Sukhoi T-75 LTS (CheckMate)

[paralay]

Maximum takeoff weight: 18.000kg
Payload: 7.400kg

How did you meet these two numbers in one plane? The achieved payload level is 26% of the maximum take-off weight 7500 kg : 0.26 = 28800 kg

 

[Acatomic]

Thanks @Acatomic :
So it's an estimation, not a given value?

Yes it's an estimation.

@paralay
It's from article published in May. Where did you get that number of 26%?

 

[paralay]

statistics — the queen of analysis

F-35А: 31750 – 13290 – 8278 – 100 = 10082 kg, weapons 8165 kg (26%)
F-15E: 211,5 + 91*4 + 431*12 + 2000*2 = 211,5 + 364 + 5172 + 4000 = 9747,5 kg (26.5%)

1 x AN/AAQ-13 Navigation Pod, 211.5 kg
4 x AIM-9L/M Sidewinder, 91 kg
12 x CBU-87 Cluster Bombs, 431 kg
2 x 610gal Fuel Tank, ~ 2000 kg

 

[red admiral]

statistics — the queen of analysis

F-35А: 31750 – 13290 – 8278 – 100 = 10082 kg, weapons 8165 kg (26%)
F-15E: 211,5 + 91*4 + 431*12 + 2000*2 = 211,5 + 364 + 5172 + 4000 = 9747,5 kg (26.5%)

1 x AN/AAQ-13 Navigation Pod, 211.5 kg
4 x AIM-9L/M Sidewinder, 91 kg
12 x CBU-87 Cluster Bombs, 431 kg
2 x 610gal Fuel Tank, ~ 2000 kg

That would be coincidence. You need a bigger dataset.

 

[paralay]

I'm working on it

 

[Avimimus]

I suspect the 7400 kg payload includes internal fuel?

 

[LMFS]

I suspect the 7400 kg payload includes internal fuel?

Rather 7400 kg payload + 6-7 t fuel I guess

True, but official data is also estimates since they won't know for sure until the aircraft flies.

I'll add sources for all the information.

With all the appreciation for the intent and the effort: the data from UAC is official, they stand for them. They have simulated with very advanced mathematical models so they know very well what is safe to say. There are some numbers in that estimation above that are problematic, as Paralay mentioned.

As to the empty weight, that is pretty fundamental, and Russian basically never inform it. Was that mentioned in the presentation?

@paralay: are you sure it is 18 m and not 17? The previous measurements from the runway got the plane almost from the side, next to the tractor and with little distortion due to the distance.

That 26% is not so reliable, look up the Rafale for instance, with 9 t payload and MTOW 24.5 t

 

[velithcoigor]

Everyone forgot...N-102

 

[TR1]

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

LMAO, that's the original refueling probe from T-50 which was changed on later airframes. Did they outright cannibalized some of old ground airframes of T-50 to make this thing?!

I wouldn't doubt it, considering that they are trying to get this in the air as soon as possible.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

btw is there anyone who see gun-port in the Checkmate?

Earlier in the thread, there's text suggesting that the gun is an optional item that will be mounted within one of the forward 'cheek' bays, maybe as a pod, maybe as a more integral feature. So, you can expect to see the door modified with a port for the barrel, and an exhaust port at the rear too.

Could this suggest that the LTS has the option to be tailor made for each customer, or is it too early to say?

 

[FighterJock]

btw is there anyone who see gun-port in the Checkmate?

Earlier in the thread, there's text suggesting that the gun is an optional item that will be mounted within one of the forward 'cheek' bays, maybe as a pod, maybe as a more integral feature. So, you can expect to see the door modified with a port for the barrel, and an exhaust port at the rear too.

Could this suggest that the LTS has the option to be tailor made for each customer, or is it too early to say?

It would not surprise me Wyvern, some countries that order the LTS might want to do without certain technologies that are too expensive or they just do not want them.

 

[Acatomic]

As to the empty weight, that is pretty fundamental, and Russian basically never inform it. Was that mentioned in the presentation?

Ivan from Bolgaria has a friend that was at the presentation.

I know it sounds silly but it's true. Watch the video, there are a lot of interesting information there:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlRR129-W_8&t=638s


Source

 

[Mirage4000-5]

Are there any blueprints or could some one could make them?

 

[paralay]

T-75

 

[Anduriel]

@paralay What are teh missiles in the side weapon bays?
Also, your distance from central bay to engine turbine is too high:

https://imgur.com/K6htI42

View: https://imgur.com/K6htI42

 

[GARGEAN]

Izd.300 on scheme. Which is a bit sad since nothing was heard about it IRL for almost decade.

 

[NamedUser_]

T-75

I assume the measurements are in meters?

 

[Mike Pryce]

Designed by supercomputer.

Assembled with a sledgehammer?

 

[Grey Havoc]

We are not looking at some sort of 'active skin' in dormant mode, are we?

 

[paralay]

@paralay What are teh missiles in the side weapon bays?
Also, your distance from central bay to engine turbine is too high:

There can be a 25000 kgf engine right behind the weapons bay

 

[Hydroman]

I assume the same omni-directional, thrust vectoring engine as the SU-57 since there are no horizontal stabilizers, just wondering about pitch authority? The area below the all-moving vertical could be provisioned for H-Stabs and Actuators?

 

[Avimimus]

Designed by supercomputer.

Assembled with a sledgehammer?

Better than designed by sledgehammer, assembled by supercomputer!

 

[TR1]

Designed by supercomputer.

Assembled with a sledgehammer?

View attachment 661332

It's a rushed expo model (currently) with no sort of RAM.

I mean X-32 and X-35 looked like crap when they first flew too.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Anyway, the Russians (unsurprisingly) seem to be taking a similar path.

Everyone is doing the same, what strikes me is that US thinks they can get an advantage over their rivals by going that way. If all, it allows smaller economies to undertake more ambitious projects, since the development effort and cost is greatly reduced.

That´s why there is a race going on in the realm of HPC and AI between the major players.
I´m not 100% sure who has the lead right now, it might be a close call, maybe someone is (way) ahead.
It´s more then just developing a particular aircraft (or a series of several types of aircraft) and it´s subsystems, it´s about complete families of systems which interact with humans and with one another. The particular aircraft, how important it may be, becomes just one piece in a large complex puzzle.

 

[Anduriel]

There can be a 25000 kgf engine right behind the weapons bay

There is no such enine currently in Russia.
And no, Nk-32 is not fighter material, it's too everweight and it's 3-spool design is redundant for fighter plane, since there is no need for protracted AFB supersonic flight.

 

[Trident]

Designed by supercomputer.

Assembled with a sledgehammer?

In fairness, it's probably not quite as bad as it looks, flash photography at a grazing angle has a habit of vastly amplifying surface irregularities.

 

[GARGEAN]

Nk-32 is not fighter materia

Yak-43 disagrees

 

[zen]

With the right lighting and camera angle even Mick Jager's face can look smooth. So it should come as no surprise that the opposite is also true.

Besides if that's a test airframe then it's more focused on the behaviour of the structure.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

We are not looking at some sort of 'active skin' in dormant mode, are we?

Yeah, that or it's a roughly assembled shell. One or the other.

 

[CiTrus90]

Designed by supercomputer.

Assembled with a sledgehammer?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et8Tixucou0

 

[Mike Pryce]

Easy to straighten out

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4fBbhyzE9A


Unlike the rivets.

Presumably they could not have a simple plastic model if using real T-50 bits, so needed a rough metal mock-up to hang them off.

Either that or Ufimtsev was maskirovka.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Designed by supercomputer.

Assembled with a sledgehammer?

Better than designed by sledgehammer, assembled by supercomputer!

See 55:44

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-9ZfpjSyeM


It's a very credible looking design so I am interested to see if it makes it into real metal/composite.

The list of T-50 parts seems to be nose/cockpit, wings, fins, undercarriage, main bay.

Maybe they are not quite done designing the new fuselage.

 

[eagle]

As to the empty weight, that is pretty fundamental, and Russian basically never inform it. Was that mentioned in the presentation?

Ivan from Bolgaria has a friend that was at the presentation.

I know it sounds silly but it's true. Watch the video, there are a lot of interesting information there:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlRR129-W_8&t=638s


Source

"15 to 20 % more power than the F-35's engine" for the future engine.
Do the maths, that's about 49.5k to 51.5k pounds of thrust. Right...
Later of course the power of the new engine is supposed to be 40k lbs. Never mind that's actually less than the F135, but at least it sounds doable.

"16 to 17000 pounds empty weight"
Because typically, a fighters max. weight is double the payload, so empty weight is about max. payload. Right...

But it's only a bit silly, right? Methinks they don't know what they're talking about.

I guess empty weight is somewhere between 10 and 12 tons.

 

[Scar]

"15 to 20 % more power than the F-35's engine" for the future engine.

What?! Who they are referring on? Who told this nonsense?

 

[tequilashooter]

Well out of all the avionics at least we know this is new. https://rostec.ru/news/oak-i-shvabe...vmestnoy-rabote-nad-lts-checkmate-programmoy/

The Shvabe holding and the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), which are part of the Rostec State Corporation, have entered into an agreement to develop and supply the KOEPS-75 optoelectronic sighting system for the newest Russian light tactical aircraft Checkmate, presented at the MAKS-2021 International Aviation and Space Salon.

The LTS Checkmate aircraft will be equipped with an optical-electronic sighting system KOEPS-75, developed by the Ural Optical and Mechanical Plant named after E.S. Yalamov (UOMZ) of the Shvabe holding. In accordance with the requirements of customers, the complex in the basic version can be supplemented with landing and defense stations.

The agreement was signed by the General Director of the Shvabe holding Alexey Patrikeev and the head of the UAC Yuri Slyusar within the framework of the MAKS-2021 business program.

“The key factors in the successful completion of the task of equipping the new Russian fighter with optoelectronic equipment are the quality, economics and timing of work. The Shvabe holding possesses all the necessary competencies to solve the tasks set before us. We thank our colleagues from the UAC for their trust and for the fact that they have chosen us as executors, ”said Alexei Patrikeev, a member of the Bureau of the Union of Mechanical Engineers of Russia.

“LTS Checkmate is an advanced aviation complex, which is characterized by the ability to adapt to the needs of the customer, low operating costs and broad combat capabilities. We will improve the characteristics of the aircraft, using the potential and developments of Shvabe and other co-operatives, while designing and creating blocks of a new aircraft in a short time and at a given cost of the product, ”said UAC General Director Yuri Slyusar.

 

[Tass]

KOEPS-75.....is that another hint it will be Su-75 or just coincidence ?

 

[Deino]

Uppps

No, Russia's new fighter jet can't fly at twice the speed of light

Unless Fox News knows something the rest of us don’t, this was likely an error, but the Sukhoi Checkmate can still travel at Mach 1.8.

taskandpurpose.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1417852883232600064

View: https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1417852883232600064

 

[Ainen]

Uppps

Kessel run anyone?

 

[LMFS]

Constructive feedback to Paralay's layout, with great respect and appreciation

> Seems a bit longer than actually is, therefore bays and engine seem smaller in the model than in the reality
> The nose and fuselage in the side view are thicker than in reality
> 5t fuel is probably too low for the 3000 km range in that size of plane
> The aircraft is designed for an AL-31 (izd. 117S, 117, 30) sized engine, not 25 t one.
> The big size of the bay and relatively high payload do not mean the plane needs to be 28 t MTOW. We could build an estimation as follows 10 (empty) +6 (fuel) +7.5 (payload) = 23.5 t low estimation MTOW, 12.5+7.5+7.5 = 27.5 t high estimation. Probably 25 t is a reasonable number. Someone with actual industry experience may say what weight savings a 8 g structure would mean.

Thoughts welcome!