Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
85
Reaction score
63
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.
 

Geo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
118
Reaction score
187
Oh la-la, is it just the Zhuk AE?
 

Attachments

  • Zhuk-Diagram-1S.jpg
    Zhuk-Diagram-1S.jpg
    316.8 KB · Views: 53
  • Screenshot_20211114_193042.jpg
    Screenshot_20211114_193042.jpg
    63.2 KB · Views: 47

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
364
Reaction score
574
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
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
267
Reaction score
298
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
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:

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
364
Reaction score
574
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:
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
267
Reaction score
298
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
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:

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,684
Reaction score
7,984
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:

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
364
Reaction score
574
@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
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
701
Reaction score
824
oak_du10.jpg
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
364
Reaction score
574
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.

 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,863
Reaction score
1,555
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
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.
 

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
85
Reaction score
63
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.
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
364
Reaction score
574

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.

 

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
85
Reaction score
63
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:

Flyaway

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
7,017
Reaction score
6,022
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.
 

TMA1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
168
Reaction score
236
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.
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
927
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.
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
3,039
Reaction score
1,312
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?
 

Hydroman

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
100
Reaction score
168
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.
 

TMA1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
168
Reaction score
236
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.
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
267
Reaction score
298
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
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:

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
364
Reaction score
574
@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.
 

TMA1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
168
Reaction score
236
"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:

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
85
Reaction score
63
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 we come down to this, the basic reason A-5 had excellent supersonic performance was previsely because it was specified to have excellent supersonic performance(core requirement). It wasn't "whether they could provide supersonic performance or not" - it was "whether the design was even qualified to compete or not".

For F-35 performance above mach 1 most certainly wasn't the key requirement - quite the opposite. Nevertheless, parties that care about supersonic performance the most - USAF(and allies) - got it at a very reasonable level (i.e. competitive with the F-16).
F-35B users aren't in a position to whine, and USN's F-35C were purchased as penetrating bombers first and foremost (finally filling A-6/A-12 gap) - and they are most certainly waaay faster than Intruders.

Was it possible to make, say, STOVL aircraft with good supersonic acceleration, and make it the way that allows other versions to be as fast/faster? Most certainly it was, and we (on paper) even know how. But no one shopped for a set of interceptors really, and this performance would've come with significant drawbacks elsewhere - and these "elsewhere" were higher in the priority list.

Vise versa - LMFS is an export land-based light fighter design, designed to look as good as possible to potential buyers - and clearly positioned as an air superiority solution.
Hence, for LMFS reasonable supersonic performance clearly is important - so they did a lot to get it.
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
701
Reaction score
824
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.
Lets diagnose this problem.

The Russians have as much information to lose in selling the S-400(U.S. was trying to get information of S-300s from Ukraine and Slovakia) as the U.S. does selling the S-400. You cant even trust your own allies or the people that work on classified information like Noshir Gowadia selling info about the B-2 or Russians putting some of their scientsts on trial for selling their missile information. Based on the encryption of F-35s and Su-57s you would need super computers with computing power with the right amount of flops to breakthrough and trust me I dont see that happening in which by than NGADs will become mainstream by than. In other words information inside the F-35 as the saying goes you cant unboil a boiled egg. The appearance of the F-35 others can already understand the PTD needed if they themselves have access to anechoic chambers. Material like RAM is hard to perfectly immitate which you need the same kind material production as well. Avionics depends how your production facilities or how far your ahead, I mean what is there left?
Also the same rules of the above information also applies to the LTS as it does the F-35. The only reason that I can think of is if you think your product does not meet the expectations of the public or the customers you want to sell them to. Russia also has at stake the S-400 and LTS being sold and trying to pullout the F-35 from having engagement with either, I mean you dont even have to get along with me in this forum to reach a mutual understanding with me that, that looks very bad. So lets say the country finally doesnt p**** out and wants to prove they are the real deal like the other country selling their products. The things Russian and U.S. aviation fans will look for is the air to air and air to ground missions they would perform and they absolutely want the statements to come out from a neutral country like some jury member without any bias making judgements on what they experienced.

Such as an F-35 defeats a LTS but more than likely Russian aviation fans might not bat an eye because for them the F-35 getting jumped by 2-3(depending on costs) LTS aircraft might be more fair to them as in being money worth it. with 1st dream destroyed, 2nd dream pending, 3rd big dream I want is the UAE to purchase Su-70 export drones with Larva-MD missiles. purchase a few S-400s with medium range air defenses than test which is effective like a single F-35 against air defenses while testing 6 Su-70 that still amount to lower cost than the F-35 and see which gives better results. Its like sure the Amur rocket has a smaller payload than the falcon-9 but launching 2 you will get more payload while still being cheaper. If the U.S. again makes an excuse for F-35s to be delayed after UAE makes a LTS purchase if you thought the 4.5 gen replacement for F-35 from general brown arguements on this thread or a pentagon official calling it a POS was bad, the excessive sh**posting all over the public internet will reach levels not thought possible in which I dont think you can afford to make the F-35 look bad.
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
267
Reaction score
298
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
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.
The cross section difference between the duct and the engine is not as drastic as you're making it out to be, not unless you want flow distortion issues at your engine face. LTS's main advantage is that it's nearly 2 meters longer than the F-35, which also affects position of internal volumes aside from weapon bays and engine, such as a more slender internal fuel tank. This singular focus on weapon bay and engine placement in relation to each other is getting bizarre. It has an effect, but not the defining overriding factor. Achieving a smaller cross section is accomplished through both positioning of internal volumes as well as external components (wings, empennage, etc). Even the LTS can achieve better area ruling if it has different requirements, or used clean sheet wing/empennage design rather than the Su-57's.

"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.
No, the STOVL propulsion system (SDLF) itself isn't the cause of the F-35's length constraint, it's the LHA deck elevators.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,195
Reaction score
800
The 2023 timeframe for three prototypes seems...ambitious. What is meant as a 'prototype' in this context? As in, one of them is a flying example?

Also the F-35 comparison is a little...forced, given the timelines involved. NGAD will probably come into service around or shortly after Checkmate does. The USAF already has hundreds of F-35s compared to something that currently is a mock up.

When/if it come into service I assume it would be popular with the same countries who buy Su-30s currently/recently.
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
364
Reaction score
574
The 2023 timeframe for three prototypes seems...ambitious. What is meant as a 'prototype' in this context? As in, one of them is a flying example?
In the context those statements were made it sounded to me as if they plan to produce three flying prototypes at the same time in order to be ready for serial production for 2026/27, they even hinted about moving that to the left.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,195
Reaction score
800
Considering that significant part of the plane is essentially a kitbash of an already in production Su-57's parts I find these claims believable.
I feel integration is still is still a huge task for any modern fighter aircraft project (for avionics in particular) even if all the major pieces are nominally off the shelf. I am skeptical that the effort will meet such lofty milestones without at a minimum funding from the Russian MoD. The track record of planes built solely for export is quite abysmal. The JF-17 and F-5 are the only successful efforts that come to mind, at the latter was largely funded by the US as a project to give to lower tier allies more or less for free. If the Russian air force buys in then I can see Sukhoi following through to production aircraft; otherwise I question where the funding comes from.
 
Top