Does a VTOL fighter make any sense in general? My impression is. that the F35B is used in a STOVL configuration, if it is to have any meaningful combat load. With the focus on STOL performance (which as I've read the on the Su-57 is quite good, and will probably get better with the new engines), I think it will be able to take off of runways that are similar in length to the F35-B ones.
Sukhoi T-75 LTS (CheckMate)
- Thread starter sublight_
- Start date
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,615
With respect the Su-57 clearly won’t be able to take off from runway lengths as short as the F-35B can, and definitely won’t be landing at any of comparable length.
More generally why would the Russians need a STOVL fighter aircraft apart from in very low (potentially/ probably unviable small) numbers for shipborne use?
Last edited by a moderator:
Also there is all of one ship to take off from which is waiting for completion of a graving dock big enough to remount its screws. And it already uses arresting gear. There maybe a long term plan for a STOBAR aircraft but I don't see any purpose or market for a Russian STOVL.
Anybody already read this?
It said that the unmanned version can get 1000 liters. Which boost the (combat?) range from 1350 km to 1650 km. Idk if the 65% longer range than F-35A/B is true or not.
Something weird is the article said NATO code for Su-75 is Screamer which i think is not true. Could be me fail to understand the translation.
eadaily.com
It said that the unmanned version can get 1000 liters. Which boost the (combat?) range from 1350 km to 1650 km. Idk if the 65% longer range than F-35A/B is true or not.
Something weird is the article said NATO code for Su-75 is Screamer which i think is not true. Could be me fail to understand the translation.
Беспилотная модификация Су-75: что осталось за кадром на Dubai Airshow — 2021: EADaily
На Dubai Airshow 2021 гендиректор ОАК Юрий Слюсарь заявил о грядущей разработке беспилотной модификации перспективной однодвигательной машины.
Anybody already read this?
It said that the unmanned version can get 1000 liters. Which boost the (combat?) range from 1350 km to 1650 km. Idk if the 65% longer range than F-35A/B is true or not.
Something weird is the article said NATO code for Su-75 is Screamer which i think is not true. Could be me fail to understand the translation.
Беспилотная модификация Су-75: что осталось за кадром на Dubai Airshow — 2021: EADaily
На Dubai Airshow 2021 гендиректор ОАК Юрий Слюсарь заявил о грядущей разработке беспилотной модификации перспективной однодвигательной машины.
The author is obviously an unmanned wave rider.
He does magic with numbers, although nothing is publicly known about the fuel and mass characteristics of the T-75.
And perform maneuvers "от «Кобры Пугачева» до «Чакры Фролова»..." with UAV... good luck.
Acatomic
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 18 October 2020
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 271
Ok you got me. Nowhere does it explicitly say that VKS is not interested.
But you do get a certain Mig-35, BMPT (i know it's ground forces) vibe with news like this:
Rostec, Russian Defense Ministry start discussing Checkmate contract — Chemezov
The Checkmate light tactical jet was first unveiled at the MAKS-2021 air show
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,451
- Reaction score
- 1,954
Anybody already read this?
It said that the unmanned version can get 1000 liters. Which boost the (combat?) range from 1350 km to 1650 km. Idk if the 65% longer range than F-35A/B is true or not.
Something weird is the article said NATO code for Su-75 is Screamer which i think is not true. Could be me fail to understand the translation.
Беспилотная модификация Су-75: что осталось за кадром на Dubai Airshow — 2021: EADaily
На Dubai Airshow 2021 гендиректор ОАК Юрий Слюсарь заявил о грядущей разработке беспилотной модификации перспективной однодвигательной машины.
Well for NATO codename... the LTS will have "F" for Fighter not "S".
Technical characteristics wise however the only way to verify the claim is you have to actually do the calculations, preferrably by yourself then present the result here for discussion. Methodology wise is covered in some well known aircraft design literatures like Raymer. The available dimensions and imagery seems adequate for early estimates of fuel capacity and wing area.. which you can then calculate the approximate L/D Ratio of the aircraft. Then you can use Breguet range equation with assumed mass to calculate the range.
There are three cases for breguet range equation... first and the simplest assume constant speed and L/D.. there are two more variants of those where the third is deeper as one have to know some coefficients like Cl and Cd.
Don't read EAdaily. Never again. It's an information junkyard. Particularly this article is written by the guy from topwar.ru who constantly writes completely incompetent articles full of bravade, amateurish errors and other BS.
Exactly.
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 6,565
- Reaction score
- 3,911
Is Russia’s Su-75 ‘Checkmate’ Aircraft a Case of Vapor Marketing?
There’s less than meets the eye to the proposed fighter-bomber that made a splash at a recent industry show.
www.defenseone.com
TMA1
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 6 February 2021
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 610
Is Russia’s Su-75 ‘Checkmate’ Aircraft a Case of Vapor Marketing?
There’s less than meets the eye to the proposed fighter-bomber that made a splash at a recent industry show.
Pretty goofy NI tier article. The criticisms are just the same recycled ones of the su-57 with only one or two legit critiques (necessary foreign support, CAATSA). It's the same old "it's not REAL fifth gen. Ruskies are failing to deliver", etc...
The weird thing is that this article is written by two senior researchers/lecturers at the RAND corporation which is a supposedly reputable US think-tank.Is Russia’s Su-75 ‘Checkmate’ Aircraft a Case of Vapor Marketing?
There’s less than meets the eye to the proposed fighter-bomber that made a splash at a recent industry show.
Pretty goofy NI tier article. The criticisms are just the same recycled ones of the su-57 with only one or two legit critiques (necessary foreign support, CAATSA). It's the same old "it's not REAL fifth gen. Ruskies are failing to deliver", etc...
I wonder, that given the low-quality nature of the article and the obvious ties of these folks to the US govt, that this could be considered state propaganda.
I think the US should go back to competing on engineering excellence, rather than constantly writing these underhanded articles.
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 6,565
- Reaction score
- 3,911
is the below true or not?
A key assumption, though, is that the investment in the Su-57 can jump-start the Checkmate program. But the Su-57 has been in development nearly 15 years already, and Western analysts estimate that it still won’t be operational before 2027.
Russia has struggled to produce new jet engine models for several years because of sanctions and export restrictions imposed after it annexed Crimea in 2014. The first operational Su-57 will be equipped with the Saturn AL-41F1 low by-pass turbofan combat engine — the same engine that powers the Su-35, a heavy fighter-bomber designed in the 1980s. The new engine planned for the Su-57 is not slated for production until mid-decade,
quasi socialist is just like socialist.. one pretends to work while your company pretends to pay you.
A key assumption, though, is that the investment in the Su-57 can jump-start the Checkmate program. But the Su-57 has been in development nearly 15 years already, and Western analysts estimate that it still won’t be operational before 2027.
Russia has struggled to produce new jet engine models for several years because of sanctions and export restrictions imposed after it annexed Crimea in 2014. The first operational Su-57 will be equipped with the Saturn AL-41F1 low by-pass turbofan combat engine — the same engine that powers the Su-35, a heavy fighter-bomber designed in the 1980s. The new engine planned for the Su-57 is not slated for production until mid-decade,
quasi socialist is just like socialist.. one pretends to work while your company pretends to pay you.
Or maybe you are reading too much into a single mediocre article written by two people, be it RAND affiliates or not, to judge a whole country's government and their agenda, or more broadly, judge government policy based on mere internet media outlets. They ain't no state owned parrots like Global Times you see. As much as those misguided and straight up wrong articles are annoying, they are only just that; annoying. Unless USAF official buy into the same opinion or similar articles pop up on places like AF Mag, it's only a matter of annoyance and ignorance.
Talking more about the flashy titles of the authors themselves, an org as big as RAND have specialized researchers for each of the military's branch and its subordinates. They also take in temporary advisors from the outside with specialized knowledge if needed. As much as it is disappointing to see those people with a RAND badge on their chest write those kind of articles, I don't think it really matters unless those people are in charge of the airpower related researches of RAND or the same tone is kept on their official reports; they are think"tank"s, you know. Furthermore, despite the pedigree of "RAND", they're not the only major military affairs think tank as well.
Also, it seems like US is still very much at the spearhead of engineering excellence in most departments so no need to worry for them I feel.
Last edited:
I feel like people with this kind of organizational background should hold themselves to a much higher standard of objectivity and factuality. These are not just random people.
If someone made this here as a forum post, it would've been viciously picked apart by enthusiastic amateurs. The fact that the article written in part by a senior lecturer at a prestigious US university is indistinguishable from one written by someone who has read one too many Tom Clancy novels is not a good look.
It's good that you feel that that US engineering dominance is not in question - however the people who commissioned this article don't seem to share your feelings, since they felt there is a need to badmouth their competitors.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 27 March 2006
- Messages
- 1,793
- Reaction score
- 1,306
Please stop this.
The Rand Corporation has deep links and funding with, amongst others, the US government, Radio Free Europe....etc..etc.
Basic perusals reveal articles such as "overextending and unbalancing Russia" etc. Their staff members regularly give seminars to the Atlantic Council, which is pretty open about their goals.
This is not hidden.
That is their remit.
That is their agenda.
That is their right.
All sides have an equivalent.
None of this has anything to do with the Checkmate.
The article listed above was rubbish, and shouldn't have been given a second glance. The wording selected in the headline itself should have been the first clue, for crying out loud....
The last paragraph is what the article is really about - a hit-piece to damage.
Analysing an article like this is basic mid-level high school Comprehension stuff, fellas....
There is a plethora of equally ill-researched clickbait nonsense out there, from all sides.
Let's get back to the Checkmate please.
The Rand Corporation has deep links and funding with, amongst others, the US government, Radio Free Europe....etc..etc.
Basic perusals reveal articles such as "overextending and unbalancing Russia" etc. Their staff members regularly give seminars to the Atlantic Council, which is pretty open about their goals.
This is not hidden.
That is their remit.
That is their agenda.
That is their right.
All sides have an equivalent.
None of this has anything to do with the Checkmate.
The article listed above was rubbish, and shouldn't have been given a second glance. The wording selected in the headline itself should have been the first clue, for crying out loud....
The last paragraph is what the article is really about - a hit-piece to damage.
Analysing an article like this is basic mid-level high school Comprehension stuff, fellas....
There is a plethora of equally ill-researched clickbait nonsense out there, from all sides.
Let's get back to the Checkmate please.
Last edited:
Going by his sources, ranging from National Interest to War is Boring, it's a bit hard, to say the least, to take all of that on face value. For example the source which he cited to support the claim of Su-57 not going operational pre 2027 writes : "The Su-57 is not expected to enter into serial production until upgraded engines are ready, which is unlikely to happen until 2027.". Although I'm not sure if I'm up to date, afaik the Russian plan is to procure 70-ish 57s by 2027, which is far from what is conveyed in the source material. Furthermore, the same source material cites NI article as it's source, which is less than ideal. If the Russians can stick to their plan is another topic, but to argue that they would not be able to, you would need something better than a NI article to back that up.
There are other more serious sources in his article as well, such as a Rand report (author of this article, John, V. Parachini is also one of the authors of that report) and a FP report, but they are not directly related to the Su-57 or the 75, but are background information related.
That's true, but what I said also stands. The main author of this particular article, the RAND blog post he cited, and a RAND report he cited, John V. Parachini, is not an aerospace expert. He studied international relations and has done MBA. His specializations are arms proliferation, WMD, Terrorism and Intelligence. It's just your typical 'person with advanced degrees talking about something apart of his specialization'.
Last edited:
The part of the article i like the most.
What a deep knowledge and analysis of problematic! Due to sanctions Russia has troubles with replacements of the ship gas-turbines and jet engines for its cargo and trainers fleet that were produced in Ukraine...and that's why Su-57 is equipped with a derivative of AL-31, izd.117! Yeah, right, coz before 2014 Su-57 was supposed to be equipped with Ukrainian 5th gen. jet engine or...F119! As well as LTS, which, in reality, is supposed to be equipped, at least its base export model, with...the same AL-31 derivative, izd.117!
- Joined
- 27 March 2006
- Messages
- 1,793
- Reaction score
- 1,306
Like I said...
There are many clangers in the article. The general posting here is of far higher quality than the article.
There are many clangers in the article. The general posting here is of far higher quality than the article.
- Joined
- 27 March 2006
- Messages
- 1,793
- Reaction score
- 1,306
Vapor?
I might be old fashioned, but when an article is headlined like a 16 year old teenager speaks, I tend to assume that level of analysis.
I wasn't wrong.
I might be old fashioned, but when an article is headlined like a 16 year old teenager speaks, I tend to assume that level of analysis.
I wasn't wrong.
Last edited:
LMFS
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 19 March 2019
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 760
It is a misleading way of presenting facts to say the least. The LTS makes sense and is feasible precisely because of the PAK-FA program reviving the Russian industry and more concretely because all the key technologies to the level of the discrete components are already available from the Su-57. This is key for the procurement and operational cost estimations and constitutes the most ambitious proposal for a deeply integrated hi-lo force mix that I know.
To say that the Su-57 is not operational is flat-out lying though, the plane is done with the state tests and serial unit(s) have been already delivered to the VKS. Current status is that serial production is being ramped up, last year one unit was delivered to GLITs and in 2021 4 additional ones were to be delivered, no official confirmation was been issued yet though, just rumours. It is expected to deliver 22 units until 2024. This is very low rate compared to F-35 indeed, but it is also worth questioning whether it makes sense to produce 750 units of a plane that has not yet been cleared for full rate production...
It is relevant to keep in mind that VKs does not have a IOC, LRP or such phases many people are used to from the US MIC. To be done with state tests means the plane is fully operational from a technical point of view, no ifs or buts. A status, if I am not wrong, that F-35 has not yet reached. That there is a further improvement loop with the project Megapolis (incl. second stage engines, cockpick and avionics, weapons, actuators) to be probably coming into the series by end of this decade is to be taken as the subsequent blocks or tranches that Western aircraft also have.
Also to be precise with dates, the Su-57 has been in development for from 2022 to 2019 if I am not wrong. It is not waiting for anything or frozen because of lack of funds.
The first sentence as Scar pointed out is just good for laughs, there is and was no connection between the izd. 30 and Ukraine and definitely no dependence of the Russian industry for this. Imports substitution program was addressed mostly at older equipment that had been produced in Ukraine since the Soviet times, not to modern Russian developments, which are year lights ahead of the status of the barely surviving Ukrainian industry. So this is pure propaganda and wishful thinking. The second sentence is also false, since the engine of the Su-57 is not the same of the Su-35S (AL-41F-1 for the first and AL-41F-1S for the second), which share the layout of the old AL-31F but have modern technology and materials. Al-41F-1 has 2.5 tons thrust more than the AL-31F and weights 150 kg less, with 15 tf thrust is just one little step below F119 and is able to fulfil original requirements of the Su-57. Besides, the Su-35 was not designed in the 80's, it is a 4++ gen fighter based in the Flanker but developed in the early 2000s.
The izd. 30 is indeed planed for production after the middle of this decade, but, being considered by the designer as gen 5+ or 5++, it is difficult to say whether that is bad or good. Taking a look at the announced performance may make the authors reconsider their narrative.
Yeah, also a flat out lie. As you say, 76 serially produced Su-57 of the first stage are to be delivered until 2028. So this is akin to saying that there are no serial F-35 until block 4 enters production...
Indeed, holding your breath until 2023 may do no good
Last edited:
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,451
- Reaction score
- 1,954
Kind curious if there would be variant of Izd-30 with "straight" pitch nozzle TVC or completely without TVC developed for this aircraft.
Of course it will be made, eventually. Izd 117 is just a basic risk-proof solution, already developed and good enough to start the production of the fighter jet which main idea is to be affordable and quickly launched into production. After all, when izd.30 will be ready, RuAF and foreign customers inevitably will want it as a hi-end propulsion option for LTS. For the sake of unification with the final version of Su-57 and/or to get the fighter with the maximized flight characteristics.
LMFS
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 19 March 2019
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 760
The plane has no elevators, it depends on the TVC for efficient pitch authority. The vertical stabilisators would created a lot of drag by deflecting symmetrically and the rudimentary elevators at the sides of the nozzle are very small, probably with some redundancy/auxiliary function. In the future it makes full sense to use the izd. 30 for this plane, and since it will need 2D TVC for the Su-57 regardless, it should be used with simple pitch function in the LTS.
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,451
- Reaction score
- 1,954
On the subject of "straight" TVC one i think i am not clear enough of what i mean.
Considering there is only 1 engine in LTS, I wonder if the Izd-30 variant for LTS will have TVC nozzle which Move like say, F-22 Up and down instead of diagonally like Su-57 one.
Considering there is only 1 engine in LTS, I wonder if the Izd-30 variant for LTS will have TVC nozzle which Move like say, F-22 Up and down instead of diagonally like Su-57 one.
2022 maiden flight? Is it possible though? I know KF-21 able to get maiden flight just 1 year after unveiling. But its mostly because they finish assembling several prototype at once. So for Su-75 to do that, the second prototype for flight test need to already finish the assembly proccess now and in the middle setting up software for FBW.
Amount of bullshit in this citation is astonishing. If Su-35 was made in the 80s, then by now ruskies should fly in UFOs.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,524
- Reaction score
- 3,121
Just to be sure that I haven't read anything wrong!?
You want to portray this handfull of prototypes and serial (in fact more LRIP) Su-57s as "technically" in full operational status and since you point out to a status, "that F-35 has not yet reached" more mature operationally than how many hundreds of delivered F-35 after what more years of flight testing and operational use? That's a joke ?
I think the point on operational status thing is if US have state test similar to what Russia usually do. The serial production of F-35 have to be started when F-35 initial capability atleast as good as the capability of block 4. So the block 1 that will be produced in LRIP is as capable as the block 4. With that in mind, Su-57 need to operationally capable carrying existing weaponry before serial production in any production rate start.
Just to be sure that I haven't read anything wrong!?
That's a joke ?
I can't comment on LRIP thingy though.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,524
- Reaction score
- 3,121
I think the point on operational status thing is if US have state test similar to what Russia usually do. The serial production of F-35 have to be started when F-35 initial capability atleast as good as the capability of block 4. So the block 1 that will be produced in LRIP is as capable as the block 4. With that in mind, Su-57 need to operationally capable carrying existing weaponry before serial production in any production rate start.
Just to be sure that I haven't read anything wrong!?
That's a joke ?
I can't comment on LRIP thingy though.
Ok, but my point is the same like my critics to this constant "my fighter is a 4.5+ generation one whereas yours is only 4" but none compares the true performances. Similar here we don't know to what standard this is measured!?
If my standard to declare "fully operational" is, when I just can walk, then it is a lame argument to diss anyone who rates himself only "fully operational" when he is ready for the Olympics and he hasn't reached that level yet.
LMFS
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 19 March 2019
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 760
It is not a joke Deino. Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I know F-35 reached end of flight testing part of SDD in 2018 with watered down requirements and still hundreds of issues are reported, while FRP is being pushed back to this day. Means, in short, that the development is not finished. It is an extreme case (most of the really serious issues have been solved already) and of course I do not dispute the completely different category in which the production and operation of the two planes are scaled, including already massive operational experience with the F-35, but I wanted to make clear that Russian MIC does not work as per usual US way (it is MUCH more conservative) and that comparing the status of both programs based in the number of airframes produced is deeply misleading, specially when the way the F-35 was rushed into production years before being mature goes contrary to any best practice in program management you can think of, and should never be used as a model of anything good.Just to be sure that I haven't read anything wrong!?
That's a joke ?
What makes more sense in your opinion, to have few planes but closed development and be ready to ramp up production with a clear view of the liabilities you are committing to, or to have hundreds of planes with limited operational capacities that need unknown retrofits and many of which will simply be put on storage or ditched because they were produced with substantial technical uncertainties? Is it even up for discussion what the serious way of managing a program is and which one is not?
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 10,727
- Reaction score
- 6,746
Lol. We had a number of programs that were officially accepted years after IOC, and even medium supersonic MPA that was built in numbers that never officially entered the service.
yoг know too little about current state of testing to make so bold statements
LMFS
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 19 March 2019
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 760
I guess Russian negativity must be a relevant ingredient of your outstanding technical competence, and I am sure you would be delighted if your MIC had done with the PAK-FA the kind of job the US' one did with the JSF. Despite exceptions and despite real world not being as nice as the outside appearances, I think my statement is legit. It also is legit to say that other US programs are run more seriously than the JSF, which is an extreme example of political interference.
Enlighten me please. The state tests are over, means design is frozen and ready for production. Have we even seen significant deviations from T50-11 to the first serial, other than due to production process?
I agree that we should not comparing something when we not agreeing on the scope or the context.I think the point on operational status thing is if US have state test similar to what Russia usually do. The serial production of F-35 have to be started when F-35 initial capability atleast as good as the capability of block 4. So the block 1 that will be produced in LRIP is as capable as the block 4. With that in mind, Su-57 need to operationally capable carrying existing weaponry before serial production in any production rate start.
Just to be sure that I haven't read anything wrong!?
That's a joke ?
I can't comment on LRIP thingy though.
Ok, but my point is the same like my critics to this constant "my fighter is a 4.5+ generation one whereas yours is only 4" but none compares the true performances. Similar here we don't know to what standard this is measured!?
If my standard to declare "fully operational" is, when I just can walk, then it is a lame argument to diss anyone who rates himself only "fully operational" when he is ready for the Olympics and he hasn't reached that level yet.
Anyway, do we have indication that Su-75 will fly in 2022 like some hoping for in other thread? I know they start assembling more prototype few months ago, but i afraid the result of static test will make new prototype come out late. Hope they cover some info on development in this month Knaaz monthly paper.
haavarla
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 29 June 2010
- Messages
- 192
- Reaction score
- 231
Is Russia’s Su-75 ‘Checkmate’ Aircraft a Case of Vapor Marketing?
There’s less than meets the eye to the proposed fighter-bomber that made a splash at a recent industry show.
Did anyone over at RAND clear these views with the ROSTEK enterprise.
It would perhaps be the only right thing to do
Only thing that is Vapor here is the Article
Marcellogo
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 27 September 2021
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 30
No, it just the same standard russian use for all their combat aircraft, there was not any IOC stage or LRIP for any of their planes: not for Su-30SM, nor for Su-34, not for Su-35 or even Yak-130.
Just to be sure that I haven't read anything wrong!?
That's a joke ?
In Soviet time there was something akin to IOC i.e. they made a pilot batch for hurried introduction into service of an half baked item but now also this provision has been abandoned in full: they actually perform the full tests phase aiming for a level just a step ahead to FOC (in western standard), in meantime they make a separate contract for first serials production to cover the industrialization phase with both the NPO/OKB (Scientific Production Organization previously Design Bureau ) that has designed the prototypes and the APO that will made the serial production and after such contract, they make a second contract, this time with just the APO (the aeronautical production association i.e. the factory that would produce them in series) only for the first production batch, after this eventually one for the second and so on.
No IOC , no LRIP, not any prevision of the total number of a single model of plane made in advance, even before it have performed the first flight ever.
And absolutely, for Russian standards the F-35 is very, very far from the conditions needed to be declared in service as it has not met both the condition for begin full rate production than the ones needed to be managed autonomously by Air force itself.
Su-35 entered officially in service in 2017, two years after it was alreadY pounding ISIS scums in Syria.
So, just a completely different if not dead flat opposite way to manage things.
Last edited:
Similar threads
-
MAKS 2021 Airshow General News Topic- Started by overscan (PaulMM)
- Replies: 35