stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
927
Reaction score
797
I would expect 1-2 flying prototypes and LOTS of publications to attract buyers.

But some customers might want the aircraft to be actually be operated by VKS.
 

Jackonicko

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
76
Reaction score
65
Coanda,
It's fairly clear to see that this is a first article - for engineering development and display. Nothing wrong with that!

Using as many Su-57 parts as possible is the right way forward. Leveraging that previous investment in design, tech and manufacturing is paramount in making this aircraft 'affordable'.

The more assemblies and tooling you use from already existing and paid for products and processes the lower your upfront setup and long lead item costs.
The problem with that is that you're using parts and sub-assemblies sized, optimised and stressed for a heavy, twin-engined fighter for what's meant to be a lightweight single engined tactical fighter.

When Teddy Petter created the Gnat, he did not start out by using the outer wing panels from a flaming Javelin.

You couldn't create a useful lightweight fighter from the nose, fins and wing of an F-15. And even if we could, it would be vastly inferior to a purpose designed aircraft.

Your examples are not really valid.

The size difference between a Gnat and a Javelin makes an extremely poor example.

Javelin
Length: 17.3m
Span: 16m
Wing area: 86m2
Height: 4.9m
Weight empty: 11 tons
Weight max: 20 tons

Gnat
9m
6.7m
13.2m2
2.7m
2 tons
4 tons

The Javelin is 5 times heavier, and has a wing area approaching 6 times than that of the Gnat.
In fact, you could almost fit an entire Gnat within the area of the either the individual starboard or port Javelin wing.

The Su-57 and LTS are far, far closer in size.
The term "lightweight" fighter is very different these days to the definition used 70 years ago, in the 1950's.

Whilst I agree that using sub components isn't the absolutely, most perfect to the last millimeter and kilogramme design point, we are talking about a world famous, cutting edge aerospace design bureau.
I'm sure they have weighed up the various pros and cons between design, affordability, and performance.

Look at the design of the Su-57, especially in planform, and in particular the central lifting body, and the wings. The central lifting body component is far bigger in relation to area than the F-15.

I think, if Sukhoi carries this LTS off, it's actually an extremely smart design, very cleverly executed.

It's not "an extremely smart design, very cleverly executed."

It's a clever way of making a compellingly realistic-looking mock up.

Put national pride, patriotic chauvinism and Sukhoi fanboyism to one side for a moment.

If Dassault announced a lightweight version of Rafale (already a comparative lightweight) using one engine, married to the existing wings and tail, you'd rightly laugh yourself silly.

If Eurofighter tried to do the same, you'd quite rightly be full of scorn.

Shaving off any extraneous weight and every scintilla of unnecessary drag is at the heart of modern combat aircraft design. Taking an existing wing, in particular, represents an extremely inefficient solution, unless all you want to do is bash together something for an exhibit at MAKS to try to prove that you're still in the game.

If Sukhoi don't have the resources to design an optimised wing, stressed for the weight of this aircraft, and properly scaled to it, then it's a sad sign of how low a once great design bureau has sunk.
 
Last edited:

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,256
Reaction score
743
He's got a valid point though - it does make a difference WHICH particular aircraft donates the wings, because in addition to relative size, configuration matters, too. Thanks to the unusual layout of the Su-57 with its widely-spaced engines, giving an enormous centroplane, the actual wings are very small for a heavy fighter. As a result, the parts reused in Checkmate represent only 39% of the wing area of the Su-57, whereas this fraction would be almost 70% for Mini-me Typhoon! So you cannot really generalize, and the wing skins being composite, it is relatively straightforward to cut *some* of the extraneous weight by reducing the number of plies. The tails? Again these are especially small in the Su-57 and they assume a greater share of pitch control in Checkmate, so that they are relatively-speaking larger is probably accounted for at least to some extent.

What Sukhoi did here would not work nearly as well with any other donor airframe, you can't disregard that.

EDIT: And if you wanted to be *really* snarky, one might point out that the competitor Checkmate is mainly aimed at (the F-35) also compromises efficiency in favour of commonality in a manner that is not dissimilar in some respects.

EDIT #2: Here's an idea for the User Artwork section - what if you went the other way round and tried to configure a F-23ish heavy fighter with beefed-up Typhoon wings and two of its tails? That would probably work a lot better than a Mini-me Typhoon.
 
Last edited:

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,256
Reaction score
743
EDIT #2: Here's an idea for the User Artwork section - what if you went the other way round and tried to configure a F-23ish heavy fighter with beefed-up Typhoon wings and two of its tails? That would probably work a lot better than a Mini-me Typhoon.

You know, sort of this with delta wings:


It just occurred to me BTW that this design has a very similar control surface configuration to Checkmate, @VTOLicious - to maybe add to that earlier discussion. Relatively upright tails and trailing edge trimmers flanking the engines (though inboard in this case).
 
Last edited:

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
315
Reaction score
500
The tails? Again these are especially small in the Su-57 and they assume a greater share of pitch control in Checkmate, so that they are relatively-speaking larger is probably accounted for at least to some extent.
The Su-57 probably can have very small tails because they are fully moveable and because the LEVCONS allows them to maintain authority at high AoA by helping to keep the airflow attached. That last element does not apply in the LTS, so somewhat proportionally bigger tails is quite reasonable.

To criticise precisely the measures that should allow LTS to be cheap and quick to design as a failure and proof of technical indigence instead of a brilliant design decision and a mayor innovation seems to be the new smear line against Russian aviation. Expect the gentlemen peddling it to jump to the next "argument" as soon as this is debunked, as they have been doing 20 years with the PAK-FA. Truly boring and without merit.

I would in any case ponder on what it says about the F-35, if a plane developed in a fraction of the time at a fraction of the cost and with recycled parts of others as the LTS manage to have better dynamic parameters, as it seems to be the case for ceiling, speed, range and bay capacity...
 
Last edited:

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
572
I can only assume that like me many readers/ contributors here find the accumulation of the “new smear line against Russian aviation” type stuff embarrassing and cringe worthy.

Russian aviation enthusiasts are of course welcome, would just suggest less uncritical regurgitation of propaganda and not viewing every query or point of scepticism as an attack on Mother Russia as well as not seeing every response as a defence of your nation or as an opportunity to extol its superiority.

The “Checkmate” as we know it to day is a improvised mock-up using a lot of Su-57 parts. That is all - at this early stage everything else is really just speculation. What aircraft may or may not eventually emerges could be considerably different with varying commonality with the Su-57 depending on how both program proceed, and with a number of other detailed design also potentially varying in the context of the overall design also evolving.

I would agree with the contributors noting some scepticism re: use of supposed common major structural components between the “Checkmate” and the Su-57 (wings, nose etc.) Given the major differences in weight, inlet geometry, etc. that’s really odd, especially if trying to facilitate this was not factored into the original design of the Su-57 (attempts to equate this to commonality between F-35 variants in this regard are very wide of the mark).
Hard to see much of these supposed structural commonalities as not convenient lash-ups for quickly producing a mock-up, which will then be significantly watered down or abandoned as the optimised design evolves.
 

AGS-1787

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
76
Reaction score
85
I wish we have seen photos when it got pulled out of that tent! Here is a comparison shot, I couldn't find a picture from the same angle, I starting to believe that the cockpit is a bit lower on the top. The nose has a lot of differences from the su-57. Sukhoi-LTS-Checkmate-MAKS-2021-9.jpg
 

TMA1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
108
Reaction score
161
Su-35s are delayed due to CAASTA, not French influence.
Delayed indefinitely.
Source?
I too would like to know as well
Coanda,
It's fairly clear to see that this is a first article - for engineering development and display. Nothing wrong with that!

Using as many Su-57 parts as possible is the right way forward. Leveraging that previous investment in design, tech and manufacturing is paramount in making this aircraft 'affordable'.

The more assemblies and tooling you use from already existing and paid for products and processes the lower your upfront setup and long lead item costs.
The problem with that is that you're using parts and sub-assemblies sized, optimised and stressed for a heavy, twin-engined fighter for what's meant to be a lightweight single engined tactical fighter.

When Teddy Petter created the Gnat, he did not start out by using the outer wing panels from a flaming Javelin.

You couldn't create a useful lightweight fighter from the nose, fins and wing of an F-15. And even if we could, it would be vastly inferior to a purpose designed aircraft.

Your examples are not really valid.

The size difference between a Gnat and a Javelin makes an extremely poor example.

Javelin
Length: 17.3m
Span: 16m
Wing area: 86m2
Height: 4.9m
Weight empty: 11 tons
Weight max: 20 tons

Gnat
9m
6.7m
13.2m2
2.7m
2 tons
4 tons

The Javelin is 5 times heavier, and has a wing area approaching 6 times than that of the Gnat.
In fact, you could almost fit an entire Gnat within the area of the either the individual starboard or port Javelin wing.

The Su-57 and LTS are far, far closer in size.
The term "lightweight" fighter is very different these days to the definition used 70 years ago, in the 1950's.

Whilst I agree that using sub components isn't the absolutely, most perfect to the last millimeter and kilogramme design point, we are talking about a world famous, cutting edge aerospace design bureau.
I'm sure they have weighed up the various pros and cons between design, affordability, and performance.

Look at the design of the Su-57, especially in planform, and in particular the central lifting body, and the wings. The central lifting body component is far bigger in relation to area than the F-15.

I think, if Sukhoi carries this LTS off, it's actually an extremely smart design, very cleverly executed.

It's not "an extremely smart design, very cleverly executed."

It's a clever way of making a compellingly realistic-looking mock up.

Put national pride, patriotic chauvinism and Sukhoi fanboyism to one side for a moment.

If Dassault announced a lightweight version of Rafale (already a comparative lightweight) using one engine, married to the existing wings and tail, you'd rightly laugh yourself silly.

If Eurofighter tried to do the same, you'd quite rightly be full of scorn.

Shaving off any extraneous weight and every scintilla of unnecessary drag is at the heart of modern combat aircraft design. Taking an existing wing, in particular, represents an extremely inefficient solution, unless all you want to do is bash together something for an exhibit at MAKS to try to prove that you're still in the game.

If Sukhoi don't have the resources to design an optimised wing, stressed for the weight of this aircraft, and properly scaled to it, then it's a sad sign of how low a once great design bureau has sunk.

"If Dassault announced a lightweight version of Rafale (already a comparative lightweight) using one engine, married to the existing wings and tail, you'd rightly laugh yourself silly"

No, if Dassault was making a serious proposal, I would not laugh. It seems sukhoi isn't given the same level of respect which I find odd as it is one of the best at what it does. I won't respond to the rest of what you typed except to say you have made as many assumptions as the fanboys have made, which includes me of course.

Edit:messed up my first post attempt
 
Last edited:

Roland55

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
113
Reaction score
330
51352935474_2073ee6ccf_o.jpg
I wonder if the AShM would fit inside the bay or it should be carried externally (that would kinda harm its stealth capability tho). For some reason i feel the fan below the missile could not fit, but maybe im overthinking it ?
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
315
Reaction score
500
I wonder if the AShM would fit inside the bay or it should be carried externally (that would kinda harm its stealth capability tho). For some reason i feel the fan below the missile could not fit, but maybe im overthinking it ?
That AShM is not compatible with internal carriage, but for instance Kh-35 is.
 

coanda

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
289
Reaction score
276
I can only assume that like me many readers/ contributors here find the accumulation of the “new smear line against Russian aviation” type stuff embarrassing and cringe worthy.

Russian aviation enthusiasts are of course welcome, would just suggest less uncritical regurgitation of propaganda and not viewing every query or point of scepticism as an attack on Mother Russia as well as not seeing every response as a defence of your nation or as an opportunity to extol its superiority.

The “Checkmate” as we know it to day is a improvised mock-up using a lot of Su-57 parts. That is all - at this early stage everything else is really just speculation. What aircraft may or may not eventually emerges could be considerably different with varying commonality with the Su-57 depending on how both program proceed, and with a number of other detailed design also potentially varying in the context of the overall design also evolving.

I would agree with the contributors noting some scepticism re: use of supposed common major structural components between the “Checkmate” and the Su-57 (wings, nose etc.) Given the major differences in weight, inlet geometry, etc. that’s really odd, especially if trying to facilitate this was not factored into the original design of the Su-57 (attempts to equate this to commonality between F-35 variants in this regard are very wide of the mark).
Hard to see much of these supposed structural commonalities as not convenient lash-ups for quickly producing a mock-up, which will then be significantly watered down or abandoned as the optimised design evolves.
You don't know enough about the design process of this aircraft to make these statements.
 

coanda

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
289
Reaction score
276
Coanda,
It's fairly clear to see that this is a first article - for engineering development and display. Nothing wrong with that!

Using as many Su-57 parts as possible is the right way forward. Leveraging that previous investment in design, tech and manufacturing is paramount in making this aircraft 'affordable'.

The more assemblies and tooling you use from already existing and paid for products and processes the lower your upfront setup and long lead item costs.
The problem with that is that you're using parts and sub-assemblies sized, optimised and stressed for a heavy, twin-engined fighter for what's meant to be a lightweight single engined tactical fighter.

When Teddy Petter created the Gnat, he did not start out by using the outer wing panels from a flaming Javelin.

You couldn't create a useful lightweight fighter from the nose, fins and wing of an F-15. And even if we could, it would be vastly inferior to a purpose designed aircraft.

Your examples are not really valid.

The size difference between a Gnat and a Javelin makes an extremely poor example.

Javelin
Length: 17.3m
Span: 16m
Wing area: 86m2
Height: 4.9m
Weight empty: 11 tons
Weight max: 20 tons

Gnat
9m
6.7m
13.2m2
2.7m
2 tons
4 tons

The Javelin is 5 times heavier, and has a wing area approaching 6 times than that of the Gnat.
In fact, you could almost fit an entire Gnat within the area of the either the individual starboard or port Javelin wing.

The Su-57 and LTS are far, far closer in size.
The term "lightweight" fighter is very different these days to the definition used 70 years ago, in the 1950's.

Whilst I agree that using sub components isn't the absolutely, most perfect to the last millimeter and kilogramme design point, we are talking about a world famous, cutting edge aerospace design bureau.
I'm sure they have weighed up the various pros and cons between design, affordability, and performance.

Look at the design of the Su-57, especially in planform, and in particular the central lifting body, and the wings. The central lifting body component is far bigger in relation to area than the F-15.

I think, if Sukhoi carries this LTS off, it's actually an extremely smart design, very cleverly executed.

It's not "an extremely smart design, very cleverly executed."

It's a clever way of making a compellingly realistic-looking mock up.

Put national pride, patriotic chauvinism and Sukhoi fanboyism to one side for a moment.

If Dassault announced a lightweight version of Rafale (already a comparative lightweight) using one engine, married to the existing wings and tail, you'd rightly laugh yourself silly.

If Eurofighter tried to do the same, you'd quite rightly be full of scorn.

Shaving off any extraneous weight and every scintilla of unnecessary drag is at the heart of modern combat aircraft design. Taking an existing wing, in particular, represents an extremely inefficient solution, unless all you want to do is bash together something for an exhibit at MAKS to try to prove that you're still in the game.

If Sukhoi don't have the resources to design an optimised wing, stressed for the weight of this aircraft, and properly scaled to it, then it's a sad sign of how low a once great design bureau has sunk.
You don't know enough about the design process of this aircraft or the Rafale, or any other aircraft you've mentioned to make these statements. It is entirely possible to design one structure or assembly to fit the needs of multiple products. Your posts contain a number of logical fallacies and incorrect statements.

To be clear, I imagine none of us contributors actually know enough about the design process of checkmate or the Su-57 or Sukhoi strategic plan to actually know the answer to this - we can come back in a year or so and see what actually happened.
 

haavarla

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
142
Reaction score
169
If some of the Airframe parts like cockpit section, nose, verticals Stabz, MLG are identical or not to the Su-57 is beside the point here.
The parts in question are clearly inspired on Su-57 overall design. Its from the same Design agency.. doooh! :rolleyes:

Like some mention above, its a given something might change along the way as Sukhoi/KnAAZ get a Static ground pit test airframe, and then onto an actuall flying testbed airframe.
And so on.

The guys that are on the Russian NAY wagon just have to buckle in and get on the jurney wether they like it or not.. like they can ever do anything to stop it:p

Personal i find it satisfactory to observe them squirm, huff and puff, like they have done from the early days of PakFa program to present day.
 
Last edited:

TR1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
131
Reaction score
499
Roland55:
No, you are quite right, they made a Kh-59 version specifically for internal carriage:

653fe4310db8e7efbd2f527bb81c51d4.jpg
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
927
Reaction score
797
I'm so hyped on that Kh-69 missiles. It basically check all the boxes of being compact, long ranged and Universal. I believe Su-27 family can easily carry it. It's a much better weapon than earlier Kh-59. I wonder tho if it will still require Tekon or its Russian analogue datalink pod.
 

trose213

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
274
Reaction score
136
The guys that are on the Russian NAY wagon just have to buckle in and get on the jurney wether they like it or not.. like they can ever do anything to stop it:p

Personal i find it satisfactory to observe them squirm, huff and puff, like they have done from the early days of PakFa program to present day.
Pak FA is a MOD initiative, if the VKS buys Checkmate then it will mean the corpse of MiG is finally in the ground. Hard to say what impact that might have in the future.
 

AleDucat

ACCESS: Granted
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
18
Reaction score
153
The guys that are on the Russian NAY wagon just have to buckle in and get on the jurney wether they like it or not.. like they can ever do anything to stop it:p

Personal i find it satisfactory to observe them squirm, huff and puff, like they have done from the early days of PakFa program to present day.
Pak FA is a MOD initiative, if the VKS buys Checkmate then it will mean the corpse of MiG is finally in the ground. Hard to say what impact that might have in the future.
But MiG is still working on MiG-31 replacement (PAK-DP), and some stealthy naval plane and drone, according to MAKS21 models. The former should have some serious financing indeed, so I still wouldn't give up MiG for dead.
 

Saber

Long way up the mirror
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
42
Reaction score
42
The guys that are on the Russian NAY wagon just have to buckle in and get on the jurney wether they like it or not.. like they can ever do anything to stop it:p

Personal i find it satisfactory to observe them squirm, huff and puff, like they have done from the early days of PakFa program to present day.
Pak FA is a MOD initiative, if the VKS buys Checkmate then it will mean the corpse of MiG is finally in the ground. Hard to say what impact that might have in the future.
But MiG is still working on MiG-31 replacement (PAK-DP), and some stealthy naval plane and drone, according to MAKS21 models. The former should have some serious financing indeed, so I still wouldn't give up MiG for dead.
More like UAC is working on it along with other Russian consortium.
 

Geo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
90
Reaction score
148
The guys that are on the Russian NAY wagon just have to buckle in and get on the jurney wether they like it or not.. like they can ever do anything to stop it:p

Personal i find it satisfactory to observe them squirm, huff and puff, like they have done from the early days of PakFa program to present day.
Pak FA is a MOD initiative, if the VKS buys Checkmate then it will mean the corpse of MiG is finally in the ground. Hard to say what impact that might have in the future.
But MiG is still working on MiG-31 replacement (PAK-DP), and some stealthy naval plane and drone, according to MAKS21 models. The former should have some serious financing indeed, so I still wouldn't give up MiG for dead.

You're absolutely right, bro. Everyone who bury MiG should read UAC's corporate materials.
 

GARGEAN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
703
Reaction score
433
The guys that are on the Russian NAY wagon just have to buckle in and get on the jurney wether they like it or not.. like they can ever do anything to stop it:p

Personal i find it satisfactory to observe them squirm, huff and puff, like they have done from the early days of PakFa program to present day.
Pak FA is a MOD initiative, if the VKS buys Checkmate then it will mean the corpse of MiG is finally in the ground. Hard to say what impact that might have in the future.
But MiG is still working on MiG-31 replacement (PAK-DP), and some stealthy naval plane and drone, according to MAKS21 models. The former should have some serious financing indeed, so I still wouldn't give up MiG for dead.
MAKS models are purest of memes. They are only and strickly models. PAK-DP is their only redeeming possibility.
 

trose213

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
274
Reaction score
136
But MiG is still working on MiG-31 replacement (PAK-DP), and some stealthy naval plane and drone, according to MAKS21 models. The former should have some serious financing indeed, so I still wouldn't give up MiG for dead.
Will the PAK DP get bought in numbers, after the Felon has been?
 

TR1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
131
Reaction score
499
Don't worry, the "Felon" will never be ordered in numbers
Just trying to get a count of how many aircrafts are going to be bought concurrently, PAK FA, PAK DP, PAK DA, PAK TA, and the IL-276?
-Su-57, yes.
-PAK-DA yes, but that will take a while to scale alongside Tu-160M2.
-PAK-DP is a few design bureau studies and nothing past that AFAIK. I don't see the subject being revisited for many years.
-PAK-TA serious R&D is supposed to begin only post 2025, so that won't be in production until a decade from now at the earliest.
-Il-276 is basically dead and on the back-burner for now. This decade will see Il-76 and Il-112 procurement.
-Possibility of Il-114 being slotted for some military role.
-Probably Yak-152 and maybe a light jet trainer
-Modernized Legacy birds (Su-30,34,35, Yak-130, MiG-35)
-Some foreign stuff assembled at UZGA probably as well, incl. Diamond and Let

That covers most non UAV and helicopter procurement for the next few years I think, anyone feel free to correct me.
 

trose213

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
274
Reaction score
136
-Su-57, yes.
-PAK-DA yes, but that will take a while to scale alongside Tu-160M2.
-PAK-DP is a few design bureau studies and nothing past that AFAIK. I don't see the subject being revisited for many years.
-PAK-TA serious R&D is supposed to begin only post 2025, so that won't be in production until a decade from now at the earliest.
-Il-276 is basically dead and on the back-burner for now. This decade will see Il-76 and Il-112 procurement.
-Possibility of Il-114 being slotted for some military role.
-Probably Yak-152 and maybe a light jet trainer
-Modernized Legacy birds (Su-30,34,35, Yak-130, MiG-35)
-Some foreign stuff assembled at UZGA probably as well, incl. Diamond and Let

That covers most non UAV and helicopter procurement for the next few years I think, anyone feel free to correct me.
Forgot about the Tu-160M2, either way that's a lot of spending with Armata and that family supposed to be inducted. Hard to see some systems not getting cut. Either way, it doesn't leave much room for Checkmate.
 

haavarla

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
142
Reaction score
169
-Su-57, yes.
-PAK-DA yes, but that will take a while to scale alongside Tu-160M2.
-PAK-DP is a few design bureau studies and nothing past that AFAIK. I don't see the subject being revisited for many years.
-PAK-TA serious R&D is supposed to begin only post 2025, so that won't be in production until a decade from now at the earliest.
-Il-276 is basically dead and on the back-burner for now. This decade will see Il-76 and Il-112 procurement.
-Possibility of Il-114 being slotted for some military role.
-Probably Yak-152 and maybe a light jet trainer
-Modernized Legacy birds (Su-30,34,35, Yak-130, MiG-35)
-Some foreign stuff assembled at UZGA probably as well, incl. Diamond and Let

That covers most non UAV and helicopter procurement for the next few years I think, anyone feel free to correct me.
Forgot about the Tu-160M2, either way that's a lot of spending with Armata and that family supposed to be inducted. Hard to see some systems not getting cut. Either way, it doesn't leave much room for Checkmate.
As for Armata, the first state order are quite small, so they as usuall will stretch more orders across several yearly budget.
Why are people always think in short term..
 

TR1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
131
Reaction score
499
AFAIK under overall GPV money is apportioned to Ground Forces, AF, Navy, Rocket forces, etc.
So it is probably not relevant to compare an AFV procurement program with a fighter, as they won't be competing for the same budget slice anyways.
 

trose213

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
274
Reaction score
136
but in fairness, the Airforce have a less portion of the defence budget cake. Navy about the same as last years and Army has the fat slice this time.

If the AF is buying like half of this stuff, their slice of the cake has to grow or overall budget has to balloon, which is unlikely.
 
Top