Sukhoi T-75 LTS (CheckMate)

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Some news (we're ahead )

Russia’s Checkmate Light Tactical Fighter Is Officially Unveiled (Updated)

After a much-hyped buildup, Russia’s latest fighter jet design has arrived on the international stage.

www.thedrive.com

I haven't seen it posted.

 

[Avimimus]

Among the other whistles and bells it has a ground-targeting EOTS, which is a mistake IMO.

So, AESA RADAR, EM/EO RWR, ECM/ELINT, A2A IRST, A2G EOTS, 4+/5 gen. engine...and for all of this Rostec/UAC is asking not more than $30 million?! As much as i'm excited about this plane, this is obvious bull****.

Wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer did a ridiculous low-ball... however, it might also be the price for the airframe without avionics?

What I don't understand, why there is no on-board gun. I understand that this is just a static demonstrator and many things can change before production model, but in promo they stated it will have: in bay cannon containers

Is this could be something in style and form of gun mod they used on F-106 back in the day?

I don't think it is clear that they aren't just referring to replacing one of the 'cheek bays' with a cannon. I'm not entirely sure that an SPPU mounted in the centre line bays can be entirely ruled out though. It should be possible to fit one within the weight and length limits... it just would have to be limited in elevation.

 

[tequilashooter]

I think he emant that Zhuk-AE with 1016 TR modules and diameter of ~680mm has claimed range of 250km.

We are in 2021, I am just curious why we he did not choose the recent models.

 

[Galvars]

What I don't understand, why there is no on-board gun. I understand that this is just a static demonstrator and many things can change before production model, but in promo they stated it will have: in bay cannon containers

Is this could be something in style and form of gun mod they used on F-106 back in the day?

The side bays geometry have external profiles that is convergent toward the front. Hence there is enough surface to either mount a gun firing mechanism through the side bay doors or a Canon pack that replace the entirely the side bay door.

So you theorize that one bay could be replaced with a special designed gun pod?

 

[AleDucat]

Why the EOTS is still covered?

 

[stealthflanker]

What the hell. are you seriously understand what i am saying back in my post ?

I am not comparing things. I am guessing that it will have 68 Cm diameter antenna. NOT comparing radar. and that 68 cm diameter antenna can carry about 1100 modules.

to make it easier for you to understand why choose MSE and not the better radars for a comparison?(please dont dodge that question)

You seem not understand the meaning of my post. Now let me make this clear to you

I am not choosing MSE. What i do is doing a calculation using 68cm diameter Antenna and what if it become AESA. The result as you see can be viewed in the spoiler tag on the post you misunderstood previously.

I am not comparing things. I am guessing that it will have 68 Cm diameter antenna. NOT comparing radar. and that 68 cm diameter antenna can carry about 1100 modules.

I think he emant that Zhuk-AE with 1016 TR modules and diameter of ~680mm has claimed range of 250km.

Yes. But i am not comparing things I am doing calculations with 68 cm diameter antenna as Baseline. Which you can see my result in Spoiler Tag.

 

[Grey Havoc]

What I don't understand, why there is no on-board gun. I understand that this is just a static demonstrator and many things can change before production model, but in promo they stated it will have: in bay cannon containers

Is this could be something in style and form of gun mod they used on F-106 back in the day?

The side bays geometry have external profiles that is convergent toward the front. Hence there is enough surface to either mount a gun firing mechanism through the side bay doors or a Canon pack that replace entirely the side bay door.

IMOHO, Sukhoi made all it could to build a stealth fighter that won't need most if the detailed attention to panels and skins to offer, at least for the early examples, some kind competitive RCS reduction.

And indeed it is supposed to have a default option for a cannon in one of those cheek bays.

 

[Ainen]

Among the other whistles and bells it has a ground-targeting EOTS, which is a mistake IMO.
View attachment 661144

So, AESA RADAR, EM/EO RWR, ECM/ELINT, A2A IRST, A2G EOTS, 4+/5 gen. engine...and for all of this Rostec/UAC is asking not more than $30 million?! As much as i'm excited about this plane, this is obvious bull****.

Mig-35 with more or less the same list, but 2 engines, was quoted at 40-50.
Iirc something similar for Gripen E.
If affordability was a cornerstone design aim - well, let's wait and see.

 

[tequilashooter]

I am not choosing MSE

but you just did as an example instead of a better variant for Christs sake (dont go re-editing it) explain the calculation to even though I guess it is pointless now because I just brought up the specs on a better recent sized radar model.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The 'Time to turn the chessboard' tagline is catchy.

 

[stealthflanker]

I am not choosing MSE

but you just did as an example instead of a better variant for Christs sake (dont go re-editing it) explain the calculation to even though I guess it is pointless now because I just brought up the specs on a better recent sized radar model.

Are you really reading my post ? and hell i am not editing anything. I am talking about 68 cm diameter antenna which were happen to be the SIZE of the Zhuk MSE antenna.

 

[tequilashooter]

the SIZE of the Zhuk MSE antenna.

why not a better model than the MSE that has a better performance based on a official designer on radar, than your calculation?

 

[Trident]

The 'Time to turn the chessboard' tagline is catchy.

The entire media campaign, IT blunders (countdown & livestream bandwidth) apart, was very well executed. Took in its stride the early leak, and the jab at the recent Defender incident (EOTS teaser pic) was pretty decent humour actually.

 

[TomcatViP]

@Galvars : yes. See also @Grey Havoc answer
Why would you keep the actuating door when most of the gun system would already fill the cheek bay!?

 

[stealthflanker]

the SIZE of the Zhuk MSE antenna.

why not a better model?

Why dont you understand that i am not talking about Zhuk ME But merely taking the SIZE OF THE ANTENNA as the BASELINE for my calculation. Why it is so hard for you to Understand that ?

and Zhuk MSE is for Su-27's the one having 68 cm diameter is ME.

 

[tequilashooter]

why

the SIZE of the Zhuk MSE antenna.

why not a better model?

Why dont you understand that i am not talking about Zhuk ME But merely taking the SIZE OF THE ANTENNA as the BASELINE for my calculation. Why it is so hard for you to Understand that ?

and Zhuk MSE is for Su-27's the one having 68 cm diameter is ME.

why couldn't you choose a better model(I will say it 20 more times on this forum)? Dont pretend you did not know better models existed that had better results than your own calculations and proven by the radar company itself.

 

[Acatomic]

Among the other whistles and bells it has a ground-targeting EOTS, which is a mistake IMO.


So, AESA RADAR, EM/EO RWR, ECM/ELINT, A2A IRST, A2G EOTS, 4+/5 gen. engine...and for all of this Rostec/UAC is asking not more than $30 million?! As much as i'm excited about this plane, this is obvious bull****.

Why would EOTS be a mistake?

The way I see it everything you listed is more or less developed. All they have now is two years to put all of this together. Yes?

 

[Anduriel]

why couldn't you choose a better model(I will say it 20 more times on this forum)? Dont pretend you did not know better models existed that had better results than your own calculations and proven by the radar company itself.
[/QUOTE]
~680mm is the limit of Mig-29 nosecone diameter. Both Zhuk-ME, -M2E, and MAE will have the same diameter (excluding first FGFA 688 TR variant, it had ~500mm diameter).
Now why @stealthflanker calculations don't coincide with stated 250m km range of 1016 TR variant is another question.
Though I couldn't also achieve N036 claimed perfomance using AESA calc either (400km against 3m2 RCS).

 

[GARGEAN]

another pentagon agent.

If you you knew how wrong you are...

 

[Mike Pryce]

"Stealthy, huh?"

Gaps and filler.

I am not sure this is a flyer.

 

[tequilashooter]

why couldn't you choose a better model(I will say it 20 more times on this forum)? Dont pretend you did not know better models existed that had better results than your own calculations and proven by the radar company itself.

~680mm is the limit of Mig-29 nosecone diameter. Both Zhuk-ME, -M2E, and MAE will have the same diameter (excluding first FGFA 688 TR variant, it had ~500mm diameter).
Now the question is why @stealthflanker calculations don't coincide with stated 250m km range of 1016 TR variant is another question.
Though I couldn't also achieve N036 claimed perfomance using AESA calc either (400km against 3m2 RCS).
[/QUOTE]

I will just stop responding back to him. Usually when i find US or Russian fan boys they go for the latest and best specs(like me using the official ranges of SM-6 and another user that is pro-US will go for the unofficial ranges) which are proven as well. Its just odd that someone with a username like flanker indicates they are a Russian fan boy but shoot low for the worst results on choices.

If you you knew how wrong you are...

a little humor, sorry.

 

[stealthflanker]

why couldn't you choose a better model(I will say it 20 more times on this forum)? Dont pretend you did not know better models existed that had better results than your own calculations and proven by the radar company itself.

Well i am using 68 cm diameter antenna as baseline. and just that.

and for the bold part.. are you sure that my result is Worse ? In your article What was the target RCS requirement for the Zhuk AE. What Detection probability it was measured in ? 90% or 50% ? Taken in What dwell time.

If you seriously interested you would ask those variables instead of trying to frame me of being some country's fanboy O-o and misunderstood my post.


@Anduriel

~680mm is the limit of Mig-29 nosecone diameter. Both Zhuk-ME, -M2E, and MAE will have the same diameter (excluding first FGFA 688 TR variant, it had ~500mm diameter).
Now why @stealthflanker calculations don't coincide with stated 250m km range of 1016 TR variant is another question.
Though I couldn't also achieve N036 claimed perfomance using AESA calc either (400km against 3m2 RCS).

I mean we dont know what the condition of that measurement and against what target.

AESA however have dwell time flexibility which is implemented in my calculator (for my first estimate there, i use dwell time of 0.025 seconds/beam which is typical for fighter radar) Longer range can be achieved by increase of beam dwell time, in cost of scanning time (takes bit longer)

and i mentioned 90% probability of detection (R90) which basically lock on range. where weapon is likely to be employed. you may see in old or maybe its in new NIIP tikhomirov's website that it mentions probability of detection for some radar (e.g N001) which is 50%. This is the range where target will first be detected. It will be longer than R90

 

[Scar]

Why would EOTS be a mistake?

Increasing airplane price and maintenance costs. Targeting pod(101KS-N or T/220) would be sufficient more flexible and cost effective solution.

 

[tequilashooter]

Well i am using 68 cm diameter antenna as baseline. and just that.

and for the bold part.. are you sure that my result is Worse ? In your article What was the target RCS requirement for the Zhuk AE. What Detection probability it was measured in ? 90% or 50% ? Taken in What dwell time.

If you seriously interested you would ask those variables instead of trying to frame me of being some country's fanboy O-o and misunderstood my post.

about time you stopped dodging question, thanks now I can have an actual conversation. Why 50% and why 90%? 130km was the baseline for a 3m2 target based on an old requirement they had for india which Giuskov stated he increased the modules for a range of 250kms.

Just another example of doubling aerial target range detection but on another radar, based on your 90% calculation, does it match the 50% calculation?

 

[Fluff]

Can anyone name a good brand of russian concrete, as thats what I'm guessing is currently inside that radome......

 

[Ainen]

Why would EOTS be a mistake?

Increasing airplane price and maintenance costs. Targeting pod(101KS-N or T/220) would be sufficient more flexible and cost effective solution.

The point of this plane is clearly in LO configuration, though. It includes strike.

 

[Anduriel]

tikhomirov's website that it mentions probability of detection for some radar (e.g N001) which is 50%

Lately Russia uses 3m2/R80. 5m2 and R50 was Soviet method (though it's inconsistent).

 

[g0229]

MOSCOW, May 26 - RIA Novosti. The Sukhoi company is developing the first in Russia fifth-generation lightweight multi-role fighter with one engine, a source in the aircraft industry told RIA Novosti.

"When creating the aircraft, it is planned to widely use the groundwork accumulated within the framework of the creation of the Su-57 , including the newest product 30 engine, radio-absorbing coatings, avionics, and a complex of weapons," he said.

Until now, all Russian-made fighters, including the most modern Su-57, have been equipped with two engines.
According to the source, the new aircraft should have a take-off weight of no more than 18 tons, its maximum speed will exceed Mach two, and the thrust-to-weight ratio (the ratio of engine mass and thrust) will be at least one. At the same time, it will differ in reduced radar signature, super-maneuverability and shortened take-off due to the deflected thrust vector of the engine.

"The layout of the fighter will have one under-fuselage multi-mode air intake, as it is implemented on many modern single-engine aircraft," the source added.
He specified that at the stage of creating an experimental vehicle, the Al-31FN engine of series 3 and 4, already tested on foreign fighters, can be used.

Источник: в России создают легкий истребитель пятого поколения

Компания "Сухой" разрабатывает первый в России легкий многоцелевой истребитель пятого поколения с одним двигателем, рассказал РИА Новости источник в... РИА Новости, 26.05.2021

ria.ru

reposted from https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ght-fighter-projects.33577/page-4#post-459542

 

[g0229]

View attachment 660763
The Landing gear, looks very real to me, the doors, not so much, still interesting to see.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

What would be the appropriate way to describe the tail configuration of this design? Is it a Pelikan type tail or just a V-tail?

 

[stealthflanker]

about time you stopped dodging question, thanks now I can have an actual conversation. Why 50% and why 90%? 130km was the baseline for a 3m2 target based on an old requirement they had for india which Giuskov stated he increased the modules for a range of 250kms.

If you read any Radar textbook you will know that there are things called Probability of Detection and it's related to radar detection range in a manner that whether a radar "know" What it was detected. the R50 or Range at when probability of Detection is 50% Means the radar picked a target but only 50% sure it's a real target.

Then the radar get closer to target or by some means of processing (e.g pulse integration), the signal strength improves where the radar can be 90% sure that it is picking up a target. The range of when this happen is called as R90.

These two probabilities and the range figure associated with them shows when your radar can detect a target and in case of 90% when it can be locked or constantly tracked for engagement (Shooting missiles etc) For Early warning radar you may have R85 which correspond to the range where the radar is 85% sure that it is a real target, not a false alarm.

Having detection probability in calculations Helps making it more definitive like If i mention 90% or R90. It is the range where the Radar can lock on target and engage it. the 50% one is longer but it's not telling you whether your radar can really track or even sure that contact is a real target.

Now what is that 250 km ? Is it R50 or R90. If it's R50 then the target can be detected but may not necessarily be able to be engaged at that range. If it R90 then it is likely be locked on and engaged.

And what condition that 250 Km was taken ?, in What modes ? Radar have multiple modes which may have different dwell time and therefore range. My first calculation back then use 0.025 seconds of dwell which is typical for airborne fighter radar. But more range can be gained by increasing dwell time but in cost of longer scanning time or reduced scanning area.

Lately Russia uses 3m2/R80. 5m2 and R50 was Soviet method (though it's inconsistent).

The old NIIP Website has 50% for the N001 and 3 sqm, not sure if it's still there. Nonetheless these probability of detection is rarely mentioned which is why i exercised caution when making the AESA radar calculator. It will calculate both 50% and 90% probability of detection. and for the radar database in the spreadsheet, you may notice shorter range for example radar e.g APG-77 have 240 km range vs 1 sqm but in my calculator it has less because i treated that 240 km as R50, means the R90 would be shorter.

 

[tequilashooter]

And what condition that 250 Km was taken ?, in What modes ? Radar have multiple modes which may have different dwell time and therefore range. My first calculation back then use 0.025 seconds of dwell which is typical for airborne fighter radar. But more range can be gained by increasing dwell time but in cost of longer scanning time or reduced scanning area.

"Which resulted in range of 158 km with 90% detection probability against a 3sqm target." Can you give me the 50% result please?

 

[Scar]

The point of this plane is clearly in LO configuration, though. It includes strike.

The point of this plane is its affordability. Or it's doomed, right from the start...see "affordable" F-35, with its overcomplicated electronics suite...This is why every other characterictic is secondary. After all, more or less good EOTS costs few million bucks and allows to attack the targets at distances of 5-20km, so you will do this only if you already have an air superiority in this area. Otherwise, LO, VLO, conventional - you will be dead. Remember what happened to F-117 that overflew S-125?

 

[Ainen]

The point of this plane is its affordability.

Full capability for an affordable price, to be exact. If they plan to get to this price level with EOTS - well, let's see?
Chemezov isn't just "someone", his words do carry some weight; this includes price estimations.

Like it or not, but strike-oriented EOTS is becoming a standard for VLO fighters.
Finally, let's not forget that it's described as "modular". May very well refer to car-like trim and feature list.
"EW suite as a service"

Remember what happened to F-117 that overflew S-125?

It happened twice during their whole career. Two aircraft for two countries - not that bad of an exchange.

 

[Sundog]

WRT to the 8G rating, because I've seen many people bring this up on various platforms, it's most likely due to it being a mostly tailless fighter. I say mostly, because the canted out vertical tails can still provide some pitch authority, but being mainly a tailless design, it's going to have limited pitch authority compared to a tailed design. I know back in the late 70's early 80's, that was something noted on Northrop tailless designs that used only TV for pitch control. They were generally limited to 7G as a result of limited control power. It wouldn't be any different for this design.

Also, what strikes me about the inlet is how similar it is too the very early X-32 concept art, not the X-32 that was flown.

 

[Scar]

Full capability for an affordable price, to be exact.

Utopia of the TV-shop level. "Only today, for only 30 bucks you will getall these nice things!..." Bull****

 

[stealthflanker]

And what condition that 250 Km was taken ?, in What modes ? Radar have multiple modes which may have different dwell time and therefore range. My first calculation back then use 0.025 seconds of dwell which is typical for airborne fighter radar. But more range can be gained by increasing dwell time but in cost of longer scanning time or reduced scanning area.

"Which resulted in range of 158 km with 90% detection probability against a 3sqm target." Can you give me the 50% result please?

It's in the spoiler tag of my first post. You can see the result image which mention that the R50 is 231.49 Km for the assumptions i made for the hypothetical 68 cm diameter radar.

---------

Now if you're still wanting a "better result" then What one could do ? As i mention before, one can trade search sector with dwell time. So one just need to search smaller area. This will improve range as the radar have more time available for it.

The assumption i use was 0.025 seconds/beam for search an area. Now what if we can triple it to say 0.075 second. We can easily search the 50 and 90% value with that. using simple Fourth Root law.

R=((3)^(1/4))

R=1.31

Now we have the range factor. we can multiply that with the previously calculated R90 and R50.

New R90 with that tripled dwell time : 1.31 * 158 = 207 km
New R50 with that tripled dwell time : 1.31 * 231.49 = 304 km.

Now you see that my result isnt necessarily worse or wanting to paint ugly on the aircraft.

 

[Scar]

it's most likely due to it being a mostly tailless fighter

It's most likely due to weight/range requirements. Tailless or not, this is not important, especially if we're talking about supermaneuverable fighter with TVC. G-limit is always dictated by construction strength, not control surfaces etc.

 

[Ainen]

Full capability for an affordable price, to be exact.

Utopia of the TV-shop level. "Only today, for only 30 bucks you will getall these nice things!..." Bull****

Dunno. I simply read what's written (or said) - nothing more, nothing less.

Explaining to the customers that they don't really need something may end with them buying from someone else.

 

[tequilashooter]

Attitude is childish and immature. You were accusing stealthflanker of being pro-US fanboi because his number was smaller than another number quoted in unclear circumstances in a PR puff piece article.

I got more details out of him for the radar performance on why it seemed low for me so were good. Articles are different from his calculations which I took the wrong way.