Sukhoi T-75 LTS (CheckMate)

[LMFS]

TBH, i tend believe to the historically consistent numbers, rather than this picture.

You are talking about a 8 km range reduction decision from 2012...

 

[Scar]

You are talking about a 8 km range reduction decision from 2012...

And...? Look my update in my previous post and the picture below. The figure of ~2200 km flight range is the common thing for all sources i saw since JSF requirements were released to the public for the first time. 2700+ km?! Excuse me my scepticism, but i don't buy it.

 

[LMFS]

And...? Look my update in my previous post and the picture below. The figure of ~2200 km flight range is the common thing for all sources i saw since JSF requirements were released to the public for the first time.

There are other official documents stating 670 nm for CTOL variant, it all depends on the load and flight profile. The figure of >750 nm on A2A is easy to find, there are many instances where this has been mentioned. The combat radius the services demand vary on the flight profile they are considering their reference, it is not like in Russia where a max range on internal fuel is take as the logical reference, a practice which I would agree more than the US one BTW.

2700+ km?! Excuse me my scepticism, but i don't buy it.

The plane carries more than 8 t fuel, probably even more than the LTS

 

[Scar]

There are other official documents stating 670 nm for CTOL variant, it all depends on the load and flight profile. The figure of >750 nm on A2A is easy to find, there are many instances where this has been mentioned. The combat radius the services demand vary on the flight profile they are considering their reference, it is not like in Russia where a max range on internal fuel is take as the logical reference, a practice which I would agree more than the US one BTW.

Ok, you're probably right and this 590nm figure was the lowerest requiremen/threshold. But even this 669nm figure gives 91nm shorter combat radius than those 760nm stated by IAF.

The plane carries more than 8 t fuel, probably even more than the LTS

As well as it carries a monstrous F135 engine... Again, you delivered to me really new and interesting info i wasn't aware about, and thank you for this, seriously...but i still don't know what to believe...

 

[Acatomic]

Maybe I can explain the confusion with range. When talking about combat radius majority of people usually understand this as a half of combat range when in fact is approximately one third of combat range.

590nm and 760 are are both technically correct, but 590 nautical miles is "real world" combat radius.

 

[trose213]

TASS just publishes what they hear from the government or industry officials.

They just publish what they're told by officials vs. what happens in the real world.

 

[eagle]

Maybe I can explain the confusion with range. When talking about combat radius majority of people usually understand this as a half of combat range when in fact is approximately one third of combat range.

590nm and 760 are are both technically correct, but 590 nautical miles is "real world" combat radius.

Combat range is 50% of combat radius.
Combat radius is approx. one third of ferry range, as a general and rough rule of thumb for fighters. Note ferry range is unknown. The range given is combat radius x2 so it is combat range.
590 nm is combat radius @ USAF A/G profile, 760 nm is combat radius @ optimised A/A profile.

 

[paralay]

F-35A flight range - 2752 km
air-to-air range: 2752 km * 0.35 = 963 km
air-to-ground range: (2752 km - (2752 km * 0.05)) : 2 = 1307 km, where 0.05 or 5% is the aeronautical fuel reserve

these are the maximum possible numbers without combat load and under optimal conditions

 

[yasotay]

Maybe I can explain the confusion with range. When talking about combat radius majority of people usually understand this as a half of combat range when in fact is approximately one third of combat range.

590nm and 760 are are both technically correct, but 590 nautical miles is "real world" combat radius.

Combat range is 50% of combat radius.
Combat radius is approx. one third of ferry range, as a general and rough rule of thumb for fighters. Note ferry range is unknown. The range given is combat radius x2 so it is combat range.
590 nm is combat radius @ USAF A/G profile, 760 nm is combat radius @ optimised A/A profile.

Actually it is that "radius" is 50% of "range" - at least in the US.

 

[VTOLicious]

F-35A flight range - 2752 km
air-to-air range: 2752 km * 0.35 = 963 km
air-to-ground range: (2752 km - (2752 km * 0.05)) : 2 = 1307 km, where 0.05 or 5% is the aeronautical fuel reserve

For comparison, the official numbers provided by the manufacturer:
https://www.f35.com/f35/about.html

 

[paralay]

For comparison, the official numbers provided by the manufacturer:

When they "freeze" the range data, then we'll see. 2200 km has been outdated for several years

 

[Dragon029]

Maybe I can explain the confusion with range. When talking about combat radius majority of people usually understand this as a half of combat range when in fact is approximately one third of combat range.

590nm and 760 are are both technically correct, but 590 nautical miles is "real world" combat radius.

Combat range is 50% of combat radius.
Combat radius is approx. one third of ferry range, as a general and rough rule of thumb for fighters. Note ferry range is unknown. The range given is combat radius x2 so it is combat range.
590 nm is combat radius @ USAF A/G profile, 760 nm is combat radius @ optimised A/A profile.

FYI 590 nautical miles was the program threshold requirement; the actual demonstrated performance as per the DoD Selected Acquisition Reports since ~2017 or so is 669 nautical miles for A2G for the F-35A variant (and then 760nmi is an air-to-air profile advertised by Lockheed to Israel [only a few years ago, so very likely based on demonstrated performance]).

 

[LMFS]

Nice summary Dragon029

Anyone thinking the F-35A with more than 8 t fuel does not make 2800 km range in optimal conditions needs to explain how a much bigger plane, with two less advanced engines like the Su-30MK makes 3000 km with 9.4 t internal capacity...

EDIT: does anyone know the min reserve fuel that the F-35 needs due to thermal management issues? Is it a value that actually impairs its range?

https://uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/military/su-30mk/#aircraft-specific

 

[eagle]

F-35A flight range - 2752 km
air-to-air range: 2752 km * 0.35 = 963 km
air-to-ground range: (2752 km - (2752 km * 0.05)) : 2 = 1307 km, where 0.05 or 5% is the aeronautical fuel reserve

For comparison, the official numbers provided by the manufacturer:
https://www.f35.com/f35/about.html

Thanks, it actually says range (internal fuel): 1200 nm (USAF profile). So that is combat range or simply radius x2, not max. ferry range.

 

[eagle]

Maybe I can explain the confusion with range. When talking about combat radius majority of people usually understand this as a half of combat range when in fact is approximately one third of combat range.

590nm and 760 are are both technically correct, but 590 nautical miles is "real world" combat radius.

Combat range is 50% of combat radius.
Combat radius is approx. one third of ferry range, as a general and rough rule of thumb for fighters. Note ferry range is unknown. The range given is combat radius x2 so it is combat range.
590 nm is combat radius @ USAF A/G profile, 760 nm is combat radius @ optimised A/A profile.

FYI 590 nautical miles was the program threshold requirement; the actual demonstrated performance as per the DoD Selected Acquisition Reports since ~2017 or so is 669 nautical miles for A2G for the F-35A variant (and then 760nmi is an air-to-air profile advertised by Lockheed to Israel [only a few years ago, so very likely based on demonstrated performance]).

I realise that. However, some requirements were loosened for the demonstrated radius iirc, so the 590 and 669 nm are not comparable 1:1.
Safe to say tough combat radius is at least 590 nm (USAF profile) and combat range is at least 1200 nm (USAF profile).

 

[Dragon029]

Maybe I can explain the confusion with range. When talking about combat radius majority of people usually understand this as a half of combat range when in fact is approximately one third of combat range.

590nm and 760 are are both technically correct, but 590 nautical miles is "real world" combat radius.

Combat range is 50% of combat radius.
Combat radius is approx. one third of ferry range, as a general and rough rule of thumb for fighters. Note ferry range is unknown. The range given is combat radius x2 so it is combat range.
590 nm is combat radius @ USAF A/G profile, 760 nm is combat radius @ optimised A/A profile.

FYI 590 nautical miles was the program threshold requirement; the actual demonstrated performance as per the DoD Selected Acquisition Reports since ~2017 or so is 669 nautical miles for A2G for the F-35A variant (and then 760nmi is an air-to-air profile advertised by Lockheed to Israel [only a few years ago, so very likely based on demonstrated performance]).

I realise that. However, some requirements were loosened for the demonstrated radius iirc, so the 590 and 669 nm are not comparable 1:1.
Safe to say tough combat radius is at least 590 nm (USAF profile) and combat range is at least 1200 nm (USAF profile).

How so? The 669nmi figure is directly compared to the 590nmi threshold / 690nmi objective requirement of the USAF:

 

[helmutkohl]

bringing the topic back to the Su-75 range (too much posting on the F-35 here).
if its as good as its claimed to be..
I am wondering if the 75 could potentially be the better base for a carrier aircraft than the 57, especially since there's been some news media claiming a carrier version is under consideration. In the Su-57 thread theres some concern about whether there is enough space for a tailhook due to the tandem bays (I think there is), but with the 75 there should definitely be enough space.

while it may not have the same potential range as the 57, it could be sufficient enough?

as a smaller aircraft, it could be a better fit for the current and perhaps future carrier space

 

[LMFS]

I think in a naval fighter the capabilities are even more important than in a land based ones, because the resource of numbers is much more restricted, therefore you should go for the best fighter available. There is a number of elements the Su-57 has that the LTS does not or in a much smaller amount (range, payload, speed) that are relevant if Russia wants to have the quality factor in its favour, given it is clear the size of the carrier air wings will be way smaller than China or US in the foreseeable future. Exchange ratios are highly sensitive (non linearly) to capability differences between platforms and weapons systems.

 

[Josh_TN]

I would think the smaller aircraft would make for a more potent airwing, albeit probably at shorter ranges. Easier deck handling and more airframes. But I think a navalized fighter is a relatively minor consideration for Russia.

 

[LMFS]

I would think the smaller aircraft would make for a more potent airwing, albeit probably at shorter ranges. Easier deck handling and more airframes. But I think a navalized fighter is a relatively minor consideration for Russia.

Let us put that in context:

> In A2G/A2S, the Su-57 can carry twice as many pieces of heavy ordnance at (quite likely) longer ranges and have substantially quicker turn-around times because of its supercruising ability
> In the A2A role, it has superior stored kills and far better kinematics and sensors, qualities which play a disproportionate role in skewing the exchange ratios in a confrontation
> With dimensions of ca. 17.5/12m vs 20/14 and particularly using the same wings, the Su-75 is not so much smaller in terms of footprint, compared to the Su-57. It would be very relevant to know the specific flight deck and hangar dimensions of the carrying vessel to know how many airframes of both could be actually carried, but two squadrons of Su-57, which could fit in a relatively small carrier, would already be a very serious force, because of the qualitative edge they would have on other naval fighters, provided the required supporting and battle management assets are also available for the VMF.

That being considered, I don't think the advantages provided by the Su-57 could be offset by say a 30% higher number of LTS embarked units even in quantitative metrics and qualitatively the Su-57 it would be substantially more capable.

Re. the relative low relevance of naval aviation for Russia, that is pretty much the case currently, but in the future that is expected to change progressively, as the VMF is built up and its blue water presence / power projection roles increase.

 

[Ainen]

I would think the smaller aircraft would make for a more potent airwing, albeit probably at shorter ranges. Easier deck handling and more airframes. But I think a navalized fighter is a relatively minor consideration for Russia.

Depends on how you set your design priorities.
S-56 by Sukhoi was a case that it's perfectly possible to produce a sound, long-range naval fighter design on a single AL-31F.

 

[Anduriel]

bringing the topic back to the Su-75 range (too much posting on the F-35 here).
if its as good as its claimed to be..
I am wondering if the 75 could potentially be the better base for a carrier aircraft than the 57, especially since there's been some news media claiming a carrier version is under consideration. In the Su-57 thread theres some concern about whether there is enough space for a tailhook due to the tandem bays (I think there is), but with the 75 there should definitely be enough space.

while it may not have the same potential range as the 57, it could be sufficient enough?

as a smaller aircraft, it could be a better fit for the current and perhaps future carrier space

Plane strengthening would increase mass and kill range, just like it did with Su-33 vs baseline Su-27. SU-27P has 3900, Su-33 3000km range.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[Acatomic]

I think it was pretty clear in the news that VKS is not interested in Sukhoi LTS and that the only version they might get is the unmanned version. Pretty sure that it's the same situation with the Navy.

I wonder how much of a range increase a unmanned version would have (bigger internal fuel tanks, reduced drag...)?

 

[TR1]

I think it was pretty clear in the news that VKS is not interested in Sukhoi LTS and that the only version they might get is the unmanned version. Pretty sure that it's the same situation with the Navy.

I wonder how much of a range increase a unmanned version would have (bigger internal fuel tanks, reduced drag...)?

Where did you see these news?

All I saw was Borisov and the VKS going "we might very well be interested" which I translated as "Sure, we can take it if the circumstances are right" -----> meaning they are not shouldering development costs, and will take it if the Gov/Rostec incentivizes it enough.

 

[Geo]

I think it was pretty clear in the news that VKS is not interested in Sukhoi LTS and that the only version they might get is the unmanned version. Pretty sure that it's the same situation with the Navy.

I wonder how much of a range increase a unmanned version would have (bigger internal fuel tanks, reduced drag...)?

Where did you see these news?

All I saw was Borisov and the VKS going "we might very well be interested" which I translated as "Sure, we can take it if the circumstances are right" -----> meaning they are not shouldering development costs, and will take it if the Gov/Rostec incentivizes it enough.

As for the tactical manned combat aircraft, judging by public statements, a higher priority for the Ministry of Defense has the development of the PAK DP interceptor and new STOVL fighter.

 

[GARGEAN]

nd new STOVL fighter.

Eeeeeeeeegh...

 

[Geo]

nd new STOVL fighter.

Eeeeeeeeegh...

Eeeegh uuuugh aaaaarghhh some work was already part of the ГПВ-2027.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420/amp

 

[kaiserbill]

Eeeegh uuuugh aaaaarghhh some work was already part of the ГПВ-2027.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420/amp

Is there an English version of that?
For some reason, my phone is refusing to translate that from Russian into English...

 

[Geo]

Eeeegh uuuugh aaaaarghhh some work was already part of the ГПВ-2027.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420/amp

Is there an English version of that?
For some reason, my phone is refusing to translate that from Russian into English...

Yes:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.com/defense/1018022/amp

 

[FighterJock]

Eeeegh uuuugh aaaaarghhh some work was already part of the ГПВ-2027.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420/amp

Is there an English version of that?
For some reason, my phone is refusing to translate that from Russian into English...

Yes:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.com/defense/1018022/amp

So now it is official, Russia to begin to design a new vertical take of fighter.

 

[Geo]

Eeeegh uuuugh aaaaarghhh some work was already part of the ГПВ-2027.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420/amp

Is there an English version of that?
For some reason, my phone is refusing to translate that from Russian into English...

Yes:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.com/defense/1018022/amp

So now it is official, Russia to begin to design a new vertical take of fighter.

These articles are three years old. According to Borisov, conceptual work on the aircraft has been running since 2017. We will hardly see a prototype of the aircraft until 2025, but in the second half of the decade it probably will. This period coincides with the expected testing time of the 23900 project. Everything is, of course, questionable, however, the interest in the new aircraft is from both Putin and Borisov, who has meanwhile become Deputy Prime Minister.

 

[kaiserbill]

Thanks Geo.
I remember that article. I had assumed there was updated info.

 

[GARGEAN]

nd new STOVL fighter.

Eeeeeeeeegh...

Eeeegh uuuugh aaaaarghhh some work was already part of the ГПВ-2027.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420/amp

Sure-sure. And YET it saw much less real work aside from vague conceptualization outside of any proper R&D, unlike, and has MUCH less place in current or furure structure of russian armed forces, unlike.

 

[Geo]

nd new STOVL fighter.

Eeeeeeeeegh...

Eeeegh uuuugh aaaaarghhh some work was already part of the ГПВ-2027.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420/amp

Sure-sure. And YET it saw much less real work aside from vague conceptualization outside of any proper R&D, unlike, and has MUCH less place in current or furure structure of russian armed forces, unlike.

Eeeeeghh
In the name of the truth, top Russian officials should apologize to couch experts for spreading fake news.

 

[Evgeniy]

So now it is official, Russia to begin to design a new vertical take of fighter.

No. This link contains the word "samolet" (aircraft), but not the word "istrebitel" (fighter).
It is trite, but it may still be the same "spoiled phone" from the Russian media, so typical for them.
Moreover, there were reports that there are plans for a tiltrotor.
For me, this is generally a question of an unmanned tiltrotor from the "Kronstadt" group (well, or whatever it is called there now).

 

[flateric]

Borisov apparently didn't mean Kronstadt Frigate in his interviews.
Can you stop offtopic in LTS thread?

 

[torginus]

Does a VTOL fighter make any sense in general? My impression is. that the F35B is used in a STOVL configuration, if it is to have any meaningful combat load. With the focus on STOL performance (which as I've read the on the Su-57 is quite good, and will probably get better with the new engines), I think it will be able to take off of runways that are similar in length to the F35-B ones.

 

[kaiserd]

Does a VTOL fighter make any sense in general? My impression is. that the F35B is used in a STOVL configuration, if it is to have any meaningful combat load. With the focus on STOL performance (which as I've read the on the Su-57 is quite good, and will probably get better with the new engines), I think it will be able to take off of runways that are similar in length to the F35-B ones.

With respect the Su-57 clearly won’t be able to take off from runway lengths as short as the F-35B can, and definitely won’t be landing at any of comparable length.

More generally why would the Russians need a STOVL fighter aircraft apart from in very low (potentially/ probably unviable small) numbers for shipborne use?

 

[Josh_TN]

Also there is all of one ship to take off from which is waiting for completion of a graving dock big enough to remount its screws. And it already uses arresting gear. There maybe a long term plan for a STOBAR aircraft but I don't see any purpose or market for a Russian STOVL.