The leading edge flap is clear to see, it is identical to that of the Su-57
Sorry should have been more specific, I was talking about this flap cover:

Flap cover.jpg

But thanks anyway you answered my question with that photo.
 
Slyusar named the year of the first flight - 2023.
2023 is the official timeline for the first flight, but unofficially they may have been gunning for 2022(December).

This may be a case of them trying to underpromise and overdeliver.


Actually this whole LTS project reminds me of an idea US had in 2019, to get a aircraft from scratch to production in five years or less:

 
Last edited:
When is the last time a successful fighter was produced for the export market without the home country being the launch user? The F-5 (notwithstanding overlap with the airforce trainers)?

It's a heck of a jump to make a high-cost purchase of an asset that is supposed to be around for 30 years and would then rely upon future MLU updates based upon Su57 synergy. Maybe makes sense if you are looking to buy a significant amount of planes with local production/tech transfers but I can't think of who that would be in 2020s. 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. If your looking for a dozen or so seems a better deal these days to go with drones and loitering munitions instead of a fighter these days.

That doesn't leave much of a market and that matters more than if or if not SU can build a new plane. Not to be too Mr. Magic Thinking but it would have been interesting if this had been the Russians plan a few decades ago and not the SU57. On paper, it's easier to make an argument that they need numbers more than top-of-the-line capability.
 
The added issue is the US policy of applying sanctions to the countries that want to buy russian aircraft. That is bound to thin out the already short list of countries that might otherwise go for LTS. Between that and Chinese planes, the market share LTS might enjoy in the end might not be very large at all.
 
When is the last time a successful fighter was produced for the export market without the home country being the launch user? The F-5 (notwithstanding overlap with the airforce trainers)?

It's a heck of a jump to make a high-cost purchase of an asset that is supposed to be around for 30 years and would then rely upon future MLU updates based upon Su57 synergy. Maybe makes sense if you are looking to buy a significant amount of planes with local production/tech transfers but I can't think of who that would be in 2020s. 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. If your looking for a dozen or so seems a better deal these days to go with drones and loitering munitions instead of a fighter these days.

That doesn't leave much of a market and that matters more than if or if not SU can build a new plane. Not to be too Mr. Magic Thinking but it would have been interesting if this had been the Russians plan a few decades ago and not the SU57. On paper, it's easier to make an argument that they need numbers more than top-of-the-line capability.
First, the plan is clearly to produce it for the VKS, it is as a complement of the Su-57 and S-70 (as per Strelet's words), and with an izd. 30 engine, that the concept makes full sense. The export thing is the excuse that enables them to take the initiative to start the development and propose such a concept. Or at least, the reason why it has been published and we are aware of the program at all, but we know very little about their undisclosed discussions with the government.

Second, the VKS did need first and foremost a high end fighter to ensure the viability of their fleet vs. NATO threats, the numbers plane can be developed afterwards at a much lower cost once the technologies have been matured in the PAK-FA program. The advice of focusing on cheap planes to antagonize the Chinese in poor countries instead of fighting for the top of the air power capability with the F-22 usually comes from the West, unsurprisingly
 
LTS is not a plane that the Russia envisaged when they began their large scale rearmament program more than 15 year ago as for the niche it would occupy in their own arsenal there would have been the Mig-35 instead,
Now however everything is in discussion as the S-70 and the Checkmate are the product of technical innovations in both aircraft design and production that just didn't existed when such rearmament program was launched.
Actually Mig-29 are not anymore part of the first line of VKS but are instead used mainly as a sort of reserve/training force and the upgraded MiG-35 on the other hand are not just late but proved not such an increase of capability over their predecessor to justify a large scale production.
Still, they need a plane that they can offer to other allied nations for what the Su-30/35 and consequently the Su-57 are just too big to be acquired in great numbers.
S-70 could take the place of Su-25 when it will be ready or become a.t.c. the loyal wingman they need for a loyal wingman line, not just coupled with Su-57 and Su-30SM2 but with the whole of their AD network.
Even better they are at the moment also developing an unmanned version of the same Checkmate, the combination of these two perspective UCAVs could, if possible, be even more devastating with one characterized by an huge internal payload for A2G roles and another one way more limited in this role but supersonic capable and with an avionics perfect for A2A.
So, they have actually a lot of cards at their own hands.
 
LTS is not a plane that the Russia envisaged when they began their large scale rearmament program more than 15 year ago as for the niche it would occupy in their own arsenal there would have been the Mig-35 instead,
Now however everything is in discussion as the S-70 and the Checkmate are the product of technical innovations in both aircraft design and production that just didn't existed when such rearmament program was launched.
Actually Mig-29 are not anymore part of the first line of VKS but are instead used mainly as a sort of reserve/training force and the upgraded MiG-35 on the other hand are not just late but proved not such an increase of capability over their predecessor to justify a large scale production.
Still, they need a plane that they can offer to other allied nations for what the Su-30/35 and consequently the Su-57 are just too big to be acquired in great numbers.
S-70 could take the place of Su-25 when it will be ready or become a.t.c. the loyal wingman they need for a loyal wingman line, not just coupled with Su-57 and Su-30SM2 but with the whole of their AD network.
Even better they are at the moment also developing an unmanned version of the same Checkmate, the combination of these two perspective UCAVs could, if possible, be even more devastating with one characterized by an huge internal payload for A2G roles and another one way more limited in this role but supersonic capable and with an avionics perfect for A2A.
So, they have actually a lot of cards at their own hands.

I cant remember where I read it, but I recalled some article saying that the overall costs of acquiring and operating the MiG-35 was not that much lower than the Su-35. For air forces with the money, if thats the case, don't see why they should opt for the mig over the sukhoi.
Although the LTS could have a potential market in say, Algeria, Egypt or Vietnam which have bought more expensive Russian jets.. that is if they don't acquire the Su-57.
in Vietnam's case, I don't see them buying a Chinese equivelant. Maybe Korea or India at best.
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom