Sukhoi T-75 LTS (CheckMate)

[LMFS]

16t of thrust isn't exactly little.
Want more - you're most welcome to finish AL51F.

That is exactly the issue. The hard, expensive, lengthy work went on developing the base technologies that allow the 905 mm inlet engine to produce 11/16tf. Losing 1tf due to reduced airflow is wasting the resources invested in that development and defeats its purpose, pure and simple.

Personally, I believe that the 177/177S with openly published parameters are a broader part of the "Indian campaign". Within one package for upgrading MKI and installing it in export Su-57s, almost identical engines are to be produced, which will allow - in addition to unification - a favorable offer/life cycle price.

Makes a lot of sense

If the 177/177S is the result of the Udlinitel' project, then in the version with a diameter of 932 mm it will offer significantly higher thrust (in the version for the T-50 around 166 - 167 kN) and will quite possibly be the basis of a unified engine for the "VKS Trio" .

Yes, 11.7/17tf, only due to the inlet increase.

So in the future we could expect a thrust of around 170 kN for the T-75 when using a "generational mixed" solution and of course even more for the use of the new generation (30).

It is not clear to me what is the actual technological/margin difference between izd. 30 and 177, so I abstain from making predictions in that regard.

170 kN would mean similar characteristics to the F-35 for an aircraft with an empty weight of just under 12 tons (say 11,750 kg).

Those are sensible design goals and look plausible, specially considering the reduced overload limits of the export aircraft. We do not know actual values or what changes a domestic version would receive.

 

[Ainen]

Those are sensible design goals and look plausible, specially considering the reduced overload limits of the export aircraft. We do not know actual values or what changes a domestic version would receive.

They can't afford 1 trial run (1 flying article is 1990s level misery), and you want two separate ones...

Losing 1tf due to reduced airflow is wasting the resources invested in that development and defeats its purpose, pure and simple.

Not sure just that is enough to justify an incompatible engine.
I.e. Russia did that in the past, and managed to neatly combine downsides of multi-type logistics with the lack of flexibility of a single type fleet.
Izd.177/T-75 allows to achieve the opposite, and definitely should be tried.

 

[LMFS]

Izd.177/T-75 allows to achieve the opposite, and definitely should be tried.

T10 platform will be progressively substituted by Su-57/75, not run in parallel forever. I don't see the problem in having two slightly different versions of the same engine for a while.

 

[Ainen]

T10 platform will be progressively substituted by Su-57/75, not run in parallel forever. I don't see the problem in having two slightly different versions of the same engine for a while.

Current experience of sustaining high operations tempo over last 4 years may make this statement highly controversial.
There are 3 main hard limitations that stop VKS from bombing/flying more. Maintenance, engine availability and weapon deliveries.
Presence of multiple incompatible variants of AL-31 family (or, say, VK-2500s) hurts 2 of these points.

Unless there's a distinctive generational advantage for the airframe, justifying it at expense of the entire order of battle (power generation/cooling beyond what 177 can provide)- no thanks?

 

[Ivan Culjak]

Nothing, because it'll never fly.

Ah, what does it mean...it will never fly, so if it flies, are you ready to buy a beer, what you can bet...it is a joke ...But why it wouldn't fly, all essentially technology is there , a lot of derisking work is done with su-57...now, the path is practically cleared.. It would be shame not to build one engine version..It even looks a better pair than f22 and f35... These two airplanes are completely different programs, with no connection at all. Su75 should cost just a fraction of F35 program. Regarding its future role in Russian aviation, it can replace complete Su27 fighter based derivatives like Su35, and other . Su57 will stay behind, Su75 will be closer to the front...Su 27 line shoud end, it was a glorious path, but it ends here.
What are you actually wary of and on what basis...is the any, or just a standard sofa general opinion?
My only technical question mark is the engine. They need a strong efficient engine, something much stronger than Al 41... But with all insufficient funding, and being held in isolation, Russia is still one of few countries which can build trully capable jet engines at large number... It's not sure that China can do that even now...in Europe, there is only France, so it shoud be ok...
My second question mark is much bigger, it's doctrinal ...If I were a military planner I would think twice about a future fighter..Actually, is it needed at all? Why not invest in drones even more..After Ukraine and Iran conflict , the standard military doctrine is very , very questionable. Remember Britain white paper on defence from 1957...It looked wrong at that time, maybe not this time...