LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
466
Reaction score
682
I do agree with some other sentiment here that Russia really could use a light fighter in the same vein as the MiG-21 for exports.. but not sure if Russia themselves really need such an aircraft?
It is always cheaper to have a not so numerous platform covering the higher end of the capability requirements and a numbers plane taking care of the bulk of the missions, in that regard Russian doctrine is not different. From the 90's onwards the VKS was reduced to its minimum expression and therefore having just higher capability platforms made sense, and with little resources twin engine was safer. But now things are different. Strelets made two interesting remarks:
- Syria has clearly shown that heavy twin engine fighters are overkill for most missions
- Sukhoi has a future fleet composition approach with optimal costs and capacities via the Su-57, S-70 and LTS.

With the VKS being still very reduced in numbers and many air bases being refurbished, VMF-MA also with minimal amounts and a proposal like the LTS on the table that almost matches the Su-30SM in range and payload parameters, I think it is clear the Russian military needs several hundreds of units.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
2,066
I do agree with some other sentiment here that Russia really could use a light fighter in the same vein as the MiG-21 for exports.. but not sure if Russia themselves really need such an aircraft?
It is always cheaper to have a not so numerous platform covering the higher end of the capability requirements and a numbers plane taking care of the bulk of the missions, in that regard Russian doctrine is not different. From the 90's onwards the VKS was reduced to its minimum expression and therefore having just higher capability platforms made sense, and with little resources twin engine was safer. But now things are different. Strelets made two interesting remarks:
- Syria has clearly shown that heavy twin engine fighters are overkill for most missions
- Sukhoi has a future fleet composition approach with optimal costs and capacities via the Su-57, S-70 and LTS.

With the VKS being still very reduced in numbers and many air bases being refurbished, VMF-MA also with minimal amounts and a proposal like the LTS on the table that almost matches the Su-30SM in range and payload parameters, I think it is clear the Russian military needs several hundreds of units.
do you really think the LTS could match the SU-30SM in range and payload? if so that is amazing, especially as its physically smaller and presumably significantly less RCS and perhaps less operation costs?
 

Anduriel

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
134
Reaction score
194
I do agree with some other sentiment here that Russia really could use a light fighter in the same vein as the MiG-21 for exports.. but not sure if Russia themselves really need such an aircraft?
It is always cheaper to have a not so numerous platform covering the higher end of the capability requirements and a numbers plane taking care of the bulk of the missions, in that regard Russian doctrine is not different. From the 90's onwards the VKS was reduced to its minimum expression and therefore having just higher capability platforms made sense, and with little resources twin engine was safer. But now things are different. Strelets made two interesting remarks:
- Syria has clearly shown that heavy twin engine fighters are overkill for most missions
- Sukhoi has a future fleet composition approach with optimal costs and capacities via the Su-57, S-70 and LTS.

With the VKS being still very reduced in numbers and many air bases being refurbished, VMF-MA also with minimal amounts and a proposal like the LTS on the table that almost matches the Su-30SM in range and payload parameters, I think it is clear the Russian military needs several hundreds of units.
do you really think the LTS could match the SU-30SM in range and payload? if so that is amazing, especially as its physically smaller and presumably significantly less RCS and perhaps less operation costs?
The range values stated for LTS are stated as 2800-3000km. Su-30SM has range of 3000km.
Max Payload of LTS is 7400kg, Su-30SM has 8000. So almost Su-30SM capabilities.
That's why actually big order of LTS would make sense, as you've get a Su-30SM caabilities in stealthy platform with one engine less. Yes, maybe in dogfight LTS might be less capable (which is up to debate, as maxG value is nod indicative of maneuverability in dogfight), but otherwise is a very complelling argument, especially if you consider that more and more of F-35 are being deployed at Russian border.
Also one has to count that despite quite significant purchases, Russian airforce is still not modernized fully. For example, there are still vanilla Su-27s in use in Kaliningrad, vanilla MiG-29s in Armenia (and IIRC somewhere in Russia too), Su-27SM are reaching end of lifetime and are also fall under replacement, Su-24s are still in use and yet to be replaced fully either with Su-34 or Su-30SM, MiG-29SMT might also be replaced with something more capable. Not to mention Su-25.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
2,066
The range values stated for LTS are stated as 2800-3000km. Su-30SM has range of 3000km.
Max Payload of LTS is 7400kg, Su-30SM has 8000. So almost Su-30SM capabilities.
That's why actually big order of LTS would make sense, as you've get a Su-30SM caabilities in stealthy platform with one engine less. Yes, maybe in dogfight LTS might be less capable (which is up to debate, as maxG value is nod indicative of maneuverability in dogfight), but otherwise is a very complelling argument, especially if you consider that more and more of F-35 are being deployed at Russian border.
Also one has to count that despite quite significant purchases, Russian airforce is still not modernized fully. For example, there are still vanilla Su-27s in use in Kaliningrad, vanilla MiG-29s in Armenia (and IIRC somewhere in Russia too), Su-27SM are reaching end of lifetime and are also fall under replacement, Su-24s are still in use and yet to be replaced fully either with Su-34 or Su-30SM, MiG-29SMT might also be replaced with something more capable. Not to mention Su-25.
if thats the case, wouldnt the LTS potentially challenge the sales of the Su-57, for countries looking for a Flanker replacement?
 

Anduriel

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
134
Reaction score
194
The range values stated for LTS are stated as 2800-3000km. Su-30SM has range of 3000km.
Max Payload of LTS is 7400kg, Su-30SM has 8000. So almost Su-30SM capabilities.
That's why actually big order of LTS would make sense, as you've get a Su-30SM caabilities in stealthy platform with one engine less. Yes, maybe in dogfight LTS might be less capable (which is up to debate, as maxG value is nod indicative of maneuverability in dogfight), but otherwise is a very complelling argument, especially if you consider that more and more of F-35 are being deployed at Russian border.
Also one has to count that despite quite significant purchases, Russian airforce is still not modernized fully. For example, there are still vanilla Su-27s in use in Kaliningrad, vanilla MiG-29s in Armenia (and IIRC somewhere in Russia too), Su-27SM are reaching end of lifetime and are also fall under replacement, Su-24s are still in use and yet to be replaced fully either with Su-34 or Su-30SM, MiG-29SMT might also be replaced with something more capable. Not to mention Su-25.
if thats the case, wouldnt the LTS potentially challenge the sales of the Su-57, for countries looking for a Flanker replacement?
Considering that LTS is a watered down Su-57 that mostly uses same parts, likely being produced at the same pant by the same people, I don't see how it's a problem.
 

Cannonfodder43

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
63
Reaction score
143
The range values stated for LTS are stated as 2800-3000km. Su-30SM has range of 3000km.
Max Payload of LTS is 7400kg, Su-30SM has 8000. So almost Su-30SM capabilities.
That's why actually big order of LTS would make sense, as you've get a Su-30SM caabilities in stealthy platform with one engine less. Yes, maybe in dogfight LTS might be less capable (which is up to debate, as maxG value is nod indicative of maneuverability in dogfight), but otherwise is a very complelling argument, especially if you consider that more and more of F-35 are being deployed at Russian border.
Also one has to count that despite quite significant purchases, Russian airforce is still not modernized fully. For example, there are still vanilla Su-27s in use in Kaliningrad, vanilla MiG-29s in Armenia (and IIRC somewhere in Russia too), Su-27SM are reaching end of lifetime and are also fall under replacement, Su-24s are still in use and yet to be replaced fully either with Su-34 or Su-30SM, MiG-29SMT might also be replaced with something more capable. Not to mention Su-25.
if thats the case, wouldnt the LTS potentially challenge the sales of the Su-57, for countries looking for a Flanker replacement?
From my admittingly amateur observations, that would depend on the state of the Su-57E and a potential export M variant. If they are quite mature by 2027 when the LTS is projected to enter into service and mass production, than I would expect the Felon to get some sales to places like Vietnam or Algeria. Small numbers of at least 12-24+ aircraft depending on need.

That would eat into LTS sales, but the LTS could still complement the Felon's or even substitute for it in some nations like Kazakhstan or aforementioned Vietnam. If the LTS can achieve what the designers say it will then it may become the new top of the line or backbone of a few nations air forces. A good replacement for legacy Fulcrums and Flankers while not breaking the bank in maintenance costs.
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,123
Reaction score
304
India/Turkey/South Korea/Japan/China all have stealth programs and all are emphasizing domestic production and design. None look interesting in this type of imported product and I can't think of someone on the market for the 60-100 units needed as a launch customer and no the UAE isn't in this type of game.

Not all of them may be able to afford to complete their domestic programs (excepting China). The question is - will sanctions against Russia continue and will they be able to qualify for the F-35?

I can think of a lot of smaller countries that might be interested in purchasing smaller numbers as well... once production is set up...

...as for its potential as a supersonic drone - that is with reheat correct? If so, we're talking about short bursts of supersonic speed and short legs - not something that could really be that more effective in supporting a supercruising Su-57 than an S-70 would be?
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
2,331
Reaction score
1,225
I can think of a lot of smaller countries that might be interested in purchasing smaller numbers as well... once production is set up...

Especially some of the African countries that still have the MiG-21 and its variants in Air Force service. They cannot afford the full fat Su-57 so the Su-75 must be seen as a good opportunity to at least upgrade their Air Force's.
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
634
Reaction score
1,307
Especially some of the African countries that still have the MiG-21 and its variants in Air Force service. They cannot afford the full fat Su-57 so the Su-75 must be seen as a good opportunity to at least upgrade their Air Force's.
you know why they have the MiG-21s? because the Soviet Union was donate for free, this buddy's have no money and especially objective to support any mil-type jets in flying condition
 
Last edited:

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
851
Exactly which airforces are operating the MIG-21 anymore?
And of those very few airforces (1) how many MIG-21s are we talking about (2) how many are Chinese MIG-21s with China best places to provide a replacement and (3) how many of those airforces are going to be in a position to afford to buy and operate an aircraft like the Su-75?
Similar points could be made re: the very few remaining MIG-29 users.

The world has moved on lads and this is just another spurious semi-justification that falls apart with any real thought but which appears to have currency among contributors from a specific country.
The real question is if the Su-75 will really end up any materially cheaper than a Su-30sm type aircraft to buy and operate.
The very likely answer is no.
If that’s the case for the very limited market that is actually realistically available to Russia then it’s not looking very good for the Su-75 being more than the propaganda focused folly it is threatening to be.

The Russian Federation is not the USSR and now is a very different world.
Presumably Russia wants (and ultimately needs) to gain revenues from it military aviation export sales and not to have to “give” them away.
Unlike the USSR Russia does not have many allies or client states that have to buy Russian and the few there are have limited needs/ resources re: numbers and most will also have the option weigh up cheaper and probably equivalently capable Chinese options.

And fundamentally the Su-75 is not really a light weight fighter so really isn’t a particularly better fit for those countries that haven’t yet gone or can’t go with a Flanker variant.
Particularly in a world where relatively cheap armed drones (and/ or armed manned trainer-level aircraft) and the like now give more real world capability than the small token force of supersonic fighters that seldom flew ever did.
 

TR1

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
213
Reaction score
687
I do agree with some other sentiment here that Russia really could use a light fighter in the same vein as the MiG-21 for exports.. but not sure if Russia themselves really need such an aircraft?
It is always cheaper to have a not so numerous platform covering the higher end of the capability requirements and a numbers plane taking care of the bulk of the missions, in that regard Russian doctrine is not different. From the 90's onwards the VKS was reduced to its minimum expression and therefore having just higher capability platforms made sense, and with little resources twin engine was safer. But now things are different. Strelets made two interesting remarks:
- Syria has clearly shown that heavy twin engine fighters are overkill for most missions
- Sukhoi has a future fleet composition approach with optimal costs and capacities via the Su-57, S-70 and LTS.

With the VKS being still very reduced in numbers and many air bases being refurbished, VMF-MA also with minimal amounts and a proposal like the LTS on the table that almost matches the Su-30SM in range and payload parameters, I think it is clear the Russian military needs several hundreds of units.
do you really think the LTS could match the SU-30SM in range and payload? if so that is amazing, especially as its physically smaller and presumably significantly less RCS and perhaps less operation costs?
The range values stated for LTS are stated as 2800-3000km. Su-30SM has range of 3000km.
Max Payload of LTS is 7400kg, Su-30SM has 8000. So almost Su-30SM capabilities.
That's why actually big order of LTS would make sense, as you've get a Su-30SM caabilities in stealthy platform with one engine less. Yes, maybe in dogfight LTS might be less capable (which is up to debate, as maxG value is nod indicative of maneuverability in dogfight), but otherwise is a very complelling argument, especially if you consider that more and more of F-35 are being deployed at Russian border.
Also one has to count that despite quite significant purchases, Russian airforce is still not modernized fully. For example, there are still vanilla Su-27s in use in Kaliningrad, vanilla MiG-29s in Armenia (and IIRC somewhere in Russia too), Su-27SM are reaching end of lifetime and are also fall under replacement, Su-24s are still in use and yet to be replaced fully either with Su-34 or Su-30SM, MiG-29SMT might also be replaced with something more capable. Not to mention Su-25.

Well we will see what the final product manages in terms of payload-range vs the Su-30SM, TBH I have doubts it will be as great as aimed for.

Still the number of legacy frames is not that high, especially considering there are still Su-30SM and Su-35 and MiG-35 that will be bought. After that you would have to wait at least 20 years before you need to replace something like Su-30SM, unless they go for really aggressive replacement schedule like with Kursk MiG-29SMTs.....not sure that is the best use of money.

After that the question is, do you want more Su-57s and drones at that point, or more Su-75s? I know which I would pick.

Su-25 logical replacement is drones as well IMO.
 

Scar

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
267
Reaction score
553
The real question is if the Su-75 will really end up any materially cheaper than a Su-30sm type aircraft to buy and operate.
The very likely answer is no
I can't give 100% guarantee its flyaway cost will be lower than 30SM, but -1 engine and +1000% to radar MTBR is already a huge saving factor.
 

TR1

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
213
Reaction score
687
and most will also have the option weigh up cheaper and probably equivalently capable Chinese options.
What Chinese option? I don't see any single engine VLO Chinese fighter on the export market nor in 5 years.

People are also assuming CAASTA or other American interference will be around for the rest of the decade. A lot can change by then.

Just the current operators of Flankers, MiG-29s, and legacy birds would be enough for LTS to justify itself in Rostec's eyes IMO, assuming it is really dedicated to making this a value oriented option. Hell from a Russian policy perspective having the option for alligned CIS nations is not the worst reason either.
 

Anduriel

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
134
Reaction score
194
I do agree with some other sentiment here that Russia really could use a light fighter in the same vein as the MiG-21 for exports.. but not sure if Russia themselves really need such an aircraft?
It is always cheaper to have a not so numerous platform covering the higher end of the capability requirements and a numbers plane taking care of the bulk of the missions, in that regard Russian doctrine is not different. From the 90's onwards the VKS was reduced to its minimum expression and therefore having just higher capability platforms made sense, and with little resources twin engine was safer. But now things are different. Strelets made two interesting remarks:
- Syria has clearly shown that heavy twin engine fighters are overkill for most missions
- Sukhoi has a future fleet composition approach with optimal costs and capacities via the Su-57, S-70 and LTS.

With the VKS being still very reduced in numbers and many air bases being refurbished, VMF-MA also with minimal amounts and a proposal like the LTS on the table that almost matches the Su-30SM in range and payload parameters, I think it is clear the Russian military needs several hundreds of units.
do you really think the LTS could match the SU-30SM in range and payload? if so that is amazing, especially as its physically smaller and presumably significantly less RCS and perhaps less operation costs?
The range values stated for LTS are stated as 2800-3000km. Su-30SM has range of 3000km.
Max Payload of LTS is 7400kg, Su-30SM has 8000. So almost Su-30SM capabilities.
That's why actually big order of LTS would make sense, as you've get a Su-30SM caabilities in stealthy platform with one engine less. Yes, maybe in dogfight LTS might be less capable (which is up to debate, as maxG value is nod indicative of maneuverability in dogfight), but otherwise is a very complelling argument, especially if you consider that more and more of F-35 are being deployed at Russian border.
Also one has to count that despite quite significant purchases, Russian airforce is still not modernized fully. For example, there are still vanilla Su-27s in use in Kaliningrad, vanilla MiG-29s in Armenia (and IIRC somewhere in Russia too), Su-27SM are reaching end of lifetime and are also fall under replacement, Su-24s are still in use and yet to be replaced fully either with Su-34 or Su-30SM, MiG-29SMT might also be replaced with something more capable. Not to mention Su-25.

Well we will see what the final product manages in terms of payload-range vs the Su-30SM, TBH I have doubts it will be as great as aimed for.

Still the number of legacy frames is not that high, especially considering there are still Su-30SM and Su-35 and MiG-35 that will be bought. After that you would have to wait at least 20 years before you need to replace something like Su-30SM, unless they go for really aggressive replacement schedule like with Kursk MiG-29SMTs.....not sure that is the best use of money.

After that the question is, do you want more Su-57s and drones at that point, or more Su-75s? I know which I would pick.

Su-25 logical replacement is drones as well IMO.
Assuming Russia won't increase it's OTA arm, especially considering raising tensions and CW2.0 going full swing. And IMO, current RuAF OTA numbersd are quite low for such big country.
IMO#2, Su-30SM procurement was a mistake, as Su-34(though less so), because oyou essentially buy an outdated plane with worse specs than Su-35.
 

haavarla

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
179
Reaction score
206
Neighter SM nor 35S can do what Su-34 can do.
Why the heck do you think Russia is ordering Su-34 up to the 200 numbers and possible beyond anyway.

SM was due to Russia needed more and new Airframe(over legacy Flankers and Mig-29), and IRKUT prod-line was ready and could put out those said airframes fast. Andat the same timee KnAAZ was running at full capacity with the Su-35S.

Fyi, there was no other Airframes back in the prior(2008-2016) Re-armament program.. only Su-35S, Su-30SM and Su-34.

And pls stop with what is low or not for Russia. In their own Re-armament plans, they have now(2016-2026) shifted and re-prioritized both Army and Navy over their Airforce. The Airforce had their golden age by now, and afa Fighters goes.
If the Russian High Command goes; "This is the way!"

Then i would trust their judgement over an Internet forum opinion.. no pun intended.
 
Last edited:

Anduriel

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
134
Reaction score
194
Neighter SM nor 35S can do what Su-34 can do.
The only advantage of Su-34 against Su-35 is integrated EOTS/FLIR system of outdated philosophy and design (and even then Su-35 has FLIR inside of OLS-35, which pilots wer actively using in Syria for recon/result control) and longer endurace and payload. Also Su-34 is pure strike.
Otherwise, Su-35 is heads above in every department.
If one adds a TPOD for Su-35, Su-35 can pretty much do whatever Su-34 can, apart very fwe situations where you need super-long endurance or >8t of payload.
 

haavarla

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
179
Reaction score
206
Neighter SM nor 35S can do what Su-34 can do.
The only advantage of Su-34 against Su-35 is integrated EOTS/FLIR system of outdated philosophy and design (and even then Su-35 has FLIR inside of OLS-35, which pilots wer actively using in Syria for recon/result control) and longer endurace and payload. Also Su-34 is pure strike.
Otherwise, Su-35 is heads above in every department.
If one adds a TPOD for Su-35, Su-35 can pretty much do whatever Su-34 can, apart very fwe situations where you need super-long endurance or >8t of payload.
Dude, you just contradicted your self there..
You said Russia need more Airframes for SUCH A HUGE CONTRY.
So which is it? a Tactical bomber with very long endurance for your own words; a huge country or only use more Flankers for it..

I would say Su-34 are actually cheaper to operate if you calculate Flight hours, flight missions on each Airframe cost. Less is more in this case.
The Hellduck is much better suited for hauling weapons(its a bomber..), less tear and wear on airframe.

The proof is in the pudding sort to say.
And the Su-34 are in for an Upgrade; Su-34M.

oh, and You cannot upgrade something you do not have :p, so good on them for operating such a large fleet of Su-34's
 
Last edited:

Anduriel

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
134
Reaction score
194
Neighter SM nor 35S can do what Su-34 can do.
The only advantage of Su-34 against Su-35 is integrated EOTS/FLIR system of outdated philosophy and design (and even then Su-35 has FLIR inside of OLS-35, which pilots wer actively using in Syria for recon/result control) and longer endurace and payload. Also Su-34 is pure strike.
Otherwise, Su-35 is heads above in every department.
If one adds a TPOD for Su-35, Su-35 can pretty much do whatever Su-34 can, apart very fwe situations where you need super-long endurance or >8t of payload.
Dude, you just contradicted your self there..
You said Russia need more Airframes for SUCH A HUGE CONTRY.
Su-35 is a better choice because it's multirole. Unlike Su-34, which is pure bomber. Advantages over Su-35 are +300km max range on internal and only with bags the difference become noticable (Su-34 can carry 3 3000L bags, Su-35 unlike Su-34 can carry two). As bomber platform Su-35 is more precise with unguided munitions (from pilot's words that was in Syria,a lluded to much more modern and precise INS). But while one can argue abourt Su-34 necessity in airforce, you can't about Su-30SM, because Su-35 just in every way is better.
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
466
Reaction score
682
do you really think the LTS could match the SU-30SM in range and payload? if so that is amazing, especially as its physically smaller and presumably significantly less RCS and perhaps less operation costs?
It should weight like 60-70% less than the Su-30 with a way smaller cross sectional area and one instead of two engines, so 30-40% lower fuel costs should be a given, plus half of the costs in the engine maintenance, which are a major contributor to the operational costs too. If you add to it that it is planned to be developed in unmanned version, allowing for a massive reduction of the flight hours/costs required for training, it is clear that the overall operational costs of such a fleet could be a fraction of that of the current heavy twin engine fighters based one.

Yes, maybe in dogfight LTS might be less capable (which is up to debate, as maxG value is nod indicative of maneuverability in dogfight)
There are two relevant topics to consider here:

- On the one hand the lower g-rating of the LTS compared to the 9g standard. This is a restriction indeed, but I suspect this is mainly due to the fact that the plane is rather big for the current export cleared motorization. I also suspect an eventual domestic version equipped with izd. 30 would not have this restriction
- On the other, the quite extreme area wing for the size of the plane, high indicated service ceiling and STOL performance all indicate a very low wing loading that should provide the plane with superior turning capacity in every condition where lift and not structural tolerance is the limit, that is, most mid and high altitude operational conditions. For example, defeating SAMs, arguably more frequent and more relevant than dogfighting.

Also one has to count that despite quite significant purchases, Russian airforce is still not modernized fully. For example, there are still vanilla Su-27s in use in Kaliningrad, vanilla MiG-29s in Armenia (and IIRC somewhere in Russia too), Su-27SM are reaching end of lifetime and are also fall under replacement, Su-24s are still in use and yet to be replaced fully either with Su-34 or Su-30SM, MiG-29SMT might also be replaced with something more capable. Not to mention Su-25.
I agree with the overall argumentation, would just point out that tactical bombers and CAS planes will probably not be replaced by the LTS

if thats the case, wouldnt the LTS potentially challenge the sales of the Su-57, for countries looking for a Flanker replacement?
Better for Russia, if they sell LTS instead of the Su-57 which is a much more capable airframe. They will not sell it cheap I am sure, so from the commercial perspective LTS is much more likely to succeed than the Su-57.

...as for its potential as a supersonic drone - that is with reheat correct? If so, we're talking about short bursts of supersonic speed and short legs - not something that could really be that more effective in supporting a supercruising Su-57 than an S-70 would be?
The unmanned version of the LTS would be a full blown fighter, while Okhotnik is a scarcely manoeuvrable subsonic long endurance bomb truck. It is not the kind of asset that can take an offensive role in air combat, because it would be relatively easy to defeat for enemy fighters. We don't know what the performance of the LTS would be with izd. 30, but it may be an acceptable supercruiser (in the broad sense of the term), despite intake design indicating that high supersonic speeds are probably not the most relevant goal. OTH, Okhotnik is subsonic and would also not be able to flight together with the Su-57, which is rather intended to provide cover a wider area due to long range and high speed, not necessarily to flight together with other planes from beginning to end of a mission.

Exactly which airforces are operating the MIG-21 anymore?
Several ones, take a look at the wiki

The real question is if the Su-75 will really end up any materially cheaper than a Su-30sm type aircraft to buy and operate.
The very likely answer is no.
If that’s the case for the very limited market that is actually realistically available to Russia then it’s not looking very good for the Su-75 being more than the propaganda focused folly it is threatening to be.
Talking about propaganda is rich coming from you.

The rest of the arguments are thoroughly flawed by ideological blindness and hence insisting you to check data will not help. Just keeping these posts for later, I think it s going to be good fun to read them in some years' time.

Well we will see what the final product manages in terms of payload-range vs the Su-30SM, TBH I have doubts it will be as great as aimed for.
They are passing the specs of a watered down export version, do you expect that they are very wrong once people like Strelets have said the plane is designed and thoroughly assessed/virtually tested? The whole point of DE is to be able to do that kind of things, and Sukhoi has the huge advantage that they already have thoroughly tested the actual elements of the plane in the PAK-FA program. We will see of course, but I don't see any fundamental reason for being very pessimistic. The plane is big in terms of internal volume as it is customary of 5th gen fighters and therefore it carries a lot of fuel, so 3000 km range is not surprising to me. Max payload is that of a F-16, max speed that of a Rafale/F-18, g rating is lower than standard... no stellar claims here

Still the number of legacy frames is not that high, especially considering there are still Su-30SM and Su-35 and MiG-35 that will be bought. After that you would have to wait at least 20 years before you need to replace something like Su-30SM, unless they go for really aggressive replacement schedule like with Kursk MiG-29SMTs.....not sure that is the best use of money.
Not sure how many MiG-35 are going to be purchased, I am not very convinced about that. But all the Flankers bought for the last 10-15 years will need to be replaced, and for the oldest ones time has already been running for many years. Plus fleet needs to grow a lot. Plus LTS is not a program for right now, maybe purchases start in 2030 and only in earnest in 2035 or so. By then many of the today not so old planes will need replacement indeed, and further forward the Flankers being currently purchased will need replacement too.

After that the question is, do you want more Su-57s and drones at that point, or more Su-75s? I know which I would pick.
There is no such dilemma with the LTS. It can be purchased as a manned plane or as a drone, and even better, to morph progressively the fleet from one paradigm into the other, which is priceless and a major plus of the proposed concept IMHO.

BTW, regarding to this topic of the foreign competition for markets, internal purchases and so on, directly from UAC's last publication:

The key issue in the fate of Checkmate, which will obviously affect the prospects for its promotion to the foreign market, is the internal start-up order. The possibility of internal purchases of Checkmate was supported by the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation in charge of the military-industrial complex, Yuri Borisov. He said that when planning a new state armament program for 2024-2033, the possibility of purchasing light single-engine fighters of the 5th generation Checkmate for the Russian Defense Ministry will be considered.

5th generation export forecasts

Almost all of these programs have common features:

· involve the participation of leading Western fighter developers in the United States Lockheed Martin or the United Kingdom BAE Systems, with the exception of the Chinese FC-31;

* plan to use, at least initially, foreign-made F414 or F110 engines of the American company General Electric, except for the FC-31 with a Chinese engine and the F-X program of Japan, which retains ambitions to create a national engine with the help of the British Rolls-Royce;

* have two engines and, accordingly, potentially higher operating costs and cost of flight hours than the F-35 and Checkmate single-engine fighters;

· they also do not have most of the national technologies inherent in 5th-generation fighters for creating radar with AFAR, optoelectronic sighting systems, circular information systems, infrared and radio frequency jamming systems.

Taking into account the analysis of the state of such foreign programs for the development of 5th-generation fighters as the Pakistani Azm, the Iranian Qaher-313, and the Indian AMCA (taking into account the period of creation of the national light fighter of the 3-4-th generation Tejas for more than 20 years) they will not compete with Checkmate in the foreign market until 2040.

Regarding the Turkish TF-X program, it should be noted that Turkey has achieved significant success in developing, equipping the national armed forces and exporting Bayraktar-type tactical drones. However, achievements in the field of combat aviation are still limited to the maintenance, repair and modernization of American 4th-generation F-16 fighters. Advances in aircraft development include a basic turboprop training aircraft and a Hurkus-type light attack aircraft, which has been delivered to the Turkish Air Force, as well as the Hürjet advanced turbojet training aircraft under development. The stated delivery dates of serial Turkish fighters of the 5th generation in 2034-40, both to the national Air Force and especially for export, are questionable.

Thus, the main competitors in the global market in the period 2022-2041 of the Checkmate fighter,with the exception of the heavy F-22 and J-20, will be the American F-35, Chinese FC-31 and Korean KF-21.

It is also necessary to take into account the trends of the global fighter market in the period 2022-2041:

* reduced market needs and quantitative reduction of the procurement plan with each subsequent generation of fighters, especially the 5th generation compared to the 4th;

* continuing production and procurement of 4+ generation fighters (F-16 Block 70/72, F-15EX, Rafale, Gripen NG) and extending their service life to 40 years or more, which will ensure their presence in the Air Force's combat service at least until 2060;

* The air forces of a number of Latin American and African countries, which were armed with 2nd and 3rd generation fighters, refused to purchase a fairly significant number of fighters of subsequent generations in favor of light attack aircraft based on turboprop training vehicles of basic training (American T-6 and Brazilian A-29) and advanced training (Russian Yak-130, South Korean T-50, Italian M-346 and Chinese L-15);

* the role of UAVs and the range of tasks they perform not only special, but also combat missions to defeat ground, surface and air targets, including in interaction with manned aircraft complexes, is increasing.

When promoting Checkmate to the foreign market, the application of the US law "On Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions" (CAATSA), which came into force in August 2017, cannot be excluded. CAATSA provides for a wide range of sanctions against both Russian subjects of military-technical cooperation and potential buyers of weapons from Russia. An example of the application of the US law in practice was the ban on the supply of F-35 fighter jets in response to Turkey's purchase of Russian S-400 air defense systems.

Based on these realities, the forecast for export deliveries of 5th-generation fighters in 2022-41 is as follows::

· more than 250 (excluding F-35 partner countries; with these countries in mind, the most optimistic forecast is up to 1,500) American F-35s,

· more than 150 (optimistic – up to 300) Russian Checkmates

* and approximately 50 (optimistic – up to 200) Chinese FC-31 and South Korean KF-21.

By the end of this period, the development programs for 6th-generation fighters will be mostly completed and offered to the foreign market. Such well-known programs that require separate consideration include the American NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance), the European FCAS and Tempest, as well as the Japanese F-X.


 
Last edited:

TMA1

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
219
Reaction score
292
Honestly I think people across the interwebz are underestimating the damage of CAATSA. People here are right to not think short term. Think ten years from now. I think it would be wise for Russia to procure the su-75 and expedite replacing some of their legacy aircraft.
 

Alifzero

just nobody
Joined
Dec 7, 2021
Messages
43
Reaction score
76
It is always cheaper to have a not so numerous platform covering the higher end of the capability requirements and a numbers plane taking care of the bulk of the missions, in that regard Russian doctrine is not different. From the 90's onwards the VKS was reduced to its minimum expression and therefore having just higher capability platforms made sense, and with little resources twin engine was safer. But now things are different. Strelets made two interesting remarks:
- Syria has clearly shown that heavy twin engine fighters are overkill for most missions
- Sukhoi has a future fleet composition approach with optimal costs and capacities via the Su-57, S-70 and LTS.

With the VKS being still very reduced in numbers and many air bases being refurbished, VMF-MA also with minimal amounts and a proposal like the LTS on the table that almost matches the Su-30SM in range and payload parameters, I think it is clear the Russian military needs several hundreds of units.
do you really think the LTS could match the SU-30SM in range and payload? if so that is amazing, especially as its physically smaller and presumably significantly less RCS and perhaps less operation costs?
The range values stated for LTS are stated as 2800-3000km. Su-30SM has range of 3000km.
Max Payload of LTS is 7400kg, Su-30SM has 8000. So almost Su-30SM capabilities.
That's why actually big order of LTS would make sense, as you've get a Su-30SM caabilities in stealthy platform with one engine less. Yes, maybe in dogfight LTS might be less capable (which is up to debate, as maxG value is nod indicative of maneuverability in dogfight), but otherwise is a very complelling argument, especially if you consider that more and more of F-35 are being deployed at Russian border.
Also one has to count that despite quite significant purchases, Russian airforce is still not modernized fully. For example, there are still vanilla Su-27s in use in Kaliningrad, vanilla MiG-29s in Armenia (and IIRC somewhere in Russia too), Su-27SM are reaching end of lifetime and are also fall under replacement, Su-24s are still in use and yet to be replaced fully either with Su-34 or Su-30SM, MiG-29SMT might also be replaced with something more capable. Not to mention Su-25.
While Su-75 stated can carry 7400kg of payload, but in practice its hard to reach that payload. The amount of pylon and limitation of weapon bay make it definitely always carry less than Su-30.
 

Alifzero

just nobody
Joined
Dec 7, 2021
Messages
43
Reaction score
76
After that the question is, do you want more Su-57s and drones at that point, or more Su-75s? I know which I would pick.
There is no such dilemma with the LTS. It can be purchased as a manned plane or as a drone, and even better, to morph progressively the fleet from one paradigm into the other, which is priceless and a major plus of the proposed concept IMHO.

BTW, regarding to this topic of the foreign competition for markets, internal purchases and so on, directly from UAC's last publication:

The key issue in the fate of Checkmate, which will obviously affect the prospects for its promotion to the foreign market, is the internal start-up order. The possibility of internal purchases of Checkmate was supported by the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation in charge of the military-industrial complex, Yuri Borisov. He said that when planning a new state armament program for 2024-2033, the possibility of purchasing light single-engine fighters of the 5th generation Checkmate for the Russian Defense Ministry will be considered.

5th generation export forecasts

Almost all of these programs have common features:

· involve the participation of leading Western fighter developers in the United States Lockheed Martin or the United Kingdom BAE Systems, with the exception of the Chinese FC-31;

* plan to use, at least initially, foreign-made F414 or F110 engines of the American company General Electric, except for the FC-31 with a Chinese engine and the F-X program of Japan, which retains ambitions to create a national engine with the help of the British Rolls-Royce;

* have two engines and, accordingly, potentially higher operating costs and cost of flight hours than the F-35 and Checkmate single-engine fighters;

· they also do not have most of the national technologies inherent in 5th-generation fighters for creating radar with AFAR, optoelectronic sighting systems, circular information systems, infrared and radio frequency jamming systems.

Taking into account the analysis of the state of such foreign programs for the development of 5th-generation fighters as the Pakistani Azm, the Iranian Qaher-313, and the Indian AMCA (taking into account the period of creation of the national light fighter of the 3-4-th generation Tejas for more than 20 years) they will not compete with Checkmate in the foreign market until 2040.

Regarding the Turkish TF-X program, it should be noted that Turkey has achieved significant success in developing, equipping the national armed forces and exporting Bayraktar-type tactical drones. However, achievements in the field of combat aviation are still limited to the maintenance, repair and modernization of American 4th-generation F-16 fighters. Advances in aircraft development include a basic turboprop training aircraft and a Hurkus-type light attack aircraft, which has been delivered to the Turkish Air Force, as well as the Hürjet advanced turbojet training aircraft under development. The stated delivery dates of serial Turkish fighters of the 5th generation in 2034-40, both to the national Air Force and especially for export, are questionable.

Thus, the main competitors in the global market in the period 2022-2041 of the Checkmate fighter,with the exception of the heavy F-22 and J-20, will be the American F-35, Chinese FC-31 and Korean KF-21.

It is also necessary to take into account the trends of the global fighter market in the period 2022-2041:

* reduced market needs and quantitative reduction of the procurement plan with each subsequent generation of fighters, especially the 5th generation compared to the 4th;

* continuing production and procurement of 4+ generation fighters (F-16 Block 70/72, F-15EX, Rafale, Gripen NG) and extending their service life to 40 years or more, which will ensure their presence in the Air Force's combat service at least until 2060;

* The air forces of a number of Latin American and African countries, which were armed with 2nd and 3rd generation fighters, refused to purchase a fairly significant number of fighters of subsequent generations in favor of light attack aircraft based on turboprop training vehicles of basic training (American T-6 and Brazilian A-29) and advanced training (Russian Yak-130, South Korean T-50, Italian M-346 and Chinese L-15);

* the role of UAVs and the range of tasks they perform not only special, but also combat missions to defeat ground, surface and air targets, including in interaction with manned aircraft complexes, is increasing.

When promoting Checkmate to the foreign market, the application of the US law "On Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions" (CAATSA), which came into force in August 2017, cannot be excluded. CAATSA provides for a wide range of sanctions against both Russian subjects of military-technical cooperation and potential buyers of weapons from Russia. An example of the application of the US law in practice was the ban on the supply of F-35 fighter jets in response to Turkey's purchase of Russian S-400 air defense systems.

Based on these realities, the forecast for export deliveries of 5th-generation fighters in 2022-41 is as follows::

· more than 250 (excluding F-35 partner countries; with these countries in mind, the most optimistic forecast is up to 1,500) American F-35s,

· more than 150 (optimistic – up to 300) Russian Checkmates

* and approximately 50 (optimistic – up to 200) Chinese FC-31 and South Korean KF-21.

By the end of this period, the development programs for 6th-generation fighters will be mostly completed and offered to the foreign market. Such well-known programs that require separate consideration include the American NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance), the European FCAS and Tempest, as well as the Japanese F-X.


I somewhat agree that the only potential competitor to Su-75 are only KF-21, FC-31 and F-35. But i think only KF-21 and F-35 that interesting for most countries. With the mysterious reason, somehow newer China combat aircraft are pretty bad at export sales. Outside JF-17, there is low interest on JH-7, J-10 and FC-31. I think the reasoning is more political than technical although China engine could be pretty expensive for target customer compared to existing Russia engine (or China hesitate to sale their fighter with Russia engine, idk). In other side, KF-21 and F-35 can't be marketed toward countries that have mixed or bad relation to the west (like Argentina).
So, Su-75 have some room in export market. They just need to make the plane as good as they say.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
851
Argentina very much doesn’t have a bad relationship with the “West”; it is part of the “West”.
It has a very specific issue with the UK that then impacts defence-related procurement.
Appears unlikely they would touch Russian equipment with a barge-pole given the impact it would have on their wider political and economic standing.
Unfortunately the comment above not untypical of some of the reality-free discussions on this topic.
 

Alifzero

just nobody
Joined
Dec 7, 2021
Messages
43
Reaction score
76
Argentina very much doesn’t have a bad relationship with the “West”; it is part of the “West”.
It has a very specific issue with the UK that then impacts defence-related procurement.
Appears unlikely they would touch Russian equipment with a barge-pole given the impact it would have on their wider political and economic standing.
Unfortunately the comment above not untypical of some of the reality-free discussions on this topic.
Well, i'm sure you understand with what i mean. I'm not necessarily say Argentina have bad relation to the whole "west", but they have bad relation with UK, which make they have mixed relation with the "west". Which make them have difficulty to get western fighter especially if it has part from UK.
And no, i'm not saying Argentina will 100% buy Russia stuff, i just use them as example of country that have hard time to acquire new fighter from pro-"west" country
 

Evgeniy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
136
Reaction score
162
Not sure how many MiG-35 are going to be purchased, I am not very convinced about that.
Let me remind you that the MiG-35 was supposed to complete state tests in 2021. But most likely they didn't. So I would not write off the MiG-35.
 

paralay

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
346
Reaction score
588
Website
www.paralay.ru
The combat load of 7,400 kg for LTS is nothing more than a "publicity stunt". The same is true for all other aircraft. In real life, combat aircraft do not fly with a "maximum combat load".
For example, the F-15E claimed 11,000 kg.
Maximum combat load seen in real action: maximum load 9750 kg

maximum typical load
1x AN/AAQ-13 Navigation Pod, 211.5 kg
4x AIM-9L/M Sidewinder, 91 kg
12x CBU-87 Cluster Bombs, 431 kg
2x 610gal Fuel Tank, ~ 2000 kg

Total on the external suspension: 211,5 + 91*4 + 431*12 + 2000*2 = 211,5 + 364 + 5172 + 4000 = 9747,5 kg (26.5%)
Of them directly weapons: 431*12 + 91*4 = 5172 + 364 = 5536 kg
5536 kg (payload weight) : 36750 kg (take-off weight in this configuration) = 15%

Simply put, divide by two the "stated" and you will get the "real", 7400 kg : 2 = 3700 kg LTS, 9208 kg : 2 = 4600 kg F-35A
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
466
Reaction score
682
Appears unlikely they would touch Russian equipment with a barge-pole given the impact it would have on their wider political and economic standing.
Unfortunately the comment above not untypical of some of the reality-free discussions on this topic.
Argentina, as many other Latin American countries, already uses Russian equipment, and they have no standing to lose, they face extremely hard conditions already.

Let me remind you that the MiG-35 was supposed to complete state tests in 2021. But most likely they didn't. So I would not write off the MiG-35.
Never say never, but VKS did not show enthusiasm about the MiG-35 before and with the LTS in the making, I don't see them making a rushed decision about it. It has been rendered basically pointless by Sukhoi, unless it is procured as an industrial support measure.

Simply put, divide by two the "stated" and you will get the "real", 7400 kg : 2 = 3700 kg LTS, 9208 kg : 2 = 4600 kg F-35A
5th gen fighters do not carry EFTs (except for ferry flights) and besides they take a decent amount of weapons internally, on top of what is carried on external stations. Therefore the proportion of actual combat load they could carry is normally higher than that of previous generations of fighters, with the possible exception of Flankers. But in any case the max payload is just an indication of the structural tolerance of the plane, the amount and actual rating of each weapon station determines what will be carried in combat. I don't think I have ever seen any tactical plane carrying much more than 5t in bombs

On the LTS for instance, we could consider 2x 750 kg internal weapons + 2x 1500 kg guided bombs in the inner wing stations for 4.5 t as the kind of max loadout that I see realistically feasible. On the Su-57 you could have 3t internal + 2x 1500 kg bombs + maybe 2x 750 kg below the nacelles for a total of 7.5 t. Here the influence of the airframe size in the real capabilities of a plane is easy to notice, like in the Su-35 below with 4.5 t in bombs and still space for AAM and stations for several tons in ordnance more:

2262.su-35%2Bsa%2Bsvim.jpg


BTW payload of the F-35 is 8.1 t
 
Last edited:

paralay

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
346
Reaction score
588
Website
www.paralay.ru
Am not saying that the plane will not lift the declared load.

Su-30 with reinforced landing gear, 8000 kg of bombs + 9640 kg of fuel = 17640 kg with a take-off weight of 38800 kg, 45.4%
LTS, 7400 kg of bombs + 6000 kg of fuel = 13400 kg with a take-off weight of 24800 kg, 54%
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
2,066
When thinking of potential export markets for the LTS, I think its highly likely, any market will be those from existing MiG-29 and Flanker users. Lets look at the current operators and ignoring the CAATSA issues

Belarus: Some chance, perhaps if Russia subsidizes it
Bulgaria: No chance
Poland: No chance
Serbia: Low chance due to economic state and would require some serious subsidization. They may feel they need to do so since Croatia is getting the Rafales
Slovakia: No chance
Ukraine: No chance
Bangladesh: low chance.
India: low chance. They seem unhappy with the SU-57s stealth performance. Perhaps they may like the Su-75s better since it shows more faceted fueselage and s-ducts. However it will compete directly with whatever AMCA turns out to be. India buying Su-75 will depend on how far India gets on AMCA. They could very well buy it if AMCA development becomes too protracted, similar to how India had to buy foreign tanks when Arjun wasn't going as scheduled.
Kazakhstan: good chance. They have a few aircraft that need to be replaced and I believe they are eligible to buy Russian aircraft at domestic prices. But I don't expect large numbers of sales
Myanmar: low chance
North Korea : low chance
Turkmenistan: Mid chance. They don't really need any new fighter jet, but they have been modernizing. While they did buy some Italian light attack/trainer aircraft, I doubt anyone in the west will sell them a dedicated combat aircraft, and i don't see them buying Chinese either. So there's some chance here
Uzbekistan: Mid chance. Like Kazakhstan there's a need to replace some soviet types and the west likely won't sell them things, and I doubt they would buy Chinese.
Algeria: Good chance. They purchase a lot of new Russian equipment and are in an arms race with Morocco.
Sudan: Low chance. state of their economy and political situation is not good
Eritrea: Low chance
Azerbaijan: mid chance. They have the money but Russia wants to play a balancing act with Armenia as well. If they sell Su-75s to Azerbaijan, then perhaps only when Armenia has one too.
Armenia: low chance. Same as above situation but with a lot less money
Iran: low chance. Iran hasn't really bought any major Russian aircraft in a long time, but its not unlikely either
Syria: Low chance due to economic situation and bleak prospects of recovery
Yemen: low chance due to same reasons as above
Cuba: low chance
Peru: low chance. I don't see a strong desire from them to introduce a new type anytime soon due to lack of major threats. I also expect some serious competition from Rafale as well too
Angola: mid chance. they have the oil wealth but not a strong need for the time being
Ethiopia: low chance, they're too busy fighting a civil war
Mongolia: no chance. they only have fixed fighter aircraft because it was donated. other wise they won't operate Su-75s unless Russia gives it to them.
Vietnam: good chance. They have a lot of aircraft that needs replacement and their economic prospects are good
Malaysia: mid chance. They're seriously looking at Fulcrum replacements now, and perhaps Flanker replacements in the future, but they don't seem to be strongly as interested in Russian aircraft as before. I expect the Koreans and Indians to have some strong pushes now
Venezuela: low chance. I am sure they would love to buy, but only when the day their economy improves
 

TR1

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
213
Reaction score
687
Belarus: Some chance, perhaps if Russia subsidizes it
Good chance, assuming there is not wild political change in the next 10 years. And even if there is, no guarantee the nations wont remain politically close. Belarus got internal prices for Su-30SME, and a bunch of other subsidized Russian weaponry.
Bangladesh: low chance.
Why low? They bought a bunch of yak-130s and other trainers, indicating an intention for a larger modern fighter fleet in the future. Between all the MiG-29s and MiG-21 knockoffs there is a fair chance they would look seriously at a LTS type fighter in a decade. Also there were reports they were looking closely at Su-30SME.
India: low chance. They seem unhappy with the SU-57s stealth performance.
Those were Indian media inventions. At the time no stealth treated T-50s were even fling and regardless India never got access to them. What really happened is they couldn't afford the level of participation they wanted, the plane was raw, and Indian procurement is a mess. They might look at the plane again in future years, and LTS would be an obvious offer.
Perhaps they may like the Su-75s better since it shows more faceted fueselage and s-ducts.
Su-57 is a much more advanced product than 75. S-ducts is irrelevant to Su-57s stealth anyways.
Kazakhstan: good chance. They have a few aircraft that need to be replaced and I believe they are eligible to buy Russian aircraft at domestic prices. But I don't expect large numbers of sales
Kazakhstan is buying up to 36 Su-30SME right now (yes at internal prices), that leaves several dozen tactical aircraft, MiG-29s and MiG-31s. LTS is sort of a weird replacement for the 31s, but otherwise LTS would be an obvious choice for filling the fleet out, maybe even replacing Su-30s in the distant future.
Myanmar: low chance
They bought dozens of MiG-29s and a small batch (6 or 8) Su-30SME recently, so I think the chance here is decent. Willingness to spend reasonably and large enough fleet size to justify a unifying type.
North Korea : low chance
Zero chance IMO
Uzbekistan: Mid chance.
Good chance IMO. A few years ago Uzbekistan and Russian relations became warmer and they have resumed purchasing new equipment for the first time since basically fall of USSR. Apparently are about to buy Su-30s. If they end up standardizing on Su-30 it might ruin LTS chances for a while, but on the other hand their fleet is relatively big.
Armenia: low chance. Same as above situation but with a lot less money
They just took part in the CSTO operation in Kazakhstan, and one would think military modernization would be a priority after the drubbing their outdated force took. They buy subsidized anyways.
Iran: low chance. Iran hasn't really bought any major Russian aircraft in a long time, but its not unlikely either
UN arms embargo expired and it sounds like Russia is finally tired of kowtowing to the US over Iran (already started selling SAMs). Iran buying modern Flankers might be right around the corner. I'd say at least mid chance for LTS.
Ethiopia: low chance, they're too busy fighting a civil war
Ethiopia fights a civil war every 10 years, but the existing fighter fleet surely will need to be replaced in ~10 years.

Then there are wild cards such as Iraq, Egypt and Indonesia (CAASTA won't last forever I hope!), Gulf States as a long shot, between sub-saharan African and latin america you might find a couple countries that are a good fit. Laos just bought trainers, they might be looking at a jet in the future, although that is a big economic stretch.

Even if 1/6 of those potential customers bites, they have an OK economic case with LTS, assuming the plane can be delivered to be both affordable and capable with enough hand-me-downs from the PAK-FA project.
I just want to see the plane fly at this point!
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
211
Reaction score
381
Thus, the main competitors in the global market in the period 2022-2041 of the Checkmate fighter,with the exception of the heavy F-22 and J-20, will be the American F-35, Chinese FC-31 and Korean KF-21.
I don't really think F-35 is in anyway a competitor of Checkmate in the export market. A country which could buy the F-35, ie. which that would be granted EL without problem wouldn't consider Checkmate in its very nature or vice versa. Obviously, there could be a change in US export police regarding the F-35 after PCA/NGAD completion and on top of that, future technical refreshes and block upgrades could also mean a sizeable downgrade margin for the F-35s that could be exported to the non-core allies/-allied nations(the plan to use adaptive cycle engines, only for the F-35s owned by pentagon is already showcasing such possibilities). Nevertheless, as of now and for the foreseeable future, F-35 and Checkmate doesm't seem to be each other's commercial competitors.

KF-21 is a in quite of a limbo right there. It is sandwiched between legacy 4.5th gen fighters like Rafale and SHornet and the more lucrative F-35. KAI would probably look for countries that cannot buy the F-35 as their potential customers, which could very well be a non-aligned/3rd world nation which isn't yet fully aligned to NATO standard systems and could potentially buy a Russian system instead. In such markets the LTS would have a significant upper hand in terms of what it could offer. That is though, if not for the CAATSA.

The potentially real and actual competition against Checkmate imo is the FC-31, especially when it finally gets the J- designation SAC would have long been looking for. Previous Chinese fighters and their export results wouldn't really matter in such case do to inherently different market proposition between a 4th gen and 5th gen aircraft. Also there is the question of if China was really looking to sell their 4th gen fighters in the past years, apart from FC-1 which was more of a joint project with Pakistan. Regardless of the awnser to the latter question, I think we would need to paint a different picture for how the FC-31(or whatever it's called by then) could fair overseas, also against Checkmate.

When promoting Checkmate to the foreign market, the application of the US law "On Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions" (CAATSA), which came into force in August 2017, cannot be excluded. CAATSA provides for a wide range of sanctions against both Russian subjects of military-technical cooperation and potential buyers of weapons from Russia. An example of the application of the US law in practice was the ban on the supply of F-35 fighter jets in response to Turkey's purchase of Russian S-400 air defense systems.
When talking about Checkmate's export chances, Indonesia's case with their decision of opting for Rafales instead of Flankers seems like a more obvious example.

Anyways the article seems fairly decent.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
+1
Checkmates main competitor will be FC-31, assuming the Chinese allow it to be exported.

I don’t think the Koreans will find any buyers who aren’t either in the F-35 camp or Checkmate/FC-31 camp already in terms of politics.
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
2,331
Reaction score
1,225
+1
Checkmates main competitor will be FC-31, assuming the Chinese allow it to be exported.

I don’t think the Koreans will find any buyers who aren’t either in the F-35 camp or Checkmate/FC-31 camp already in terms of politics.

Considering that the Chinese scored an own goal in that they never allowed the J-20 to be exported even in an internationalised variant, then I think that I could expect the same thing to happen to the FC-31 as well, so I hope that Sukhoi should take advantage of this situation as well and to export as many Su-75s as possible.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
851
The Su-75 is facing many issues and competitors.
The number of countries that would even consider buying a Russian fighter jet is ever dwindling in current diplomatic circumstances and those circumstances are unlikely to change for the better (in terms of facilitating a wider potential market) in anything other than the long term.
In terms of the very limited potential markets left the Su-75 will face effective competition/ cannibalisation of potential sales by Russian alternatives; an export version of the Su-57 (likely more attractive to close Russia few close allies with some money and clout to spend), by Flanker variants (which will likely be cheaper, quicker, more straight forward to purchase and put into service and carry less risk from a program perspective), and potentially from Russian-built UCAVs.
And that’s before considering potential Chinese alternatives which offer a wide selection of levels of capabilities and price point options (J-17s, J-10s, J-31s, Chinese built Flanker variants, potentially export versions of the J-20s, potentially UCAVs) to suit the specific party. Or other aircraft potential future exports of other non-Russian “fighter” aircraft.
Russia has a tiny “captive” export market for such aircraft versus that held by the USSR, and in those surviving cases why wouldn’t whoever is making the decision go for a more capable option (Su-57) or cheaper less risky and still capable option like a Flanker variant?
 
Top