Sukhoi T-75 LTS (CheckMate)

Acatomic said:
One more patent from 2023 that wasn’t posted here.

Now usually they compare patents with Russian/Soviet ones, but I think this is the first time that they are actually comparing it to a western one, in this case F-35 style intake:
View attachment 757429


View attachment 757430
View attachment 757431
View attachment 757432
View attachment 757433
Source: https://new.fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&DocNumber=2801718&TypeFile=html
Click to expand...

Great stuff :).
 
Acatomic said:
Also i hope one day Sukhoi implement EORD-31 style OLS window on all of their aircraft, not with the purpose to meaningfully reduce RCS - but to stop endless OLS RCS discussions on forums all around the world :)

View attachment 757458

Source:
Post in thread 'MAKS: Chinese firm unveils new sensors for J-20, J-31'
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...s-new-sensors-for-j-20-j-31.25279/post-257993
Click to expand...

If Sukhoi understood the need to incorporate a faceted irst design, there wouldn't be any complaints on the internets...
 
Joint Soviet Fighter said:
I've gone back 7-8 pages & haven't found it, yet, although I never have been able to see what's under my own nose. Ugh. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Sorry, it was in su-57 thread.

flateric said:
As my fellow aerospace engineer says, I often wonder why so much less advices from public how to do something are given on specific forums to neurosurgeons or nuclear reactor builders.
Click to expand...
 
I can judge by the work of other organizations that I know of, where the 2026 plan is currently being implemented. In the case of the Su-57, this could mean + 12 aircraft. The reality is probably more modest, + 3 - 4 additional fighters
 
Joint Soviet Fighter said:
Ah yes. I've seen that one, lol.
Click to expand...
That's basically the point.
While I personally don't like presence of this ball on t-75 and consider it redundant(not like it matters for a paper plane, and not like mine opinion matters for aircraft design), as a matter of fact, sukhoi does now that faceting is.
1000011678.jpg
And overall t-75 is facetted way more thoroughly than su-57.
Which leads to two simple conclusions:

(1)Yes, 75 RCS is probably low enough for it to make a difference.
(2)IRST ball carries functionality worth its placement and shape.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
That's basically the point.
While I personally don't like presence of this ball on t-75 and consider it redundant(not like it matters for a paper plane, and not like mine opinion matters for aircraft design), as a matter of fact, sukhoi does now that faceting is.
View attachment 757514
And overall t-75 is facetted way more thoroughly than su-57.
Which leads to two simple conclusions:

(1)Yes, 75 RCS is probably lower enough for it to make a difference.
(2)IRST ball carries functionality worth its placement and shape.
Click to expand...

Why not adopt the same faceted approach in place of the irst bulb, though? Maybe The Su-75 then looks more like The Kaan from the front with such a modification, idk, but yeah - do that, keep the original V-Tail, & I honestly don't think that anyone would have a single complaint about such a design (as long as the irst/eots make use of iir technology), not that aircraft should ever be developed on such a rationale, of course, as our views don't matter, lol.
 
Joint Soviet Fighter said:
Why not adopt the same faceted approach in place of the irst bulb, though? Maybe The Su-75 then looks more like The Kaan from the front with such a modification, idk, but yeah - do that, keep the original V-Tail, & I honestly don't think that anyone would have a single complaint about such a design (as long as the irst/eots make use of iir technology), not that aircraft should ever be developed on such a rationale, of course, as our views don't matter, lol.
Click to expand...
(1)IRST on Russian fighters after 3rd generation is a very important, WVR-optized tool, matching HOBS functionality. Sukhoi may be reluctant to remove it on manned aircraft.
In Su-57 it is significantly extended in use, both through data fusion and improved detection at range( obviously better processing of a later device; it's iirc a dual-band IR sensor).

(2)I speculated in 57/75 thread that DIRCM functionality may in fact be shared by 101KS-V. That would easily explain ball shape.
While known t-75 mock-up and models don't have other 101KS-O turrets, front IRST is likely shared.

(3) since we're speculating and whistling, I'd rather see F-35/J-20 like eodas solution in the nose as well, using Megapolis 101KS-U replacement (that huge optical window).
One less separate system for an aircraft said to be optimized for price, maintenance and ownership cost.
 
Ainen said:
(1)IRST on Russian fighters after 3rd generation is a very important, WVR-optized tool, matching HOBS functionality. Sukhoi may be reluctant to remove it on manned aircraft.
In Su-57 it is significantly extended in use, both through data fusion and improved detection at range( obviously better processing of a later device; it's iirc a dual-band IR sensor).

(2)I speculated in 57/75 thread that DIRCM functionality may in fact be shared by 101KS-V. That would easily explain ball shape.
While known t-75 mock-up and models don't have other 101KS-O turrets, front IRST is likely shared.

(3) since we're speculating and whistling, I'd rather see F-35/J-20 like eodas solution in the nose as well, using Megapolis 101KS-U replacement (that huge optical window).
One less separate system for an aircraft said to be optimized for price, maintenance and ownership cost.
Click to expand...

With what is The UV MAWS 101KS-U being replaced?

As for The Su-75, I'm not sure that there would be enough room to outfit an EOTS/EODAS under the nose that would fit with the current alignment, hence the current location of The Reese's Miniature Peanut Butter Cup...
 
paralay said:
I can judge by the work of other organizations that I know of, where the 2026 plan is currently being implemented. In the case of the Su-57, this could mean + 12 aircraft. The reality is probably more modest, + 3 - 4 additional fighters
Click to expand...
Given that for 2023 "more than 10" aircraft were delivered" (so probably 11, perhaps even 12), I wonder why the annual output suffered such a drop off. I personally don't think sanctions play much of a part here, given that they have proven supremely ineffective. I just try to imagine where the bottleneck is. Labor force? Facilities/Assembly line? Suppliers?

I could imagine batches getting smaller at first once the AL-51 is introduced with the M version, but are there any indicators that this is the case?
 
Have China build it, would probably have about six aircraft flying already.
 
TSARb said:
:cool:
View attachment 758029
Click to expand...
You know 75, back then folks said I had a big mouth and I really sucked but you might now may be redeeming guys like us. I see your lower jaw juts out, maybe a little TMJ, I had to have my lower lip removed, they deemed it useless? When do you think they are going to build you, got a lot of hype, let's keep in touch.
 
Deleting a post for being "meaningless" when wanting to contribute to a discussion is wild.

Anyway, here is a photo of the Su-75 mockup being sent to India for the AeroIndia airshow:
https://www.reddit.com/r/FighterJets/comments/1igmdj1/sukhoi_su75_checkmate_being_transported_from
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/FighterJets/comments/1igmdj1/sukhoi_su75_checkmate_being_transported_from/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

EDIT: This is an old photo. However, the info about AeroIndia is indeed real.
 
Last edited:
Acatomic said:
One more patent from 2023 that wasn’t posted here.

Now usually they compare patents with Russian/Soviet ones, but I think this is the first time that they are actually comparing it to a western one, in this case F-35 style intake:
View attachment 757429


View attachment 757430
View attachment 757431
View attachment 757432
View attachment 757433
Source: https://new.fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&DocNumber=2801718&TypeFile=html
Click to expand...
Not sure applying a DSI to a curved base surface is worth a patent, but the info is pretty intriguing!



Forest Green said:
The X-32 was the Cybertruck of fighters.
Click to expand...
You take that back! That's insulting to the X-32!
 
EmoBirb said:
Given that for 2023 "more than 10" aircraft were delivered" (so probably 11, perhaps even 12), I wonder why the annual output suffered such a drop off. I personally don't think sanctions play much of a part here, given that they have proven supremely ineffective. I just try to imagine where the bottleneck is. Labor force? Facilities/Assembly line? Suppliers?

I could imagine batches getting smaller at first once the AL-51 is introduced with the M version, but are there any indicators that this is the case?
Click to expand...
Given the engine is/was not ready and new nozzles are still in works , i do not think they are in a hurry to have a lot of beta version airframes that would either remain beta version or need expensive upgrade to bring it to final version , that might not be an issue for F35 with 100+ non combat coded airframes , meanwhile same facilites and workforce is working on legacy jets and finances might be a factor as well if you are getting 2-3 legacy air frames for cost of one Su57 , legacy air frames might be more urgently needed.
 
1742957013144.png
1742956473466.png
1742957465654.png
1742957615306.png

  • Russians are expecting themselves to outproduce Europe in satellite production with which they are planning to acquire 650 satellites by 2030.
  • Putin has started funding a project to have satellites have control of UAVs
  • PIC production started early November 2024, and their topology numbers might improve later along with more PICs produced to offer better artificial intelligence and neural networking capabilities for UAVs with these circuits.
I am expecting at least 2030-2040 some mass production for Su-70s and Su-75 UAV variants to begin. All this news is important because they have 2 large stealth drone projects (Su-70 and Su-75 variant) and the technology they are aiming for can give them operable Su-75 UAVs based on their success.
 
Last edited:
Null said:
maybe if it's something star link related
Click to expand...
Likely yes. There are satellite Internet systems development in Russia: one private from "Bureau 1440" (low altitude) and one govt-based Skif (high altitude).
Constellation from Bureau 1440 looks quite promising, they've already got results from several test satellites. Planned constellation is 700+ satellites in 2030, 900+ in 2035.
 
Bureau 1440 it is a civilian satellite communications provider, so that’s a no go for military use. Maybe Russia builds a Starshield type constellation in the future,, a big maybe.

Anyway, I was looking at horizontal stabilizer assessment from F-47 topic and I was wondering, would it be fair to say that T-75 sits between simple delta and wing/tail configuration (added T-75 pic in the table below)?

IMG_3893.jpeg
 
Last edited:
> would it be fair to say that T-75 sits between simple delta and wing/tail configuration

IMO - an unstable wing-tail configuration. And keep in mind thrust vectoring to improve low speed and high alpha performance.
 
Acatomic said:
Not to nitpick, but the patent is about low observable air intake ;)
Click to expand...
Right, but prior art is the DSI bump on a flat surface.

I'm not sure "a DSI bump on a curved surface" is sufficiently novel to be patentable. Because it is a VERY obvious next step from the flat surface DSI.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom