You're solely focused on the fuselage cross section without considering the overall cross section that can be highly affected by wing placement and other factors that goes into package, which was a point I've been hinting at.
I was commenting that particular aspect yes, not the area ruling or the contribution of the wings, because once your plane has say 8.5 vs 6.5 sqm cross sectional area and a limited length, your options to play with other elements and match the drag of the thinner more slender plane are scarce or rather non existing.

Notice with the canard delta how much more to the rear the placement of the wings are, as well as how much closer the nozzle is to the trailing edge of the wings, without nearly as much of the empennage extending behind. What this enabled was for the part of the wing with the greatest span, and thus largest contribution to cross section, be placed behind the weapon bays. Currently, the F-35's weapon bays coincide with the wingtips, which is likely driven by a wing tail configuration (lowest risk for Navy's carrier recovery) combined with other factors such as length constraint from LHAs. It's the combination of all factors, rather than STOVL by itself, is what contributes to the F-35's rather large cross section.
First of all, I always appreciate the information you provide. But I have to say that I am doing a fairly straightforward compared analysis of the two only existing 5G single engine jets (F-35 and LTS) focused on a crucial design decision (bay - engine placement) that determines the frontal section, and you are somehow obfuscating it with aspects that are not very consequential. We know aerospace design is very complex, and the intent (for me at least) is to navigate the complexity, not to get lost in it. With STOVL requirements, a layout like that of the LTS is not possible, with them, the F-35 is probably the best you can get. How consequential will it be for combat performance is an open discussion.

There's also the fact that the LTS hasn't flown yet, and has somewhat lower payload capacity (two 700 kg weapons in the main bay, compared to two 2,000 lb (900 kg) weapons (the stations are actually rated for 2,500 lb) in the F-35A/C), and that the F-35 is not drag limited at Mach 1.6 even with the F135 that doesn't make full use of the inlet; I doubt maximum speed will be pushed beyond that even with enhanced engines, there isn't the requirement or the practical need to do so.
The bay space comparison is not totally straightforward. The main bay in the LTS is bigger than the equivalent A2G part of the F-35 bay and more regular, longer weapons fit in it, but there are no 1000 kg bombs in the Russian arsenal and the 1500 kg ones are clearly too big to fit. So the F-35 can carry the 2000 lb bombs that the LTS cannot, but I think we can agree that both can internally carry a very decent load of similarly sized A2G weapons.

Re. speed, I agree it does not tell the whole story, maybe the limitation in the F-35 has to do with practical acceleration times, dynamic loads or intake design and certainly was not considered a critical value per se. What I see is that the engine in the LTS is substantially smaller, we don not know how many corners were cut to allow for that and what the propulsion in the future will be and with what performance. Sukhoi reduced the overload tolerance to 8g at least in the export oriented data we know, but on the other hand they claim top TWR and dynamic capabilities together with a relatively high service ceiling.

But longer aeroplanes have more skin friction drag and mass so its hardly clear. Design is all about trade offs and without crunching the numbers its really difficult to make definitive judgments.
Supersonic planes have a distinct shape, so it is totally predictable that reducing cross sectional area is critical. If you cannot avoid a thick section, then you change your approach and try to reap the profits associated with relaxing the requirements in regards of supersonic flight and optimize the form factor of the plane, gaining lots of internal volume and less friction drag, you reduce the wing sweep for better lift, and so on.

MOD is infamous for borderline bankrupting shipyards with their promises, late payments, and (to add insult) lawsuits over timelines they themselves caused.
There are many many other examples.
I am not saying everything in Russia is rosy, I am just saying risk management of the main programs I know works properly and that as a whole MOD is not squandering money banking empty promises from the MIC. This is a topic for another thread, but applied to the LTS my point is that MOD will keep quiet for a long while despite the obvious need for the aircraft and will allow others to carry the development weight until the platform is mature enough. But I am sure they already count on it for the next State Armaments Program.
------------

BTW, am I reading 11 suspension points in the plane? I see 9, are they maybe adding two additional ones at the wings?
 
But I have to say that I am doing a fairly straightforward compared analysis of the two only existing 5G single engine jets (F-35 and LTS) focused on a crucial design decision (bay - engine placement) that determines the frontal section, and you are somehow obfuscating it with aspects that are not very consequential.
Uh, wing placement is absolutely consequential, it's a major contributor to cross sectional area distribution (area rule) which has a major impact on wave drag. As an example, looking at the diagram of the F-22's inlet, the difference in duct cross sectional area is not nearly as significant as you're emphasizing.

Again, it's not STOVL itself that resulted in the stubbiness of the F-35, but it's a combination of that, along with other requirements and constraints that made it so. I'm not sure why you're so dead set on this line of argument.
 
Last edited:

DUBAI, November 14. /TASS/. Russia needs to launch the serial production of the Checkmate light tactical fighters before accepting orders from other countries, Director General of the Rosoboronexport state arms seller (part of the Rostec state corporation) Alexander Mikheyev told TASS on the sidelines of the Dubai Airshow 2021.

"Rosoboronexport presented the Checkmate light tactical fighter to a number of its foreign partners at the MAKS 2021 airshow. They highly appreciated the concept. However, orders will be accepted and pre-contract work will begin only after the fighter takes to the skies and its serial production is launched," he pointed out, adding that Russia expected "quite a high demand for the aircraft."

The United Aircraft Corporation (part of the Rostec) presented a new light tactical fighter named Checkmate at the MAKS 2021 airshow. The Checkmate incorporates the most advanced systems, including an open architecture configuration to meet the customer’s requirements and unique artificial intelligence technologies. The single-engine fighter is based on stealth technology and is outfitted with an inboard compartment for airborne air-to-air and air-to-surface armaments. The fighter will carry a payload of over seven tonnes and will be capable of striking up to six targets at a time. The aircraft will be capable of flying at Mach 1.8 and will have an operating range of 3,000 km. The new fighter is expected to take to the skies in 2023.
 
In Komsomolsk, work began on the production of several prototypes of Checkmate

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/12919313

The head of the UAC said that the supply of the Checkmate fighter could begin earlier than the plan

Deliveries of the newest Checkmate fighter jet could begin in 2025 - a year ahead of schedule. This was announced to reporters on Sunday by the head of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC, part of Rostec) Yuri Slyusar.

"2026 is the beginning of deliveries. We are working to move to the left, and that started in 2025," Slyusar said.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/12919307

Edit: If the UAE decides to lets say go with this purchase, I swear to god I hope the U.S. doesnt pull away with their F-35 deal with the UAE. No one knows how devestated I was when F-35s were pulled away from Turkey because I wanted to see real life results it would have on a adversary's air defense.. If there is any country in the world that I want to purchase the LTS it would be UAE atleast make my 2nd dream come true.
 
Last edited:
Uh, wing placement is absolutely consequential, it's a major contributor to cross sectional area distribution (area rule) which has a major impact on wave drag.
I know, but for planes with same wing type and position it does not make any difference, there is nothing very creative you can do about that cross section apart from making the fuselage as slender as possible.

Anyone notice the second picture to the left at the very bottom? Radar and EO equipment highlighted in blue, but also some kind of side sensors/comms highlighted on the sides of the chin intake.
I think it is the EOTS

1636911741247.png

5 in the main bay?
Should be 3 from what they have said. In any case, it seems confirmed that it can carry MRAAMs in the side bays, definitely a good feature. The loadout shown in the image below is quite nice for a strike mission, me thinks:

1636911706005.png

Twin seater would look like the model in the front, the one in the rear is unmanned:

1636911930447.png
 
Should be 3 from what they have said. In any case, it seems confirmed that it can carry MRAAMs in the side bays, definitely a good feature. The loadout shown in the image below is quite nice for a strike mission, me thinks:
I mean, splitting a bay equally in two and in 3 isn't the same.
Suspension points/adapters for two bigger&heavier munitions may not be the same points that are used to hold lighter and narrower 3.
And they may not be used simultaneously. Or may actually be - for something very small.

I see no other explanation on the given airframe.
 
I mean, splitting a bay equally in two and in 3 isn't the same.
Suspension points/adapters for two bigger&heavier munitions may not be the same points that are used to hold lighter and narrower 3.
And they may not be used simultaneously. Or may actually be - for something very small.

I see no other explanation on the given airframe.
That is innteresting, definitely the points for big ordnance could not be the same ones used for the 3 AAM, there would not be space for the weapons. So maybe it is 11 suspension points, but not for simultaneous use as you say. Other option is that the wing has three instead of two suspension points, but being essentially identical to that of the Su-57 that would be unexpected
 
I know, but for planes with same wing type and position it does not make any difference, there is nothing very creative you can do about that cross section apart from making the fuselage as slender as possible.
But that’s the point; a canard delta ASTOVL/CALF as seen in the early Lockheed configuration does not have the same wing placement, which leads to quite different volume and cross sectional area distribution and thus different area rule despite similar frontal area. As another example, notice how with the F-22, the fuselage begins to taper and “shrink” towards the wingtips, for conformance to the area rule.
 
Last edited:
But that’s the point; a canard delta ASTOVL/CALF as seen in the early Lockheed configuration does not have the same wing placement, which leads to quite different volume and cross sectional area distribution and thus different area rule despite similar frontal area. As another example, notice how with the F-22, the fuselage begins to taper and “shrink” towards the wingtips.
Totally agree, but again I was comparing the layouts of LTS and F-35. The later is not only thicker, but it does not make use of the area ruling tricks you mention for F-22 and ASTOVL/CALF, in my opinion for the powerful reasons given previously. I know you do not see it so, while I find it obvious. It is what it is, let us agree to disagree :rolleyes:
 
I know you do not see it so, while I find it obvious.
Uh, no. The problem, at least in this instance, is that you’re attributing shortcomings on specific arrangements or features in a linear causal manner, i.e. the aircraft has low fineness ratio because it’s weapon bays are alongside the engines, because of STOVL. This frankly fails to appreciate that configuration design is a systems level approach that needs to take all requirements into account rather than a largely linear cause-and-effect process that you’ve been using in your arguments. I used the canard delta ASTOVL/CALF as an example because such a configuration might have avoided some of the fineness ratio and area rule difficulties, but was not further pursued or refined for reasons not driven by STOVL.
 
Last edited:
that is exactly where the Sukhoi team corrected the shortcomings of the F-35 layout, by placing the main weapon bay in line with the engine and not in parallel

If you can't see why this statement is flawed, then this discussion has no end point.

Sukhoi chose a different layout to Lockheed Martin, they didn't 'correct the shortcomings' except in your own imagination. By what yardstick are you measuring "shortcomings" of the F-35 layout? It's pretty well optimized for its own requirement. The LTS layout wouldn't be a better solution to the F-35 requirement than the F-35 layout, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

The LTS layout is probably pretty well optimized for its own requirement (Sukhoi has a number of competent engineers), which is substantially different to the F-35 requirement.
 
Last edited:
@icyplanetnhc (Steve)
my approach is too simple for you but is backed by success to predict future events, your argument based on "everything is very complex and you don't understand the thousands of variables involved" explains quite little and obfuscates transparent design decisions motivated by the fact that if your propulsion occupies the centerline of the plane, there cannot be weapon bays there. If that extra cross section is not there, there is no need to compensate it with other deep reaching design decisions like changing the position of the wings, that have a cascade of effects and compromise the plane in many other ways.

@overscan (PaulMM)
If you read my posts, it is the (politically motivated) JSF requirements that I am questioning. I also think that Lockheed has "a number of competent engineers" xD

Now I propose to focus on the LTS, sorry for my contribution to the side discussion
 
oak_du10.jpg
 
Rostec and the Ministry of Defense discuss the possibility of supplying the Checkmate fighter

At the same time, the head of the state corporation Sergey Chemezov noted that Checkmate is also interested in the UAE

DUBAI, November 15. /tass/. The possibility of supplying the fifth-generation single-engine fighter Checkmate to the troops was discussed with the Russian Ministry of Defense. This was announced to journalists during the Dubai Airshow 2021 international air show by the head of Rostec State Corporation Sergey Chemezov.

"Yes, they wanted to take it, of course. We recently discussed with the Minister [of Defense] that they need to formulate their TOR, in what form they want to see this aircraft. Now the appearance that we made is at our own expense and at the expense of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, " he said, answering a question about the possibility of supplying Checkmate to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

Chemezov also noted that the Russian defense Ministry may be offered the vehicle in an unmanned version. "Checkmate can not only be piloted, it can also be made unmanned. There is a lot of interest in drones right now, " he said.
Foreign interest

The head of Rostec also said that representatives of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are interested in the new Russian single-engine fighter and intend to study it in more detail. "You saw the plane yourself. Beautiful, good plane turned out. The United Arab Emirates is already interested, they want to see and discuss the car in more detail, " Chemezov said.

He expressed confidence that there will also be demand from other countries with which meetings are scheduled. "We have a significant advantage over others. First, this aircraft is an open configuration: we offer a base, we can hang any weapons that the customer wants on it. In addition, various electronics, electronic warfare equipment, means for capturing targets, and so on are being installed," Chemezov explained.

He noted that these options can be executed and installed at the request of the customer. "And, of course, because of this, the price varies. The base price, I hope, will be around $30-35 million," the head of Rostec said.

At the same time, the head of Rostec noted that there is already a foreign customer interested in acquiring Checkmate.

"Until the contract is signed, we do not say who the customer is <...> While only the technical side is being discussed. All conditions will become clear after the first flight, which we plan for 2023, " he said, adding that there is already interest from a particular country.

According to Chemezov, foreign weapons will need to be adapted to the Russian fighter. "We offer those options that are already available and with which tests were carried out on the Su-57. These developments have already been developed, tested, and proven effective, so it's much easier and cheaper, " he said.


Three prototypes of the new Checkmate fighter will be created by 2023

Rosoboronexport has already started promoting the fighter jet

DUBAI, November 15. /tass/. Three prototypes of the latest Russian single-engine fighter Checkmate will be created for the first flight of the aircraft, which is scheduled for 2023. This was announced to journalists by the head of Rostec State Corporation Sergey Chemezov during the Dubai Airshow 2021 international air show.

"To raise the plane, you need about three prototype vehicles, three samples that will carry out test flights," he said, answering the question of whether they will have time to build several aircraft by the first Checkmate flight scheduled for 2023.

Chemezov noted that Rosoboronexport has already started promoting the fighter. "A number of negotiations have been held with foreign delegations, and now proposals are being formed for them on the appearance of the car," he said.

"I would consider the JF-17, J-10, F-16 as competitors, but only the F-35 boasts comparable capabilities. However, our aircraft is more cost-effective, both in terms of the cost of the car and the cost of the flight hour. At the same time, it can take on board a record amount of weapons. Therefore, I believe that the aircraft has good export prospects, " said the head of Rostec.

 
Checkmate is F-35 killer!
Well, it could be for export market) F-35 is... costly, and too politically-affiliated. American refusal to send F-35 to Turkey clearly demonstrated, that the sales of F-35 are directly linked with strong political affiliation with Washington. Which is not exactly what many nations wanted - especially now, when China is on the rise. Russian "Checkmate" is both affordable and apolitical solution.
 
Russian "Checkmate" is both affordable and apolitical solution.
Any Russian fighter nowadays has a huge American shadow over it.
So it is just as political - though you get membership in Sukhoi club the opposite way.
 

Sukhoi’s Checkmate Looks To Carve Out Niche In International Fighter Market​

Piotr Butowski November 14, 2021
checkmate
The Checkmate was unveiled at MAKS 2021 in Moscow.
Credit: Piotr Butowski

Sukhoi’s single-engine fighter, the sensation of MAKS 2021 in July, makes its international debut in Dubai. But in a way it is a homecoming, because the stimulus that directly pushed Russia to develop the aircraft came from the Emirates.
At IDEX 2017 in Abu Dhabi, Russia and the UAE signed an agreement to cooperate in the development of a next-generation light fighter. The head of Rostec Corporation Sergey Chemezov announced the signing of the appropriate contract later that year. The project, however, did not go any further.
Nevertheless, the development work had been set in motion and Rostec, to which the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) belongs, decided to continue the project without a foreign partner. In early 2020, Sukhoi started the detailed design work and completed a model aircraft in May 2021. The fighter is promised to make its maiden flight in 2023, and in 2027, full-scale production may start.
The fighter was revealed with the designation LTS (Lightweight Tactical Aircraft) and the English nickname the “Checkmate.” The number “75” was painted on the side—because “the numbers seven and five are lucky for Sukhoi,” says Alexey Bulatov, the deputy chief designer of the project. The 75 is also an inversion of the digits from the designation of the Su-57, which is to be complemented by the new LTS. Since the unveiling, numerous publications have referred to the fighter as the Su-75, a designation which was not explicitly given at the time. However, Russia’s Industry Minister Denis Manturov subsequently agreed that it would be appropriate to designate it the Su-75.
The advertising slogan for the project is “turn the chessboard”—a literal translation of the Russian idiom meaning to change the rules of the game. It is also a somewhat malicious reference to the title of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives,” which was published in 1997 and carefully read in Russia.
Why is the Checkmate project being carried out with such determination? The first reason is the experience, new technologies and even specific construction elements gained in the course of work on the Su-57. The Checkmate has the same AL-41F1 engine as the Su-57; it also uses the same wing outer panels, vertical fins, and a large part of that type’s systems, avionics and weapons. The Su-57 laid the groundwork, considerably reducing the cost, time and technical risk of the new project.
The second is the readiness of Rostec and UAC to invest their own money, without waiting for an external investor. That decision has been supported by the occasional interest of prospective foreign buyers. The most recent example came from Argentina, which this spring asked Russia for a modern light fighter offer. The cheapest aircraft Russia could suggest was the MiG-35, which is neither light nor cheap. If Russia had a modern single-engine fighter with low operating costs, it would have been a strong candidate there.

Low Price, High Capability

The main advantage of the Su-75 is set to be its low price and high combat potential. UAC CEO Yuri Slyusar said the Checkmate will be offered at a similar price to the Gripen NG; Chemezov set the fighter’s price at $25-30 million. Mikhail Strelets, head of Sukhoi Design Bureau, declared that the Checkmate’s flight-hour cost will be “seven times less” than an F-35’s.
When asked to compare it with the F-35A, Bulatov says the LTS will offer higher speed, longer range and the ability to carry more payloads. It is aimed to reach at least Mach 1.8, over 2,800 km (1,740 mi.) range on one tank of fuel and has a 16.5-km (53,800-ft.) altitude ceiling. Unlike the F-35, the Checkmate “is a full-fledged supersonic fighter,” says Bulatov, echoing Russian opinions that are highly critical of the F-35’s flight characteristics.
Chemezov said in July that there was no launch customer for the Checkmate, but “we see a demand for such an airplane.” According to Slyusar, UAC expects to sell 300 fighters over 15 years, and this is “not wishful thinking, but a careful calculation of market demand.”
The Su-75 may be offered to the Indian contest for 114 Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft; however, the competition there is extremely strong. Other potential large customers—Algeria, Egypt, Vietnam, and former USSR states Armenia, Belarus and Kazakhstan—have recently bought MiG-29Ms or Su-30s and will not need new aircraft soon. Iran could be a significant buyer, once sanctions are lifted. Smaller customers could be current MiG-29 operators, such as Bangladesh, Cuba, Myanmar, North Korea, Peru, Serbia, Sudan and Syria. There may also be exotic clients, outside the pool of traditional Russian aircraft buyers, such as Argentina or UAE, from where the story started. The Russian Aerospace Forces would buy Su-75s if the Kremlin believes it would support exports of the fighter. Notably, the Checkmate trailer features “pilots” from Argentina, India, the UAE and Vietnam.
While the Su-75 will not overturn the chessboard, it looks certain to find its niche in the international fighter market.

 
Any Russian fighter nowadays has a huge American shadow over it.
So it is just as political - though you get membership in Sukhoi club the opposite way.
Not for non-NATO countries)
CAATSA is for anyone whom guys "on the hill" don't seem important enough for a waiver.
So basically S-75 project is a prerequisite for Russian MIC to remain competitive.
Something competitive enough to make it worth the risk - both direct and following compliance/over compliance issues.
 
Last edited:
This is true if, the US lobbies against the purchase to UAE, threatens to sanction or pullout from the f-35 contract if UAE makes LTS purchase. Who needs some fixed red vs blue exercises when we get the real deal.
Be serious do you really think the US would allow the F-35 to ever be operated alongside the Checkmate. You only have to look at Turkey to see this.
 
No it wouldn't happen these days. Also some in the Russian aerospace company spoke too soon concerning UAE and they need to stop that kind of stuff. They are going to go it alone for now, but I have faith in the ruskies and this fighter in particular. Doesnt hurt also that it is ever so lovely.

I do have serious concerns that even if it turns out to be obviously amazing and inexpensive, there would still be those to hold back. The CAATSA nonsense and other political factors. Still though I think it will become a classic. Especially if they include top of the line engines. I frankly want them to succeed and am getting sick of the western MICs and politicians.
 
I frankly want them to succeed

Yeah.. need a big client first. Who can see the worth and willing to spend the necessary effort.

CAATSA can be waived through lobbying in DC by hiring appropriate lobbyists or "worked around" which involve some unique banking system offered by Moscow.
The key however is the willingness of the client first to make the contract actually effective e.g payment or taking deliveries. Then one can start the lobbying process in other you need to actually breach the CAATSA first.

From the Russian side.. it would be great if VKS actually interested and finally breakaway from their insistence on twin engine fighters on all grades (light and heavy). Smaller nations may want to play safe by buying the goods if its operated by VKS already.
 
From the FGFA thread ... concerning India and the LFS/Checkmate these are even more wet-dreams or do you think the US will allow India to keep their own latest stuff in service in parallel to a Russian high end fighter?
 
that is exactly where the Sukhoi team corrected the shortcomings of the F-35 layout, by placing the main weapon bay in line with the engine and not in parallel

If you can't see why this statement is flawed, then this discussion has no end point.

Sukhoi chose a different layout to Lockheed Martin, they didn't 'correct the shortcomings' except in your own imagination. By what yardstick are you measuring "shortcomings" of the F-35 layout? It's pretty well optimized for its own requirement. The LTS layout wouldn't be a better solution to the F-35 requirement than the F-35 layout, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

The LTS layout is probably pretty well optimized for its own requirement (Sukhoi has a number of competent engineers), which is substantially different to the F-35 requirement.
This has been a complaint by the F-35 users is the amount of system components, plumbing, harnesses, etc that populate both bays, pretty crowed in there.
 
I cannot see it with the s-400 they are soon to be getting. I've heard on indian defense forums of some plan to join in on one of the new fighter programs from Europe but I am dubious about that as India has been nonaligned for so long and they do not have a strong enough mil industrial complex to rank at a peer level. At least not yet, but they are getting there.

I think they are doing the right thing of going independent, but they will require purchasing fighters as a stopgap. India's fears of China and Pakistan naturally have them looking westward. This leads to serious dilemmas, tho. frankly the checkmate would be great for a numbers fighter within less than a decade. But I think they feel they depend on Russia too much and want to diversify and they are afraid of hurting new alliances.
 
my approach is too simple for you but is backed by success to predict future events
Backed by success? Let’s see, the A-5 Vigilante was one of the finest supersonic aircraft of its day, and its bomb bay was literally placed in between the engines the entire way.

Also, just to apply the very argument you made for the Su-57, where the bays between the engines are inline with other major components to reduce cross section, the F-35 weapon bays are inline with the inlet capture area, and the inlets then snake onboard and center to in-line behind the cockpit. So much for bays coinciding with the engines being the answer eh?

your argument based on "everything is very complex and you don't understand the thousands of variables involved" explains quite little and obfuscates transparent design decisions motivated by the fact that if your propulsion occupies the centerline of the plane, there cannot be weapon bays there.
A bunch of tripe. The reason that an aircraft like the A-5 has excellent supersonic performance even with bomb bays between the engines has little to do with the bomb bay placement, but by the fact that it has much less restrictions on length, giving it a good fineness ratio; in the F-35’s case, the length restriction has little to do with STOVL or weapon bay placement. Fineness ratio and area rule don’t care about two individual components’ placement with each other in isolation, but the overall distribution across the entire length of the aircraft.

If that extra cross section is not there, there is no need to compensate it with other deep reaching design decisions like changing the position of the wings, that have a cascade of effects and compromise the plane in many other ways.
Explain how it “compromise the plans in many other ways.” Again, fineness ratio and area rule don’t care about two individual components’ placement with each other in isolation.

But “muh weapon bay not coinciding with engines is right way…” Until counterexamples show up, but then you’ll find convenient ways to exempt them, I’m sure.
 
Last edited:
@icyplanetnhc (Steve)
In a (relatively) small sized, one engine plane like F-35/LTS with the bay dimensions we are talking about (4.5 - 5 m long and deep/wide for 2 big pieces of A2G ordnance) there is simply no space to play with internal volumes in a way that results in reduced cross section apart from placing the bays in front of the engines and along the longitudinal axis. It is what it is, if you do the exercise of checking that in a 3D model you would see what an unescapable reality this is.

I am certain of what I am saying. If you want an in-depth review of the compared layouts of F-35 and LTS we can go for it, I just don't want to burden the thread with our own particular discussions.
 
"in the F-35’s case, the length restriction has little to do with STOVL or weapon bay placement"

Not trying to be mean bro but this sounds like sophistry. It is pretty clear even to a layman the f-35 looks like a stubby penguin because it also had to be a goofy marine stovl transformer on top of everything else.

Edit: added a thought.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom