To date, IIR missile warning systems have been in the MWIR band, which should provide adequate resolution and contrast at ambient temperatures for FLIR purposes while still maintaining good detection capabilities. A dedicated IRST may use the LWIR band.

That said, this discussion is veering off topic.
 
Last edited:
IIR correctly, from Paralay's forum thread on the Su-57, it was hypothesized with reliable info from zakupki.gov.ru and other manufacturer information found from the contract numbers that the sensors are wideband imaging in both SWIR and UV, and with the Su-35 having LWR, I find it probable that the two smaller lenses are for indeed for LWR.

The massive disparity in aperture size frankly makes a dual UV/SWIR band KS-U unlikely. I’m inclined to agree with @Trident that those two smaller apertures are instead LWR. Given that UOMZ is supplying the entire 101KS EO system, a SWIR array may be used by another component, such as the KS-O. I made a typo earlier; if the KS-U has an IIR function, then the KS-P landing camera would be unnecessary.

@Trident, the PIRATE is a dual band MWIR/LWIR system for IRST/FLIR function, although I’m not sure if it’s a primary or secondary source stating this. A similar arrangement was planned for the F-22’s AIRST before it got cut, although there’s still an empty bay under the nose reserved for that. As a side note, I believe the Lockheed Martin’s IRST21 has AAS-42 lineage, being also a LWIR system.

IRST/FLIR from Pirate works in LWR band. I dont know if Pirate get some update, but on beggining only worked on LWR band.

Captura-de-pantalla-2021-09-22-162654.jpg
 
The evolution of the surface of the Su-57 is quite noticeable. Nothing prevents it from continuing and spreading to the entire plane.
The same goes for "75".
People get annoyed when airshow F-22s are accused of having poor maintenance of the coatings, but they don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a rough prototype where RCS does not matter at all either and a serial unit...
 
Where, if I may ask? I have seen the nozzles you showed in the Zvezda documentary about the Su-57, but I have not seen any confirmation about that design being the future. If made rotating, it would allow to realize a true 3D nozzle with the basic layout and advantages of a 2D, which is indeed interesting.
During the presentation, the General Director of the UAC, Yu. B. Slyusar, said:
- this nozzle (engine izd.30) is of a transitional nature

Since all types of axisymmetric nozzles were created by the Russian industry and tested in practice, I assume that we are talking about a rectangular nozzle
 
Where, if I may ask? I have seen the nozzles you showed in the Zvezda documentary about the Su-57, but I have not seen any confirmation about that design being the future. If made rotating, it would allow to realize a true 3D nozzle with the basic layout and advantages of a 2D, which is indeed interesting.
During the presentation, the General Director of the UAC, Yu. B. Slyusar, said:
- this nozzle (engine izd.30) is of a transitional nature

Since all types of axisymmetric nozzles were created by the Russian industry and tested in practice, I assume that we are talking about a rectangular nozzle
To increase the specific thrust as is claimed for the izd.30, the nozzle pressure ratio has to go up. Since the nozzle is structurally a pressure vessel with moving parts, design surprises can happen even with a previously proven design
 
In the future, it will be equipped with a flat nozzle with even better data. This is officially stated.
?..
You mean further refined using the data from in-flight testing?
Further development of the engine ed.30 will be with a flat nozzle. At least for the LTS, it is possible for the Su-57 and the PAK DP
What are the advantages of flat nozzles? Are they worth it?
I read an article on the F-22 where they said the flat nozzle was great for radar and IR signature reduction.
On the flip side, it's heavy, produces has less thrust than a circular one, and probably less efficient at some exhaust velocities due to the lack of adjustable diameter.
I'm not convinced that it's appropriate for a modern fighter, unless you are going for absolute, all-aspect stealth, which is not the Russian way as I understand.
Are there some other advantages to it?
Structurally a rectangular nozzle is not as efficient as a round nozzle, since all of the flat surfaces try to bend in the middle under the air pressure loads.

There are challenges in keeping a high coefficient of discharge with a rectangular nozzle, careful design is necessary to keep air leakage under control and to provide sufficient cooling for AB operation. See structure challenges.

However, in addition to the signature benefits, a vectoring rectangular nozzle has full control of both the convergent throat and the divergent flaps, providing both thrust vectoring and optimal divergent expansion area for maximum thrust throughout the flight envelope, better that most round nozzles.
 
Last edited:
Our article on the Sukhoi T.75 Checkmate is now up on the FaceBook Aerospace Analysis & insight (A2&i) page.

https://lnkd.in/ecffX8Nf

Please do check out our 'prototype' YouTube video.

https://lnkd.in/eKDWPg-3

And finally, please subscribe to our YouTube channel!

Thoughts:
- The development of a single engined Mig-21 replacement started in the early 1980s...
- This may well be the result of the LMFS program...
- The appearance of a new airframe without warning used to be quite common (i.e. the old Ramenskoye codes were a thing)... and certainly secrecy about systems has increased massively in the past five years.
- It isn't unheard of to cobble together funding from various government departments and countries (e.g. it has even been debated whether Canada intended to buy the JSF when we first joined the program, or if it was primarily done to open the way for Canadian subcontractors to participate).

As for re-using the airframe components... without a CFD analysis or structural analysis to show that the losses are high from using these components I'm withholding judgment.
 
During the presentation, the General Director of the UAC, Yu. B. Slyusar, said:
- this nozzle (engine izd.30) is of a transitional nature

Since all types of axisymmetric nozzles were created by the Russian industry and tested in practice, I assume that we are talking about a rectangular nozzle
If I remember well, he said that in the context of being questioned about the engine that LTS would employ, he referred to the engine not being izd 30 but the nozzle being already transitional. At least that is the way I understood that, using the translator I admit I can be dead wrong.... but it made sense to me.
 

The massive disparity in aperture size frankly makes a dual UV/SWIR band KS-U unlikely. I’m inclined to agree with @Trident that those two smaller apertures are instead LWR. Given that UOMZ is supplying the entire 101KS EO system, a SWIR array may be used by another component, such as the KS-O. I made a typo earlier; if the KS-U has an IIR function, then the KS-P landing camera would be unnecessary.

I literally just said that the two smaller apertures were LWR... the dual UV/SWIR band is indeed the larger aperture, with the imaging array operating in both spectrums, as SWIR, NIR. and UV are right next to each other in terms of spectrum.

It would make a lot more sense than for the system to be just UV, plus, these were specs and feature sheets that I believe were revealed like what, a decade ago with the first flight? Things can certainly change in that timeframe, it was recorded that the emitters for the defense station had indeed changed design several times.

Anyways, these are the types of products that I was talking about, imaging in 400 to around 1400nm, there are of course, nuances to this.




NII Electron is part of Ruselectronics, which is part of Rostec, UOMZ, which is the supplier for the electro-optical systems for the Su-57(though this could have changed in the background), is part of Schwabe Holding, which is also part of Rostec.

And on paralay, it was found through gov contract documentation for Electron to perform works related to PAK-FA, you can kinda start putting 2 and 2 together and it's rather unlikely looking that KS-U is just a UV imaging sensor for missile warning.
 
None of the photodetectors by themselves cover both the UV and SWIR bands; one is covering from 0.4-1.0 micron, and another covering from 0.95-1.65 micron. I've also not heard of a missile warning system in the NIR band. Perhaps you can design a lensing or mirror arrangement that allows a single aperture to use both chips, but now we're assuming that certain items must be found on a platform because the vendor is a contractor for that program. NG's and LM's electro-optical portfolio has both UV and IR products, but that doesn't mean individual systems like the AAR-47 would have combination of bands under their portfolios. A dual-band KS-U may be possible, but the arguments involve synthesizing contracts to try to determine the bands of specific sensors, frankly quite speculative.
 
Last edited:
Positioning with respect to the wing seems poor for that purpose (should be in the same plane or above).
 

Interview with the Director for International Cooperation and Regional Policy of Rostec State Corporation, Viktor Kladov.

One of the primary goals of the LTS is low operating costs, with the goal of matching the Gripen NG; it is claimed to be several times lower than the F-35, which Kladov states will be a primary reason for attracting foreign buyers. I guess we’ll see how it plays out.
 
One of the primary goals of the LTS is low operating costs, with the goal of matching the Gripen NG; it is claimed to be several times lower than the F-35, which Kladov states will be a primary reason for attracting foreign buyers. I guess we’ll see how it plays out.

With Lockheed on contract for per flight hour at $30k by 2023 and aiming for $25k by 2025 they must be out of their minds. Janes estimated that Gripen C was c3/5's of F-16 back in 2012. Gripen E won't be cheaper, it will in fact be more expensive. F-16's are c$20k per flight hour at present. If a Gripen E is less than $15k per flight hour I'd eat my hat...too many ludicrous claims from Saab are taken at face value I'm afraid...
 
One of the primary goals of the LTS is low operating costs, with the goal of matching the Gripen NG; it is claimed to be several times lower than the F-35, which Kladov states will be a primary reason for attracting foreign buyers. I guess we’ll see how it plays out.

With Lockheed on contract for per flight hour at $30k by 2023 and aiming for $25k by 2025 they must be out of their minds. Janes estimated that Gripen C was c3/5's of F-16 back in 2012. Gripen E won't be cheaper, it will in fact be more expensive. F-16's are c$20k per flight hour at present. If a Gripen E is less than $15k per flight hour I'd eat my hat...too many ludicrous claims from Saab are taken at face value I'm afraid...
Quoting costs from US method of CPFH modelling doesn't do justice to aircraft in operation with other airforces.
US includes 'all' costs when calculating its fleetwise CPFH like basing, personnel etc rather than just O&M related to the aircraft itself.
This severely inflates CPFH for US since basing is almost always at more austere, far away places as compared to other countries. Stack on top the higher personnel costs, and the fact that some fleets require completely different kinds of maintenance architecture. Also, not to forget is the fleetsize that utilizes these special maintenance items might be small, further inflating the cost it imposes on every tail.
 
Well.. there is unfortunately no single standard method being agreed upon in calculating "operating cost" so everyone will have their own method and consequently their own numbers. arguing one number against another is kinda fruitless and unproductive.
 
Well.. there is unfortunately no single standard method being agreed upon in calculating "operating cost" so everyone will have their own method and consequently their own numbers. arguing one number against another is kinda fruitless and unproductive.
Exactly, so comparing CPFH of a fleet in USAF to any other countries fleet cost is highly dubious.
 
Well.. there is unfortunately no single standard method being agreed upon in calculating "operating cost" so everyone will have their own method and consequently their own numbers. arguing one number against another is kinda fruitless and unproductive.
Exactly, so comparing CPFH of a fleet in USAF to any other countries fleet cost is highly dubious.
Especially since everyone's looking for a buyer. It's like the mpg figures used to advertise cars.
 
New radar to besides engines please.


UAC plans to show the new Checkmate fighter at foreign air shows

The Checkmate light single-engine fighter of the fifth generation is planned to be demonstrated to potential customers at exhibitions abroad, said the head of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) Yuri Slyusar.
"Judging by the visits of delegations to the pavilion (at MAX), the interest is very great. And, of course, we will now carry this plane to exhibitions if they return to the usual offline mode," Slyusar said in an interview with Vedomosti newspaper.
He confirmed plans to carry out the first flight of the new fighter in 2023.
"This aircraft as a platform implies both a two-seat, optionally manned, and unmanned versions. We hope that this approach and modification options will interest our key customer," said the head of the UAC, answering the question whether the Russian Defense Ministry will order Checkmate.
According to him, over time, the new Sukhoi aircraft may be equipped with a "second stage" engine for the Su-57. This "product 30" engine will allow the fighter to develop supersonic speed without afterburner.
 
"In the minimum configuration, the radar with AESA allows you to attack up to 6 targets and escort 30 air and 2 land / sea targets" (from the article) The Zhuk-AE radar has such characteristics
Presumably, H036 accompanies 60 targets and simultaneously fires at 12 - 16 targets
 

Attachments

  • Part8_13-L.jpg
    Part8_13-L.jpg
    166 KB · Views: 120
Last edited:
No way NIIP will allow NIIR to this tasty and huge pie. I can bet it will be N036 derivative, especially if to speak about the cheapest and the most numerous version of Checkmate.
 
What new radar do you mean and what for? To make it more expensive while it's supposed to be as cheap as possible? Derivative of N036 will be more than enough.
LTCC modules seem cheap and efficiently better, The Su-57 besides new engines is getting new avionics. I didnt think the Su-57 would get a internal hypersonic missile or that the LTS would possibly use 2nd stage engines but here we are. I rather prefer new radars and rather if that happens or not one can only dream.:(
 
What new radar do you mean and what for? To make it more expensive while it's supposed to be as cheap as possible? Derivative of N036 will be more than enough.
LTCC modules seem cheap and efficiently better, The Su-57 besides new engines is getting new avionics. I didnt think the Su-57 would get a internal hypersonic missile or that the LTS would possibly use 2nd stage engines but here we are. I rather prefer new radars and rather if that happens or not one can only dream.:(

Anyone know what the problem is with the current Su-57 avionics? And why it is getting new avionics, are the current systems not good enough. :confused:
 
What new radar do you mean and what for? To make it more expensive while it's supposed to be as cheap as possible? Derivative of N036 will be more than enough.
LTCC modules seem cheap and efficiently better, The Su-57 besides new engines is getting new avionics. I didnt think the Su-57 would get a internal hypersonic missile or that the LTS would possibly use 2nd stage engines but here we are. I rather prefer new radars and rather if that happens or not one can only dream.:(
LTCC modules seem nonexistent, ATM. The main goal of LTS is to be affordable in development, production and service. So no risky solutions, waste of time and extra-costs.
 
What new radar do you mean and what for? To make it more expensive while it's supposed to be as cheap as possible? Derivative of N036 will be more than enough.
LTCC modules seem cheap and efficiently better, The Su-57 besides new engines is getting new avionics. I didnt think the Su-57 would get a internal hypersonic missile or that the LTS would possibly use 2nd stage engines but here we are. I rather prefer new radars and rather if that happens or not one can only dream.:(

Anyone know what the problem is with the current Su-57 avionics? And why it is getting new avionics, are the current systems not good enough. :confused:
KRET and RTI stated they are 10 years behind the west in MMIC technology and that radar goes all the way back to 2009. Upgrade is needed for the mid 2020s which I am hoping more information is disclosed on the LTS as it is for the Su-70. Never a boring day with sukhoi.
 
OOOKkkaayyy...... after reading through 37 pages of insanity :D i am impressed! i love it! incredible design. however the issue with me is the "gun option for ground targets" not sure what to put there TBH. but anyway if the F-35 and F22 were combined and developed by Sukhoi.... this is what you would get. and im impressed. not going to lie i do agree with (forgot the name) saying "this is the sexiest aircraft ever developed by Sukhoi". and props to the guy who snapped us the photos of the aircraft arriving to the building covered up. he was prob laying down in the grass behind a chain-link-barbed-wire fence. and the man who leaked the photos in the building..... give the man a bloody medal! and good luck in the gulag ;) but anyway this aircraft should be exclusively for certain countries that are not in a global conflict that could threaten the safety of world powers. i am in fact surprised and kind of not that the RuAF didnt purchase them. they prefer the Su-57 type aircraft. dual engined and long range stealth for the emense airspace of their country. but anyway i give Sukhoi a gold star for effort and ingenuity on this fifth generation aircraft.
 
Just WOW!
 
That's exceptional!
We can now compare the two aircraft properly.
Just some brief initial observations..
The radomes are different sizes.
Not sure the cockpit transparencies are exactly the same, although the black paint around the Checkmate in that area might be playing tricks with me.
Checkmate is bigger than I thought, sitting right next to the Su-57.
The Su-57 is such a sleek design.
 
Is there some way to capture images of the 360 views of those two alongside each other?
It's a great comparison.
 
Low quality mages from the really hi-definition 360, via the web.
I'm sure these can be replaced with better images, seeing as the link posted by Geo above is of high quality.
 

Attachments

  • fd6nqn10.jpg
    fd6nqn10.jpg
    7.6 KB · Views: 101
  • fd6sg-10.png
    fd6sg-10.png
    226.6 KB · Views: 95
  • fd6noj10.jpg
    fd6noj10.jpg
    7.5 KB · Views: 94

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom