Sukhoi T-75 LTS (CheckMate)

FighterJock said:
I do not see PAK-DA or PAK-FA getting cancled any time soon Desertfox, Russia needs them both especially the PAK-DA.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they do, but something has got to give. You can't spend money on everything and keep funding a major war on the side.

We've seen what the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars did to the US military, and the US has a far larger GDP.
 
Desertfox said:
GDP
Click to expand...
Russian MIC doesn't work for us dollars(and cost of import in it is negligible); this is a meaningless metric.

Also, unlike South Korea, Russia doesn't need to create MIC now (it exists in all relevant parts right since dawn of military aviation), and unlike Mexico, Russian MIC exists in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Desertfox said:
GDP
Click to expand...
GDP is a great indicator, but it covers such many things like corporate consulting and Taylor Swift's shows. For a military performance it's better to use alternative benchmarks. Something more industrial oriented.

Middle Eastern and African countries show interest in the Russian light tactical fighter Checkmate - said 'Rosoboronexport CEO Alexander Mikheyev on the sidelines of the Egypt International Airshow, which is taking place at El Alamein Airport in northern Egypt. He also noted that unmanned and two-seater versions are being discussed.
Click to expand...
via https://ria.ru/20240905/istrebitel-1970666126.html
 
Last edited:
Yup, if you're going to make a GDP-based comparison, at least use PPP, to avoid the most glaring problems (some of which Ainen mentions).

That puts the Russian economy at almost twice the size of SK's, for a start. Which is not to say the war isn't still a monumental own goal even in the economic respect, of course.
 
stealthflanker said:
I agree. Especially with apparent T-50 technologies being employed. All it needs now is perhaps political support to get it running. Especially if desire to have "medium" fighter exist. After it flies and demonstrated, then things can be hoped to flourish.
Click to expand...
That's the main issue. Russian AF brass from Soviet times dislikes single-engined aircraft, and I'm not sure if calculus using experience in current war (heavy Su-34 carrying 2-4 bombs to toss them 30+km away, when even old aircraft such as MiG-27/Su-22 can do the same if WCS is upgraded) is enough to overcome inertia.
 
You're talking about the Su-7, Su-9, Su-17, MiG-21, MiG-23 and it's all with one engine. And where did you see the Su-22 (Su-17) in service with Russia now? What nonsense are you writing.
 
Parachute system patent for T-75 in detail:

The parachute braking landing installation of a single-engine aircraft comprises a brake parachute container and the brake parachute itself. The brake parachute container is made movable by means of a reciprocating electromechanism of the container release and retraction mechanism from the raised position to the retracted position and back. In the retracted position, the brake parachute container is recessed into a niche of the upper tail section of the aircraft above the aircraft engine, and in the raised position it is rotated above the surface of the aircraft around the container rotation axis. The claimed installation is equipped with a brake parachute container flap mounted on the rear part of the brake parachute container with the possibility of opening it by means of the brake parachute container flap opening mechanism through the limit switch mechanism and fixed by an electromechanical lock of the flap opening mechanism. The installation is equipped with a brake parachute lock connected to the brake parachute tether. IMG_1609.png IMG_1610.png
Click to expand...
https://new.fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&DocNumber=2801717&TypeFile=html
Looks more elegant of a solution then on some F-35’s. Admittedly on F-35 it was an afterthought:
IMG_3921.jpeg
 
Last edited:
It is too soon to tell, I don’t see where the parachute would go other than having to add a pod like the f-35. One thing I was wondering I have seen that the f-35 has high AOA capabilities, I wonder how the su-75 compares to it.
 
According to the data published by Butowski based on the official presentation at the Dubai Airshow 2021, the expected MTOW is 26 t, while the engine thrust is 14,500 kgf and the climb rate only 170-200 m/s.
If the F-35 was said to be "underpowered", what to call the T-75?
 
I don't know how true or false that is, but it makes sense and would mean very good empty weight values of ca. 11t. Would also make it even clearer that the plane is intended to carry izd. 30 or the new intermediate model we had heard about. Even with a 17tf engine the TWR empty would be significantly better than that of the F-35 and match that of the A version at MTOW (I am taking 29.9t here for the F-35A), while with a 16tf engine the TWR at MTOW would be that of the F-35C but similar to that of the F-35A empty. If izd. 30 has ca. 18tf as expected, there is even headroom for structure reinforcements and maybe 9g rating.

Regarding climb rate, I would like to see where that data comes from (Sukhoi?), but from what I get 200m/s is roughly the value for the F-35 too. In the case of the LTS, the wing load should be lower, so if the claim is true it should be due to low TWR with the current, export 4.5th gen engine. Not that bad I would say, when the concept works even with propulsion from the previous generation...
 
These conclusions are logical, but the question is how realistic an empty weight of around 11 tons is, if the MTOW is 26 tons and the maximum load is 7.4 tons...
It also needs to be specified that the maximum thrust of the Al-51 in the basic version will be rather around 17 tf. For the intermediate engine, improved Al-41F1 ("Удлинитель") it can be 16 tf.
 
Geo said:
These conclusions are logical, but the question is how realistic an empty weight of around 11 tons is, if the MTOW is 26 tons and the maximum load is 7.4 tons...
It also needs to be specified that the maximum thrust of the Al-51 in the basic version will be rather around 17 tf. For the intermediate engine, improved Al-41F1 ("Удлинитель") it can be 16 tf.
Click to expand...
Similar size to F-35 with similar range should lead to similar fuel load. I am guessing 7.5 t actually, to account for slightly lower empty weight. But I think it is unlikely that is much less than that, or the range values would not be attainable
 
LMFS said:
Similar size to F-35 with similar range should lead to similar fuel load. I am guessing 7.5 t actually, to account for slightly lower empty weight. But I think it is unlikely that is much less than that, or the range values would not be attainable
Click to expand...
In theory, it could work.

F-35:
29,9 t MTOW - 8,2 t WL - 8,3 t FL = 13,4 t OEW

T-75:
26 t MTOW - 7,4 t WL - 7,5 t FL = 11,1 t OEW
 
The United Arab Emirates is not a poor customer.
It rather seems like a configuration that was realistic at the time, given the time constraints.
Not to mention that the Al-51 was not ready, let alone approved for export...
 
The cost of the aircraft was stated to be $ 30 million, which implies the cheapest execution. Probably a radar with a slit antenna and an engine from the Su-35S. The most advanced option implies an AFAR radar and a flat-nozzle engine, of course, the export value of such a fighter, with the declared take-off weight, cannot be less than $ 60 million
 
paralay said:
Probably a radar with a slit antenna
Click to expand...

It will be grossly inferior to other competitor and basically a suicide to do such a thing. AFAR should be the default for the aircraft. That will not only make it competitive with other possible competitor e.g F-35 and KF-21 but also helps lowering the cost of AFAR's through economics of scale.
 
paralay said:
The cost of the aircraft was stated to be $ 30 million, which implies the cheapest execution. Probably a radar with a slit antenna and an engine from the Su-35S. The most advanced option implies an AFAR radar and a flat-nozzle engine, of course, the export value of such a fighter, with the declared take-off weight, cannot be less than $ 60 million
Click to expand...
In any case, it is clear that the possibility of installing the Al-51 is considered, which is an engine providing sufficient power with the potential for further increase (in the first stage to the level of 18 - 20 tf).
 
LMFS said:
fuel load. I am guessing 7.5 t actually
Click to expand...
Isn’t it too much? The Su-27 requires 9.4 tons of fuel to cover 3,700 km. Therefore, to fly 2,800 km, the Su-27 needs 7.1 tons of fuel. However, the Su-27 is a twin-engine aircraft, while a single-engine aircraft would require only half. Also check the stats of the Chengdu J-10.
 
Last edited:
AGS-1787 said:
It is too soon to tell, I don’t see where the parachute would go other than having to add a pod like the f-35. One thing I was wondering I have seen that the f-35 has high AOA capabilities, I wonder how the su-75 compares to it.
Click to expand...

As Flateric already wrote, through patents you can see the location:
IMG_1639.jpeg

As for high angle of attack, again, patent :) :

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT WITH ENHANCED AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS
….
To achieve high lift capabilities at high angles of attack, an aircraft needs vortex formation.

The required vortex formation on the fuselage in the claimed invention is ensured without the use of wing extensions by reducing the opening angle of the upper and lower parts of the nose of the fuselage to values of 65° - 70°. Such shaping is achieved by placing the engine air intake with full coverage of the entire lower part of the aircraft fuselage. The acute opening angle of the fuselage surfaces, as well as the reverse sweep of the side edges of the air intake and the edges adjacent to the fuselage of the air intake, make it possible to ensure reliable vortex formation necessary for obtaining high load-bearing capabilities at high angles of attack.

In the proposed design of the air intake, all edges are swept and can be parallel to any elements of the aircraft (wing edges, empennage, etc.), while there is no gap between the air intake inlet and the surface on which it is located for draining the boundary layer.

The side edges of the air intake inlet and the edges adjacent to the fuselage have a reverse sweep, which improves the characteristics of the air intake while reducing the air flow from the maximum value at all Mach numbers (hereinafter referred to as M) within the operating range.

The absence of additional aerodynamic surfaces, such as wing extensions or vortex generators on the fuselage, allows to reduce the aerodynamic drag of the aircraft as a whole and increase the values of its aerodynamic characteristics. The proposed technical solution is also aimed at ensuring stable operation of the power plant up to the number M = 2.1 with a total pressure recovery coefficient at the engine inlet not lower than the typical one for unregulated air intakes and a total flow non-uniformity below the maximum permissible value. IMG_1684.png
Click to expand...

https://new.fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&DocNumber=2807556
 
TSARb said:
Isn't it too much? Su-27 needs 9.4 t to cover 3700 km. So, to fly 2800 km Su-27 needs 7.1 tons of fuel. But 27 is a twin engine aircraft. Also check the stats of Chengdu J-10.
Click to expand...
Su-35 does 3600 km on 11300kg, so I don't know if those values for the Su-27 are correct?
 
Su-27 by some sources has max range of 3900. 2800-3000 for S-75 is... Believable, if a stretch. The main question us, ofc, empty weight.
 
Well, instead of discs using how likely or not a certain performance is, shouldn’t we not better wait until it actually flies? If in the end is being abandoned and remains a mock-up, all this if & when is simply moot.
 
I don't think india spending a ton of money on developing a russian fighter is a good idea. Much better one is useing that money on the 2 (I think) 5th gen fighter projects they already have, south korea and turkey are embarrassing them on this front as is.
 
1. The more resent images have already shown significant changes from the original model away from the su-57 but one engine plan they had been promoting (wich isn't surprising reusing the su-57 wings would have given the su-75 way to much lift)

2. I think the fact that the Russian MoD has shown zero intrest in the design I think shows that the su-75 probably isn't a very good deal. if it was cheap to make you would think su would build a prototype consdering the export potential. But nothing on that frount either.
paralay said:
Let me remind you that the basis of the Indian Air Force, the Su-30MKI fighter, was created by the Russians for Indian money
The Indian LCA was created by Hindus for Indian money, and where is it now?
Click to expand...
Bad example, the su-30 was internally developed by Russia then sold to India. Plus was just an upgrade of the already in wide scale use su-27 (hell I think they changed less for the su-30 then the f-15e required)

Just because India has sucked at making aircraft so far dosnt make this su-75 deal any better, India would just get the worst of both worlds, all the development cost without any development of the Indian air industries.
 
Let’s be honest here. Developing an aircraft from scratch is hard, no matter how big of a country you are. I applaud the Indians for the huge effort.
With LTS majority if not all of the key components like engine, avionics….would come from Russia anyway.
The sweet part (if true) would be that if you wanna buy Su-75 you have to go to India. Plus it would give India a backup in case the development of indigenous aircrafts takes longer than expected.

@Cjc
1. Flaps are different that’s it.
2. It has Su-57 and Okhotnik. That’s what it wants and it needs, LTS is a side project of UAC.
 
No, the LCA was designed for pretty specific reasons and it should be judged in that way. It is meant to fill up the Indian airforce and replace their mig21 fighters.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom