Sukhoi T-75 LTS (CheckMate)

Roland55 said:
The Landing gear, looks very real to me, the doors, not so much, still interesting to see.
Click to expand...

Good detail. From the way the main landing gear open, it can be theorized that there may be some weapon bay above (at the wing root maybe) they don't want to interfere with...

And we see from the shape of the door, that the lower side of the wing is not flat but has a bump, probably for the folded struts. They seem to go backwards and act as booms for the tail. Maybe it is a flat fuselage (BWB) that will increase internal volume, help with the landing gear and even with quick bays for AAMs... in fact I am seeing what I think is a panel gap where quick bays would be placed above and forward from the landing gear doors

The camouflage is that of the Su-57
 
Last edited:
Rolead said:
There must be some weight associated with it, looking on the main tire contact to the ground, real or a mockup?
Click to expand...
But are they real pictures? You have detouring everywhere and the geometry is weird (it looks as if the main axis changes direction from rear to front).

The sign for weights on wheel on the right mlg looks fake.
 
Rolead said:
There must be some weight associated with it, looking on the main tire contact to the ground, real or a mockup?
Click to expand...

Or low tire pressure. Even a mock-up, at this size and with a functional (as in, can be used for towing it around) landing gear, will be fairly substantial in weight.

Regarding the intake:
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    4.8 MB · Views: 204
coanda said:
One of the pictures suggests that there is a grey image on the tail - maybe a rook?
Click to expand...
I think that is a pixelated camouflage like that of the Su-57...

Trident said:
Regarding the intake:
Click to expand...
Sharp eye ;)

TomcatViP said:
But are they real pictures?
Click to expand...
No, it's Russian mind control at its best o_O

BTW,the plane definitely seems to have a thick transitional section between the main fuselage and the wing proper. Struts seem to be installed there, I wonder how the transition to the LERX will be but it is indeed an interesting feature of the design.

The plane seems to rest very high on the landing gear, this would be consistent with the struts not being anchored directly at the wing level but a bit lower. It would also help with weapons bay door opening and ordnance loading, in case they are ventral. Also a longer nose strut would help with higher loads
 
Last edited:
I'm increasingly convinced that, both in conception and configuration, this thing parallels pre-JSF studies for a light-weight, low-cost fighter with decent stealth. Wing and fuselage configuration resembling the Boeing MRF-24X, tail and intake more like the Northrop MRF-54E (or Boeing's ATF entry, for that matter).
 
GARGEAN said:
So, WHAT do we know about russian procurement in last decade?
Click to expand...
Su-57
T-14 Armata
Lider

We see a repeated pattern of promised investment in high-end, high technology projects at defence minister or higher level that just isn't carried through. If you're the company waiting to recoup development costs through production orders that has to leave you feeling exposed.
 
torginus said:
I wonder how much time and money does it take to develop a completely new airframe, provided you have a set of mature systems - avionics, actuators, engines, sensors etc. - that have been proven to work together, like say, in the case of the Su-57.
Click to expand...

Eurofighter-lite was perhaps the best example of trying to do that, and the projected savings weren't great. IIRC CALF and ASTOVL were supposed to have some avionics overlap, but they ended up as one airframe with variants. You'll save some of your avionics budget, but not as much as you might expect as FCS etc will need customization plus flight-testing.
 
Technology capabilities for high end products require time. 98% of Nordstrom 2 is done along with some arctic projects. Maybe a little economic boost will give them more projects or production numbers. One of those 3 projects is not like the other mentioned;)
 
timmymagic said:
BLACK_MAMBA said:
Maybe they are seeing/identifying what they want to see? It will be interesting to see it finally unveiled without all covers... The gear etc looks a lot more operational than I would guess those on a wooden/glass fiber mock-up would be as others have mentioned... Exciting times in aviation!
Click to expand...

It's pretty common with mock-ups to use a set of gear from an existing aircraft. They can be real gear, but attached to a mockup.
Click to expand...

We need video clips of it moving to judge how much weight/inertia those legs are holding up, stills don't really cut it.
 
Another thing to point out is that this aircraft is facing remarkable hurdles already. I honestly doubt this is a working prototype, meaning that if it's just a mockup, it will take 10 years at the least to construct a prototype, certify it and get it into production. For instance, does Russia have the funds to produce two fighter aircraft? There are also a number of competitors as well: F-35, KF-21 and TFX, as well as its older brother the Su-57. Do the nations who were suggested in the teaser even want to order it? Or would they prefer MiG-29s? The more I think of it, the more I think it's a prestige project. This seems to be a private initiative, meaning the company is spending its own money on this program, so if no orders roll in, they're at great risk of losing money.The next possibility is that this is being developed for the Russian Navy as a carrier fighter. Far-fetched, but possible. We will have to wait and see.
 
Last edited:
BLACK_MAMBA said:
Back to the aircraft - I wonder why they are building all this hype and secrecy? As much as the gear looks real I'm starting to think if it was actually a flying prototype we would have seen spyshots of it by now under construction or flying...?
Click to expand...
Well, when was the first time we saw the SU-57 (or the Armata), according to partners that followed the whole thing it was seen flying a month before its presentation.

The Gear does look very realistic, but the fact that one of the wheels is deflated (or under pressure) kinda bugs me, Same thing with the gear doors, one would expect that those would close while the gear is down. Another thing that also bugs me is that in the pic with part of the tail exposed, it just looks like a solid thing, no rivets or anything.

My best guess are:
  • Mockup (most possible scenario)
or
  • Static prototype (like the recently shown FC-31)
There might be a real engine there, who knows !
 
Agreed.


In regards to the way the Russians are building up the hype, I'm not surprised. They've been doing it since the end of the Second World War. Look at the way they showed off their prototypes, like the MiG-23 and MiG-25 at Tushino in the late Sixties. Look at the way they kept the Flanker so secretive. Look at the way they released videos of the T-50 (now Su-57), but kept information about it quiet until it was formally designated as Su-57 (this is from what I can remember, I can't remember anything much about the T-50 before it became Su-57). To say the Russians are masters of hype would be a massive understatement. They put a lot of effort into it. And it pays off. It gives their aircraft a mystique that will never die off in the West.
 
Roland55 said:

The Gear does look very realistic, but the fact that one of the wheels is deflated (or under pressure) kinda bugs me, Same thing with the gear doors, one would expect that those would close while the gear is down. Another thing that also bugs me is that in the pic with part of the tail exposed, it just looks like a solid thing, no rivets or anything.

My best guess are:
  • Mockup (most possible scenario)
or
  • Static prototype (like the recently shown FC-31)
There might be a real engine there, who knows !
Click to expand...
On Mirages at least the doors close when the aircraft is "alive" and hydraulics charged but they are opened by the ground crew to access equipment inside hence on the ground their gear doors are almost always open when there is no hydraulic pressure. Thus open gear doors are neither here nor there for me in indicating mock-up or prototype.

The exposed tail with no visible seams as you pointed out however does point towards a mock-up to a large extent...
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
Roland55 said:

The Gear does look very realistic, but the fact that one of the wheels is deflated (or under pressure) kinda bugs me, Same thing with the gear doors, one would expect that those would close while the gear is down. Another thing that also bugs me is that in the pic with part of the tail exposed, it just looks like a solid thing, no rivets or anything.

My best guess are:
  • Mockup (most possible scenario)
or
  • Static prototype (like the recently shown FC-31)
There might be a real engine there, who knows !
Click to expand...
On Mirages at least the doors close when the aircraft is "alive" and hydraulics charged but they are opened by the ground crew to access equipment inside hence on the ground their gear doors are almost always open when there is no hydraulic pressure. Thus open gear doors are neither here nor there for me in indicating mock-up or prototype.

The exposed tail with no visible seams as you pointed out however does point towards a mock-up to a large extent...
Click to expand...
Could be a good explanation, but its the first thing that i saw that stands out, the color gives it away. As for the tail... unless they painted over and got some weird coating that hides rivets, looks too "one piece" to be real.

When you mentioned Mirage, this came to my mind, probably a great example as the inner doors close as soon as the gear completes deployment.
^the last MIIIC to fly btw
 
f75b20311fb2.jpg
I think it also could be this
 
helmutkohl said:
Zephyr is a pretty good Japan based aviation artist! he made great sketches of Tempest and FCAS as well
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_88

Beautiful artwork !

It looks like a X-32 and X-35 offspring, really. The intake for the former, the rear end from the latter.

Get a weird feeling looking at it. The cockpit and nose section looks like they are hanging precariously above that huge gapping intake. I hope they are strongly attached, otherwise they may be sucked into it... :p
 
Tass said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
TMA1 said:
f75b20311fb2.jpg
I think it also could be this
Click to expand...

This is pretty consistent with the shape.
More user art from Paralay forums:
Click to expand...
Maybe...the one I posted matches the model on Borisov's desk
Click to expand...
I think you are correct

whle Zephyr164 does nice art work..
he does take a lot of stylistic interpretations

for example his FCAS drawing. he took a bit of liberties in modifying the wings and especially engines
cfd84e38.gif
 
Wyvern said:
Look at the way they released videos of the T-50 (now Su-57), but kept information about it quiet until it was formally designated as Su-57 (this is from what I can remember, I can't remember anything much about the T-50 before it became Su-57).
Click to expand...
Possibly you weren't paying too much attention)) It occupied headlines for long before Su-57 designation became official. Sometimes being called Su-50 even.
 
The probility for that being a mockup just increased (see the inlet lip void of any structural reinforcement).
 
Sooo.. it would "seem" this baby has the same MLG, and Verticals(all moving), atleast the base seen is similar the Su-57. And most likely ending up with similar engine. So its a cross hybrid with shared parts?
 
L-9-A.jpg

I might be nitpicking too much, but could that be a mockup for an external fuel tank?
Again, the landing gear, looks extremely realistic (the light on the top left is also an interesting addition). The intake....well..seems like one piece, soo... yeah, mockup
 
I'm so glad they left the tarp unwrapped just enough to settle the intake position, they must have known thousands of nerds like us were going to fret all weekend until we found out!
 
Comments to this quick&dirty outline of the features below the tarpaulin? The intake is ventral as in Borisov's model, the F-35 like feature is a pointy LERX to me, as in MiG izd. 33.

What appears outboard of the intake is simply bodywork, thicker than the wing and thinner than the fuselage. If you look from the sides you notice that there is a certain thickness along the sides of the fuselage all the way to the tail. The position of the main landing gear doors and some pictures from behind evidence that the struts are anchored below the height of the wing. Of course, some thickness is needed to store the wheels and struts. I notice that strange position of the doors is not coincidence and may serve the purpose of clearing the opening of other bay doors above, like quick bays for instance, which would be restricted on ground if the landing gear doors open the conventional way.

Outline_002.png
 
TomcatViP said:
The probility for that being a mockup just increased (see the inlet lip void of any structural reinforcement).
Click to expand...
No structural panels/seams visible on X-32 intake either...
 

Attachments

  • Boeing_X-32A_JSF_LNose_Restoration_NMUSAF_25Sep09_(14600386535).jpg
    Boeing_X-32A_JSF_LNose_Restoration_NMUSAF_25Sep09_(14600386535).jpg
    155.2 KB · Views: 247
?!?
Don't you see that this inlet is an enclosed volume and not a folded sheet of metal?

The bracings are internal.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom