Korean War Twins/Zwillings come to mind. Although that brings us onto the Stratolaunch Roc, with its extensive reuse of 747 components (cockpit section, landing gear, engines, various avionics and equipment). But even that doesn't quite match Checkmate/Su-57, and of course is a one-off. It's also not what I'd call elegant ;)

ETA: and EAP used a Tornado aft-fuselage and fin (which is why Typhoon has a single tail rather than the initially planned twin-tail) and the RB199. Though that was due to German funding shenanigans which meant MBB dropped out of building a composite aft fuselage, rather than being a design choice. In fact it was initially assumed the first 20 (or more?) Eurofighters would have RB199s, but EJ200 completed development early enough that wasn't needed.

Tornado and EAP/Typhoon are pretty similar in size though, and as you note it was only an improvised solution for a one-off demonstrator, not intended for mass production.

The EOTS is annoying me as well, why design the plane with the landing gear to of-Center like the Su-25. Sukhoi Should have put the EOTS system to the rear of the radar without affecting the landing gear. I hope that come the full production variant Sukhoi gets this sorted out.

It does kind of insult your sense of aesthetics, but I'll cut it some slack for recalling the ultra-cool XF8U-3 :D
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
715
Sukhoi Should have put the EOTS system to the rear of the radar without affecting the landing gear. I hope that come the full production variant Sukhoi gets this sorted out.
Space in the nose is limited. It's already very long as it is.

Sukhoi should have made the fighter a little bit longer to start with and no one would know the difference.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
148
Reaction score
201
Sukhoi Should have put the EOTS system to the rear of the radar without affecting the landing gear. I hope that come the full production variant Sukhoi gets this sorted out.
Space in the nose is limited. It's already very long as it is.

Sukhoi should have made the fighter a little bit longer to start with and no one would know the difference.
So long as it doesnt effect landing or ground rolling performance it unlikely to be an issue. People can live with the slight off work.
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
532
Reaction score
621
Wish I somehow managed to fool Sukhoi in that airshow that I am some kind of foreign official that is interested in buying it. I am sure they are given more exclusive content on the aircraft like modules used for EW system, radar being used, additional features on aircraft that we currently dont get info on in this forum. Some customers blow their money on things like nothing on products and some customers would like to know more details on what their purchasing and considering there are only money tight customers that the U.S. can barely give a shit about sanctioning they need more details before making purchases. I doubt any user here with the info disclosed now would say shut up and take my money on wanting to purchase this so the sales might be low or if any at all.
 

BLACK_MAMBA

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
64
Reaction score
101
ETA: and EAP used a Tornado aft-fuselage and fin (which is why Typhoon has a single tail rather than the initially planned twin-tail) and the RB199.
The choice wasn't made because they used a Tornado rear fuselage. BAe did studies regarding the two options and found no massive difference that favoured one over the other. MBB wanted two tails though due to their high-alpha "obsession" and as they were to build the rear fuselage so twin tails was selected. When funding etc was pulled and they couldn't do the rear fuselage BAe went with a Tornado single tail which worked well enough. Later they revisited the subject before Typhoon finilisation and decided on a single tail due to the twins offering no real major advantage but requiring a more complex and heavier structure, higher drag etc. EAP might have helped prove the concept, but they didn't go with the single tail just because the EAP had one. The idea was around before then
 
Last edited:

Manuducati

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
30
Reaction score
98
The EOTS is annoying me as well, why design the plane with the landing gear to of-Center like the Su-25. Sukhoi Should have put the EOTS system to the rear of the radar without affecting the landing gear. I hope that come the full production variant Sukhoi gets this sorted out.
Then it would probably affect the airflow to the engine, due to the diverterless design.
 

TR1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
108
Reaction score
413
E60pQf6UcA0lAO9
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
4,474
So, as jeffb mentions, we could potentially have commonality in forward fuselage & cockpit (including equipment & avionics), wings, fins, main weapons bay, landing gear and engine. It's stunning to contemplate that such a high proportion of primary structure from an aircraft *twice* the size could come together into a coherent and even fairly elegant design! I can't think of a recent example that would quite match this feat

I'm not sure re-use is quite that extensive, but there's the reported sourcing of the Su-27IB/Su-34 nose from izdeliye 54 as a precedent https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...s-izdelije-54-tactical-bombers.419/post-81820

And of course there's the Fisher P-75....

ETA: and EAP used a Tornado aft-fuselage and fin (which is why Typhoon has a single tail rather than the initially planned twin-tail) and the RB199. Though that was due to German funding shenanigans which meant MBB dropped out of building a composite aft fuselage, rather than being a design choice. In fact it was initially assumed the first 20 (or more?) Eurofighters would have RB199s, but EJ200 completed development early enough that wasn't needed.

Waaaait... the Su-34 nose comes from a late development of the T-4 ? That's amazing. Missed that on this forum back then. Thank you !
 

coanda

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
259
Reaction score
214
The landing gear offset has negligible effect on weight and balance.

I take it the in-flight pic with the Su-57 is a photoshop?
 

Dr.Snufflebug

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 14, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
30
The landing gear offset has negligible effect on weight and balance.

I take it the in-flight pic with the Su-57 is a photoshop?
It's gonna put a dent in several figures, when things add up, I mean, if there is a slight "skew" that has to be compensated for by the FCS or so, inducing a tiny bit of drag...

There probably isn't an imbalance though, my guess is that they thought of it. Just how is the question, the EOTS itself probably doesn't do it on its own.

Where was the "sidebay gun" supposed to go? Starboard or port? Is it a self-contained unit, or could there be an internal magazine available for that configuation?

Just throwing things out there...
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,099
Reaction score
3,320
Honestly the impact is very minor. See how any plane can land back with assymmetrical ordonnances.

The only slight annoying effect for the pilot is on the ground with more tyre drag on one side.
 

Dr.Snufflebug

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 14, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
30
Honestly the impact is very minor. See how any plane can land back with assymmetrical ordonnances.

The only slight annoying effect for the pilot is on the ground with more tyre drag on one side.
Occasional asymmetrical ordnance is one thing, built-in asymmetry another. The Su-25 was mentioned, but it has a huge offset gun that warrants it, balances it out neatly.

The Sea Vixen had its entire cockpit off-axis, because putting the WSO/radar guy in tandem was impractical. He had to have his dark lair somewhere, and the inlet ducts etc were in the way behind the cockpit. So a side-by-side solution was the way to go. It was balanced.

Other visually asymmetric designs were in fact carefully balanced as well, the crazy Arados spring to mind. Or some of Burts creations.

So my question was, and remains, what balances it out?
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,178
Reaction score
6,326
ETA: and EAP used a Tornado aft-fuselage and fin (which is why Typhoon has a single tail rather than the initially planned twin-tail) and the RB199.
The choice wasn't made because they used a Tornado rear fuselage. BAe did studies regarding the two options and found massive difference that favoured one over the other. MBB wanted two tails though due to their high-alpha "obsession" and as they were to build the rear fuselage so twin tails was selected. When funding etc was pulled and they couldn't do the rear fuselage BAe went with a Tornado single tail which worked well enough. Later they revisited the subject before Typhoon finilisation and decided on a single tail due to the twins offering no real major advantage but requiring a more complex and heavier structure, higher drag etc. EAP might have helped prove the concept, but they didn't go with the single tail just because the EAP had one. The idea was around before then

Like everything its a tradeoff. There was no "massive difference". Twin tails weighed a bit more, and required much more careful positioning with respect to vortices etc. Whether you believed it was a worthwhile trade depended on how important low speed high-alpha was to you. BAE was not convinced it was worth the weight. MBB was. The choice was reexamined after EAP and BAE won the argument again. With different requirements the choice could have gone the other way. The Typhoon is more akin to the F-16 than the F-18 (optimised for higher speed agility and low energy bleed).

Back to Checkmate. I'm not sure why people are so concerned about the offset nose gear?
 

coanda

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
259
Reaction score
214
Honestly the impact is very minor. See how any plane can land back with assymmetrical ordonnances.

The only slight annoying effect for the pilot is on the ground with more tyre drag on one side.
Occasional asymmetrical ordnance is one thing, built-in asymmetry another. The Su-25 was mentioned, but it has a huge offset gun that warrants it, balances it out neatly.

The Sea Vixen had its entire cockpit off-axis, because putting the WSO/radar guy in tandem was impractical. He had to have his dark lair somewhere, and the inlet ducts etc were in the way behind the cockpit. So a side-by-side solution was the way to go. It was balanced.

Other visually asymmetric designs were in fact carefully balanced as well, the crazy Arados spring to mind. Or some of Burts creations.

So my question was, and remains, what balances it out?
Something that creates an equal and opposite moment elsewhere in the airframe, if it's even necessary which is unlikely. Even airliners are weight and geometry assymetric.

The trade of an offset nose gear is that you get to have your EOTS up front with a good view, that isn't in tandem thus keeping the fuselage length down and maximising packaging density. This is a good trade overall.
 

flanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
910
Reaction score
166
It has a refuelling probe:
LMAO, that's the original refueling probe from T-50 which was changed on later airframes. Did they outright cannibalized some of old ground airframes of T-50 to make this thing?!
Russian%2BSu%2B57%2Bfighter%2Baircraft%2Brefueling%2Bpod%2B1.gif


vs

vne88t1wpvh51.jpg

Yeah, it's looking more and more like they have used a lot. I think the Radome on the new aircraft is at least made in the same way as the one in this picture - you can see the fore-aft triangular section shapes in the moulding.

Take a look at the right hand high res image in this post:

As soon as i saw the profile of the radome and the general shape i got reminded of this infamous radome on T-50S2. I do wonder if it is *exactly* the one... Looks awfully close indeed.
 

BLACK_MAMBA

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
64
Reaction score
101
As soon as i saw the profile of the radome and the general shape i got reminded of this infamous radome on T-50S2. I do wonder if it is *exactly* the one... Looks awfully close indeed.
I don't think consensus was reached at the time either. That radome disappeared the moment we saw pictures of the completed airframe where it was fitted with one that has the sharp edges you would expect and as was fitted to the prototypes. It must be some sort of temporary part to cover, add weight or dimensions although a reasoning for it escapes me.

It does however add to the conclusion that this mock-up was clearly built using Su-57 prototype/structural test airframe spares.
 

flanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
910
Reaction score
166
The reasoning escapes me as well. Pretty strange, maybe it was a practical joke/hint by Sukhoi and/or FSB's first department...

IFR doors are strange, since the design change to a different style with one main door is old now, it was implemented first on T-50-7 way back in 2014. (on flying frame it was T-50-6-2, in 2016) T-50-KNS is alive and well (as b/n 057) and it is being presented on MAKS-2021 as it was first on MAKS-2019. This leaves T-50-0 as a candidate for weird cannibalism. That being said, i have hard time imagining converting T-50-0 nose section into... that. But i suppose it is doable.
 

Dreamfighter

Senior Something
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
203
Reaction score
43
...
Seriously, I know they claim to have used "supercomputing technologies" to aid in the design work, but high powered computing and software assistance has been the industry standard for a long time now. The fact that they managed to present a product this far along in development after only a single year is very impressive, even accounting for borrowed technology from it's older sister.
...

So, Checkmate is 'eT-75' or 'eSu-75', or 'eSu-XX'....

In the US; e.g. HPCMP 'CREATE', plus e.g. 'ADAPT'-software. For fixed wing it´s called 'CREATE-AV'. Used in e.g. the NGAD program. And for B-21. With regard to the F/A-XX 'analysis of alternatives', performance for over 5 million design geometries was evaluated that way, in a relatively very, very short time. Advanced virtual testing & engineering. To speed up things (much less physical testing, whether sub-scale or full-scale) and for getting interchangeable/modular options. 'Digital twins', goal is to have even such a twin for the smallest chip that has to go in the aircraft. Add to that advanced 3D-printing, for producing larger and/or more important components then we are used to see that way.
Whether HPC-virtual engineering will indeed end up delivering prototypes that are ready to go into production 'almost immediately', without the usual need to discover & fix a whole bunch of design-flaws first through elaborate test-flying, remains to be seen. Probably/reasonably they expect to still discover some flaws, but a whole lot less then with previous programs and previous computed designing.
Maybe just some 'minor' flaws that can/will be fixed later (fingers crossed), when they switch to production of a next iteration, or when they just dump the bird for a completely new one, after not much more then 8 to 10 years. At least that seems to be the intention at the moment.
So it didn´t surprise me that much when Will Roper said last year a full-scale NGAD-demonstrator had already been flown in the real world, the whole cycle to get from an initial design to a flying aircraft (which is really as good as hoped for, or maybe not so good after all) gets shortened. If they´ve flown it all the way they wanted without having been back to the 'drawing board' a few times, they´ll be extremely happy. Maybe the demonstrator was just to check if HPC & virtual engineering could indeed make them that happy, before starting in the same manner the real thing they would like to be so happy about. Probably it depends on to what extent they wanted to verify things, and what kind of results they´ve already achieved that way with other stuff.
Anyway, the Russians (unsurprisingly) seem to be taking a similar path.
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
555
Reaction score
37
It has occurred to me that Sukhoi has one of the most practically experienced design teams working right now, in the past decade, they've flow the Su-57, Su-70, and now are designing this. The elegance of the design may reflect that recent experience. Compare to Boeing which in the past decade only designed the USN tanker and outsourced the USAF trainer to SAAB.

Checkmate seems to be a preview of the MR-X program and I half wonder if there aren't a few USAF fleet management experts who wished they could buy in.
 
Last edited:

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
532
Reaction score
621
Well a tragedy just happened today so lets have a moment of silence.



- 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.


I mean I get it that their most major radar company RTI and most major EW company KRET state 10 years behind the west in MMIC technology. But I mean you were given more than 10+ years to have improved modules like their biggest rage of mass producing LTCC modules for lower AESA costs and heat resistance. But instead the aircraft is just a downsize of the already existing N036 radar. Better off sticking to Su-57s for domestic production or go serve your pilots as cannon fodder with these aircraft. Now I am just sticking around for the export potential of it. Is it still too late to create a new airborne radar platform?
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
781
Reaction score
1,297
I mean I get it that their most major radar company RTI and most major EW company KRET state 10 years behind the west in MMIC technology. But I mean you were given more than 10+ years to have improved modules like their biggest rage of mass producing LTCC modules for lower AESA costs and heat resistance. But instead the aircraft is just a downsize of the already existing N036 radar. Better off sticking to Su-57s for domestic production or go serve your pilots as cannon fodder with these aircraft. Now I am just sticking around for the export potential of it. Is it still too late to create a new airborne radar platform?

since it seems the aircraft was designed for a specific foreign customer and other exports
how flexible do you think they will be in terms of incorporating foreign avionics, like on the Su-30 series (although i dont think any of them went as far as adopting a non-Russian radar set).
 

TMA1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
92
Reaction score
125
Well a tragedy just happened today so lets have a moment of silence.



- 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.


I mean I get it that their most major radar company RTI and most major EW company KRET state 10 years behind the west in MMIC technology. But I mean you were given more than 10+ years to have improved modules like their biggest rage of mass producing LTCC modules for lower AESA costs and heat resistance. But instead the aircraft is just a downsize of the already existing N036 radar. Better off sticking to Su-57s for domestic production or go serve your pilots as cannon fodder with these aircraft. Now I am just sticking around for the export potential of it. Is it still too late to create a new airborne radar platform?

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..

Edit: had to delete some excess quoting.
 

ADC411

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
46

since it seems the aircraft was designed for a specific foreign customer and other exports
how flexible do you think they will be in terms of incorporating foreign avionics, like on the Su-30 series (although i dont think any of them went as far as adopting a non-Russian radar set).

I'd consider it almost a given. It's reportedly designed with open architecture systems, allowing simpler, more painless integration of new systems and upgrades.

If anything, it would have more modification and foreign integration potential than the Su-30 ever did.
 

Anduriel

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
81
Reaction score
128
I mean I get it that their most major radar company RTI and most major EW company KRET state 10 years behind the west in MMIC technology. But I mean you were given more than 10+ years to have improved modules like their biggest rage of mass producing LTCC modules for lower AESA costs and heat resistance. But instead the aircraft is just a downsize of the already existing N036 radar. Better off sticking to Su-57s for domestic production or go serve your pilots as cannon fodder with these aircraft. Now I am just sticking around for the export potential of it. Is it still too late to create a new airborne radar platform?
It's still an speculation. Paralay guys compared nosecone and cockpit size with that of Su-57 - they are virtually the same. Volume-wise you can install N036 in it, the only question is power draw (we have only one generator, since we have one engine and cooling). And even then 1524 TR with 7.2 W power should be better than 1100 TR with 10W.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
781
Reaction score
1,297

since it seems the aircraft was designed for a specific foreign customer and other exports
how flexible do you think they will be in terms of incorporating foreign avionics, like on the Su-30 series (although i dont think any of them went as far as adopting a non-Russian radar set).

I'd consider it almost a given. It's reportedly designed with open architecture systems, allowing simpler, more painless integration of new systems and upgrades.

If anything, it would have more modification and foreign integration potential than the Su-30 ever did.

if thats true, and there are still issues with the Radar systems.. then slap some Elbit or RBE2s in there!
although not sure how any foreign radar sets could work given some of the sanction issues.
perhaps a Chinese set? :p
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
532
Reaction score
621
It's still an speculation. Paralay guys compared nosecone and cockpit size with that of Su-57 - they are virtually the same. Volume-wise you can install N036 in it, the only question is power draw (we have only one generator, since we have one engine and cooling). And even then 1524 TR with 7.2 W power should be better than 1100 TR with 10W.

The FGA-35 estimates 3m2 at 250kms based on smaller size, N035 is 3m2 at 350kms which is why it is always assumed that the N036 will be better because its AESA in performance than the N035 according to radar manufactures that have announced the information before. What they are comparing in that forum is entirely different from what my news source just said.

Their airshow they state is about destroying other 5th gens with that 5th gen meaning you are seriously offending the hell out of the U.S. and Chinese saying that. It is considered false advertising and there is some info disclosed which I mentioned not to long ago of what a F-35 pilot said about seeing targets(he had to get in serious trouble) at what distance
 
Last edited:

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
886
Reaction score
715
The main constraint would be cooling demands. as AESA is hot and will always be so. So putting more powerful modules may not always be the desired solution. If Checkmate has Su-57 nose radome, then yeah a same sized array can be installed but with less module power. The goal would be to maximize the amount of TRM that populates the

So far avionics cooling relies on either air-cooled architecture or liquid cooled. Liquid so far seems to be more prevalent nowadays while air cooling may persist mainly because they are much lighter. Air cooling however are subject to flight conditions like speed, altitude etc which may introduce some limitations on what modes or even what altitude your radar can operate, and means have to be developed so that your heat exchanger wont show up in enemy Infra red sensor. the JSF did this by actually having its heat exchanger mounted on the F-135's.

Other methods would be using fuel as heatsink. This put constraint on how much fuel one can use to fly and the heat exchanger might be heavier but it might offer better heat capacity.

Either way the cooling demand will put a hard limit on the Average power that can be emitted by the radar and thus range. This average power is then further dictates how radar would like to operate.
 

ADC411

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
46
Development continues:

The United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and the Shvabe holding, which are part of the Rostec State Corporation, have entered into an agreement to develop and supply a 24-hour optical-electronic sighting system KOEPS-75 for the newest Russian light tactical aircraft (LTS) Checkmate, presented at the International Aviation and Space Salon MAKS-2021
 

flanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
910
Reaction score
166
I really want to see this thing fly.

You'd think they'd have some video of test articles flying, wouldn't you?

Not calling bullshit yet but...
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.
Looks like I might have a bit of a wait.
I think i have read "late 2022" as a possible early date if all goes well as well. Of note; The frame shown is the actual frame that will take the first flight. I am not sure, but the way it sounded this is the frame that will be undergoing static frame testing as well prior to the first flight. They are planning to finish static testing in about a year from now. So frame is ahead, subsystems and integration is what is "lagging". If they hit all their target dates it will be quite impressive and fast development for a modern frame. Lets hope they dont find any nasty surprises during static testing like they did with T-50...
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
252
Reaction score
396
Anyway, the Russians (unsurprisingly) seem to be taking a similar path.
Everyone is doing the same, what strikes me is that US thinks they can get an advantage over their rivals by going that way. If all, it allows smaller economies to undertake more ambitious projects, since the development effort and cost is greatly reduced.
 

Similar threads

Top