Just coming from the Su-57 raises questions in itself - is the over the nose angle the same? If it isn't, does that mean raising the seat to achieve an acceptable over-the-nose view for landing? If the seat position has to be moved, how much space does that leave for the pilot and helmet? And so on. These aren't comments to run down a Russian project, they're questions we'd ask of any project.
You are running down the LTS, throwing sarcasm and doubting every single element from you first post to the last sir. You are yet to have a decent side view of the plane, but are already questioning whether they are capable of the trivial task of checking the view angle from the cockpit? Give us a break...

What do you guys think on the location of the central bay ?
Too close to the back, there is difficulty there to get the needed clearance to the engine. It should end roughly at the x position of the main landing gear struts. You need a bay that is min 50 cm deep (discounting the suspension points) plus walls plus clearances required by the engine installation itself, ancillaries etc.
 
A moderator has removed all off-topic random posts from this topic as this is a developing news story of considerable interest. Nothing personal implied to the users concerned.

Is there really no room here at all for a little humor, in between all the 'serious academic speculation' and while waiting for the next advertisement teaser?
 
Artificial hi-res. Enjoy:

Quadro, one request if I may: this forum has a perfectly serviceable image upload function, you should take advantage of it. Radikal is just about the most annoying external image host imaginable, since it's *awash* in pop-ups.
 
A moderator has removed all off-topic random posts from this topic as this is a developing news story of considerable interest. Nothing personal implied to the users concerned.

I think there may be a bit of day one 'giddiness' ...people are excited.
 
... North Korea is a big fat NO, due to the fact that any arms sale to North Korea will be controversial (with China, Japan, the US and the South Koreans, and literally everyone else in the region) and the fact that it's a political hellhole as well as a greyzone. ...

When did you last see the Putin regime shying away from anything controversial (corrupting everyone in sight, killing off opposition & journalists, supporting state terrorism elsewhere, waging open war against Georgia and Ukraine in the middle of Europe, election meddling, sending "mercenaries" all over Africa, dealing nuclear reactors all over the Mideast, incessant hacking, etc.)? They're basically the gray zone operator currently (although many copycats have emerged).

Simple: Russia is far too cozy with South Korea consider upsetting that relationship (BMP-3, T-80U, Ka-32, Ansat, Il-103, Murena LCAC and it's the first customer for what is essentially the S-350 SAM).
 
A moderator has removed all off-topic random posts from this topic as this is a developing news story of considerable interest. Nothing personal implied to the users concerned.

Is there really no room here at all for a little humor, in between all the 'serious academic speculation' and while waiting for the next advertisement teaser?
I didn't make that decision. Reviewing the deleted posts, I can't say any of them are a loss to the debate, and I don't want to have to re-litigate every decision made by other moderators. It may be worth a poll about how users feel on this subject.

There is always a tension between the dual purposes of this forum - its a database of information, AND a discussion forum.
 
I can see that. So should we be discussing the engineering of the design? Or its export potential? What are your recommended bounds for this thread?
 
A moderator has removed all off-topic random posts from this topic as this is a developing news story of considerable interest. Nothing personal implied to the users concerned.

Is there really no room here at all for a little humor, in between all the 'serious academic speculation' and while waiting for the next advertisement teaser?
I didn't make that decision. Reviewing the deleted posts, I can't say any of them are a loss to the debate, and I don't want to have to re-litigate every decision made by other moderators. It may be worth a poll about how users feel on this subject.

There is always a tension between the dual purposes of this forum - its a database of information, AND a discussion forum.
Feel like there should be 2 threads: one that people will actually want to look back at and the other one to shoot the shit.
 
So... who about this: One R-74 class missile in each side bay. A ventral bay with two R-77 class missiles (would prefer R-37 class, but I'm not sure there is room)...

But they'll primarily pitch it to clients has also having 4xR-37 class missiles or 4x700kg class air-to-surface weapons carried by two S-70 Okhotnik that it leads into battle... 'checkmate' in terms of a chess set having multiple pieces which work together (only some of which are manned).

That is my bet on what they'll pitch.

Liking the sound of that so far Avimimus, the R-37 looks a bit big for internal carriage in the weapons bay, though it could be carried externally if stealth is not needed.
There is "derivative" of it, Izd.810, intended for internal carriage by Su-57. And 95% that those two have unified weapons bay.
Not too sure if 810 makes a lot of sense on a light fighter. But as an option - of course.
 
Currently some nations that could order the aircraft are: Vietnam, UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia (?) (doubt it), Belarus, and many of the former Soviet republics.

Yes, also Iran, Malaysia and Algeria. Even Argentina, which has ambitions for its domestic industry that Western or Chinese players are unlikely to accommodate to the same degree, is not a completely silly notion. You have to consider how far Checkmate is from entering service, and its sales prime is even more distant. A lot can happen in 3 decades, Rafale exports only took off after 2015, and not for lack of effort during the 20 (!) years before. In 1990, who would have predicted that one day Venezuela and Uganda would join the ranks of Flanker operators? Checkmate could easily end up serving with countries we'd think of as so fanciful today that they don't even make our shortlists. Mexico? Peru? Who knows!

I think the conception of this project recognizes that its appeal lies with countries which will not place large bulk orders, but is predicated on the wider customer base placing numerous small contracts. Bearing in mind how much of the price tag of a first buy can go toward establishing the MRO infrastructure and training, this could well turn out to be a lucrative approach (Gripen, looking at you!). Maximize the number of operators, not the the number of airframes sold.

The challenge is of course that as a company-funded initiative, Checkmate does not have the luxury of coasting on domestic business until the exports start to trickle in, like Rafale did. Somebody has to be in place to get it into service to begin with, but this did work with the Su-30MKI (which was funded primarily by India and adopted by others, including Russia itself, only later on). That, and the risk that as non-LO fighters become untenable eventually, less well-heeled customers might turrn not to a sub-F-35 manned aircraft, but UCAVs instead.

The problem is cost. Why would a nation want to order this, when a MiG-29 is good enough?

It won't be for much longer, and always was exceedingly expensive for the capability it offered!
 
Last edited:
The UAE is getting F-35s, so pretty redundant now.
Are you talking about the sale that Trump approved and Biden halted for unspecified time? Not speaking it had no senate approval.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A moderator has removed all off-topic random posts from this topic as this is a developing news story of considerable interest. Nothing personal implied to the users concerned.

Is there really no room here at all for a little humor, in between all the 'serious academic speculation' and while waiting for the next advertisement teaser?
I didn't make that decision. Reviewing the deleted posts, I can't say any of them are a loss to the debate, and I don't want to have to re-litigate every decision made by other moderators. It may be worth a poll about how users feel on this subject.

There is always a tension between the dual purposes of this forum - its a database of information, AND a discussion forum.

True, none of the deleted posts are a loss to the debate. I understand, no problem at all.
It´s just sometimes some discussions get (to feel) a bit boring, especially late in the evening, and personally I´m always in for a little (non-offensive) joke between the serious lines/posts. And maybe sometimes it might take some friction out of the air. Just my 2 cents of course, you´re in charge.
 
n3emt01k4u621.gif
 
Are you talking about the sale that Trump approved and Biden halted for unspecified time? Not speaking it had no senate approval.
Biden and Trump can't grant Senate approval. I'm betting that the UAE can bet they can get it.
 
Biden and Trump can't grant Senate approval.
I didn't say they can. I said the sale didn't pass Senate approval, even before Biden recalled WH approval.

I'm betting
Compelling argument, yeah...
The argument's over Huawei, so it's a matter of the Emiratis wanting to go from the gold standard to rolling the dice. This was always a negotiating ploy for them to get access to it.
 
Either of those suggestions are correct.

That´s what I thought. With regard to the latter, is it a warning in advance of a possible ban?
Could you please explain why exactly I deserve such a warning, when the only thing I did was post a harmless joke with regard to a NATO reporting name ?
I see other people in this and several other threads on this forum getting away with more 'heated contributions', without receiving such warning-jokes.
 
As for the aircraft itself, I really like it - Sukhoi's clever minimalism is making a comeback :) About the only major exception is the empennage, with separate all-moving fins and trimmers instead of a Pelikan tail that I'd have preferred. I get the attraction of reusing the Su-57 fins, but you have to wonder how big the savings (essentially one-time, on development and tooling) really are. Especially when you have to fit each and every aircraft with two additional actuators (which need maintenance) and do require some bespoke development & tooling for the trimmers. Not to mention the RCS impact from the rear, though this is of course not the most important aspect angle, so probably acceptable.

Oh, and Sukhoi's recent love affair with the nose landing gear door continues, still 4 on this one ;)

Taken on Paralay forum, originated from here(2013):

I wonder if Pavel Bulat is an author of this drawing.

Thing is so close to the Northrop MRF-54E that the illustration (along with others in the same link) was probably borrowed from one of the Western papers listed in the sources. Nevertheless, the parallels between Checkmate and the Boeing/Northrop MRF studies are clear.
 
Last edited:
Either of those suggestions are correct.

That´s what I thought. With regard to the latter, is it a warning in advance of a possible ban?
Could you please explain why exactly I deserve such a warning, when the only thing I did was post a harmless joke with regard to a NATO reporting name ?
I see other people in this and several other threads on this forum getting away with more 'heated contributions', without receiving such warning-jokes.
It was a harmless joke. I don't want this thread to become a trashbin of inventing funny NATO-reporting names for a plane that even didn't flew yet.
 
so it's a matter of the Emiratis wanting to go from the gold standard to rolling the dice.
The best and the most accurate definition of F-35, ever. :rolleyes: The gold, literally. The gold with a loadshit of problems and over the budget.
 
Either of those suggestions are correct.

That´s what I thought. With regard to the latter, is it a warning in advance of a possible ban?
Could you please explain why exactly I deserve such a warning, when the only thing I did was post a harmless joke with regard to a NATO reporting name ?
I see other people in this and several other threads on this forum getting away with more 'heated contributions', without receiving such warning-jokes.
It was a harmless joke. I don't want this thread to become a trashbin of inventing funny NATO-reporting names for a plane that even didn't flew yet.

'Fair' enough, no more jokes then. ;)
 
so it's a matter of the Emiratis wanting to go from the gold standard to rolling the dice.
The best and the most accurate definition of F-35, ever. :rolleyes: The gold, literally. The gold with a loadshit of problems and over the budget.
No, it's the gold standard because it's undefeated in any contest it entered (and the Swiss;)). There's only been 1 5th gen plane that's been exported, so I beg to differ.
 
Last edited:
No, it's the gold standard because it's undefeated in any contest it entered
so it's a matter of the Emiratis wanting to go from the gold standard to rolling the dice.
The best and the most accurate definition of F-35, ever. :rolleyes: The gold, literally. The gold with a loadshit of problems and over the budget.
No, it's the gold standard because it's undefeated in any contest it entered (and the Swiss;)). There's only been 1 5th gen plane that's been exported, so I beg to differ.
Against who?! 40-50 years old designs?
What an achievement...
 
Thing is so close to the Northrop MRF-54E that the illustration (along with others in the same link) was probably borrowed from one of the Western papers listed in the sources.
Looks like you're right.
 
No, it's the gold standard because it's undefeated in any contest it entered
so it's a matter of the Emiratis wanting to go from the gold standard to rolling the dice.
The best and the most accurate definition of F-35, ever. :rolleyes: The gold, literally. The gold with a loadshit of problems and over the budget.
No, it's the gold standard because it's undefeated in any contest it entered (and the Swiss;)). There's only been 1 5th gen plane that's been exported, so I beg to differ.
Against who?! 40-50 years old designs?
What an achievement...
Isn't that what makes up Russia's current fleet? I would consider the EF and Rafale a little younger than that given how long it took for the Euros to get to 4th gen fighters.

No, it's the gold standard because it's undefeated in any contest it entered (and the Swiss;))
Is the U.S. Aladeen and the other racers NATO members?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLesVEO6Y3U

It would have more impact if was a comparison to countries that have no intimidation from judging a superpower.
We can always wait until a country besides the US exports a 5th gen fighter, but by then there will probably be 6th gens on the market.
 
Isn't that what makes up Russia's current fleet?
Russian air fleet has nothing to do with that. Only with Washington lobby and old designs from the other contenders.
I would consider the EF and Rafale a little younger than that given how long it took for the Euros to get to 4th gen fighters.
And overpriced, just as F-35. Indians already "enjoyed" a purchase of 36 MMRCA Rafales, instead of 128, planned to be ordered initially and...ordered additional number of Su-30MKI. :cool:
 
Just coming from the Su-57 raises questions in itself - is the over the nose angle the same? If it isn't, does that mean raising the seat to achieve an acceptable over-the-nose view for landing? If the seat position has to be moved, how much space does that leave for the pilot and helmet? And so on. These aren't comments to run down a Russian project, they're questions we'd ask of any project.
You are running down the LTS, throwing sarcasm and doubting every single element from you first post to the last sir. You are yet to have a decent side view of the plane, but are already questioning whether they are capable of the trivial task of checking the view angle from the cockpit? Give us a break...

1) That's not running it down. It's a perfectly reasonable design decision.
2) Doing it assumes checking the angle.

You've decided I'm against the aircraft, and therefore that everything I say must be biased against it. I'm simply asking the questions I see based on 20+ years in the industry.
 
I have seen the designation "Su-75" thrown round. Is this official? I doubt it personally...

I've never seen any Su designation that uses the same number as the T designation

Remember all those kiddies calling the Pak-fa as Su-50 just because it was T-50? in the end it became the Su-57
even though history kept saying the same thing.. the Su-24 was the T-6 not T-24. the Su-27 was the T-10 not the T-27

If this aircraft enters service, it certainly will not be the Su-75
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom