Sukhoi T-75 LTS (CheckMate)

[Ainen]

But Tempest, SCAF/NGF and NGAD are the first of a new generation of 'systems of systems'. Checkmate belongs to the past generation of platforms.

It went through conceptual design more or less simultaneously with them - and at least in terms of "system of systems" one doesn't have to look higher than the top of this page.
While for SCAF/NGF it may very well be true(they are very far to the right), NGAD is likely to be almost parallel development.
I.e. I'd rather see the actual NGAD first before drawing conclusions. Right now it is a bit premature.

 

[Jackonicko]

Checkmate is a very conventional standalone airframe, and has not been designed alongside a system of loyal wingmen, adjuncts and effectors. Tempest, NGF/NGWS/SCAF, NGAD all have. Russia has not begun to develop the kind of network that such a system would require.

Let's ignore inconvenient truths for a moment, and pretend to take Checkmate seriously. It's still a down and dirty 'bitsa' blending a new fuselage with the existing nose, wings and tailfins (but not the horizontal tail) of the bigger, heavier, twin engined Su-57. It's hardly the product of a proper design process, let alone the kind of process that has produced the new generation of aircraft.

Calling Checkmate an aircraft 'belonging to the past generation of platforms' is actually being rather kind. If it is, then it's a KF-21, not an F-22 or F-35.

 

[Jackonicko]

I do wonder how many of those extolling the virtues of the Checkmate have actually seen it up close?

Have walked up to it and touched it? Have rapped their knuckles against different areas, and worked out, with growing amazement, that the bits of it that weren't salvaged from the wreck of a crashed T.50 are actually plywood, MDF or fibre glass?

And have then started to wonder about how much of Sukhoi's sales pitch is empty rhetoric?

If you were a first year aero eng student and someone asked you to describe what you'd do to create a single-engined derivative of a big, twin engined heavy fighter, what answer would get you an A grade, do you think?

1) The student who said that with modern computing, and following the example of Boeing/Saab on the T-7A, it's probably just as cheap to redesign the airframe (at least) from scratch.

2) The student who said we could base it on the T.50, but we can reduce weight and drag by making the wings and fins a fair bit smaller, and we can pay careful attention to weight and drag.

3) Or the guy who said we could use the T.50 wing and tailfins exactly as is - they'll be too big, too heavy, too draggy, and not optimised for the new design, but who cares, I've got other stuff to do.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Expecting Checkmate to be in the same generation as NGAD is... counterfactual.

 

[FighterJock]

Expecting Checkmate to be in the same generation as NGAD is... counterfactual.

No way is Checkmate Sixth Generation, I would say it is more or less a 5th Generation Plus aircraft.

 

[Anduriel]

TBF we're not even decided as what 6 gen aircraft is supposed to be.
Unlike gen4 to gen5 there is no clear distinction.

 

[FighterJock]

TBF we're not even decided as what 6 gen aircraft is supposed to be.

That is true Anduriel, there are some sixth generation technologies that are not even thought of yet, that is why the Tempest design will never be frozen.

 

[red admiral]

, that is why the Tempest design will never be frozen.

When look past the PR bollocks it's pretty obvious that you need to freeze before cutting metal etc. or loading the software into the computers.

You can then adapt through life, much like almost every other aircraft.

 

[Ronny]

Checkmate is pretty much Russian-F-35

 

[Ainen]

Checkmate is a very conventional standalone airframe, and has not been designed alongside a system of loyal wingmen, adjuncts and effectors. Tempest, NGF/NGWS/SCAF, NGAD all have. Russia has not begun to develop the kind of network that such a system would require.

Please scroll to the top of the same page? You'll literally see a loyal wingman there.
Afterwards, check the S-70 topic. There are more topics around(like A-100 one), but long story short - Russia (France, UK, China, even Iran - even if the latter can't do much with this basic knowledge) knows no less than every single open internet forum for the last decade.

Checkmate is pretty much Russian-F-35

Sort of - but two decades later.
The concept formed more or less at the same time with NGAD, as far as we can guess right now (2014-2017).

 

[Jackonicko]

The existence of S70, and a few drawings of an unmanned variant of an unbuilt fighter does not begin to demonstrate the existence of a serious, well conceived, and funded system of systems, nor even of the doctrine underpinning it.

 

[Jackonicko]

Expecting Checkmate to be in the same generation as NGAD is... counterfactual.

No way is Checkmate Sixth Generation, I would say it is more or less a 5th Generation Plus aircraft.

It's probably not even 5th Generation, let alone 5th Generation Plus. Like the Su-57, it's a hybrid - a 4th generation aircraft with some 5th gen characteristics. An F-35 it isn't.

 

[Josh_TN]

I don’t think we know enough about Su-57 or checkmate to make any clear generalizations about its technology level, especially with regard to 5th generation aircraft which is a somewhat nebulous definition already.

The far bigger problem from my point of view is producing either in meaningful numbers given previous production rates and future issues importing components. Even if Su-57 is purchased in the numbers and timeframe of it current contact, it is outnumbered 2:1 by F-35s in Norway, Finland, and Poland by the time the purchase is completed.

 

[Jackonicko]

I don’t think we know enough about Su-57 or checkmate to make any clear generalizations about its technology level, especially with regard to 5th generation aircraft which is a somewhat nebulous definition already.

The far bigger problem from my point of view is producing either in meaningful numbers given previous production rates and future issues importing components. Even if Su-57 is purchased in the numbers and timeframe of it current contact, it is outnumbered 2:1 by F-35s in Norway, Finland, and Poland by the time the purchase is completed.

1) 5th Gen is about a high degree of all aspect LO, integrated avionics, and fused sensors. The definition also originally included super manoeuvrability and supercruise, but this was relaxed, otherwise F-35 wouldn't have qualified! We do know that the two new Sukhois don't have 5th Gen qualities to the same degree as F-35, F-22, etc.

2) Limited production doesn't seem like a problem. Let the Russians rely on previous generation combat air that will be even more vulnerable to NATO 5th Gen!

 

[LMFS]

We do know that the two new Sukhois don't have 5th Gen qualities to the same degree as F-35, F-22, etc.

If The Drive says it, it must be true

 

[Ainen]

The existence of S70, and a few drawings of an unmanned variant of an unbuilt fighter does not begin to demonstrate the existence of a serious, well conceived, and funded system of systems, nor even of the doctrine underpinning it.

They demonstrate just that - and they were announced as loudly as possible (t-50-3, Su-57 third prototype).

There are more pieces of the system flying in Russia compared to Europe/UK(which haven't progressed far beyond the already deployed systems as of yet). The assumption that neither declared intentions nor hardware matter is at very least dubious. They matter way more than a couple of PPT slides with translucent lines between everything.

 

[Alifzero]

I don't really understand this discussion on Checkmate and Boramae being "obsolete" in 2027. I get it doesn't match the definition on what 5th gen for everyone. But it doesn't mean they not competitive in 2027 onward. History like to rhyming.
So if F-4 and Mig-23 can be relevant when F-16 produced like canned bread, and Rafale and Typhoon keep considered by many when F-35 also produced like canned bread. How are we can absolutely said Su-75/KF-21/TF-X/AMCA obsolete when NGAD got their chance to be produced like canned bread? It could be time when F-35 get into what F-16 experience now, hardly got any sale outside upgrade package.

 

[Ainen]

I don't really understand this discussion on Checkmate and Boramae being "obsolete" in 2027. I get it doesn't match the definition on what 5th gen for everyone. But it doesn't mean they not competitive in 2027 onward. History like to rhyming.
So if F-4 and Mig-23 can be relevant when F-16 produced like canned bread, and Rafale and Typhoon keep considered by many when F-35 also produced like canned bread. How are we can absolutely said Su-75/KF-21/TF-X/AMCA obsolete when NGAD got their chance to be produced like canned bread? It could be time when F-35 get into what F-16 experience now, hardly got any sale outside upgrade package.

LTS is a funny case - the only assumption its generation is being based on is its degree of stealth, which none of the participants can even start to measure (ok, with one exception).
But while it became a sign of bad taste to loudly talk about eyeballing Su-57 RCS, LMFS(and, funnily, S-70) doesn't even get that - it isn't stealth enough because it isn't.

One can't help but wonder if stealthiness is determined by fashionable light gray primer above all else.

 

[stealthflanker]

One can't help but wonder if stealthiness is determined by fashionable light gray primer above all else.

If this is the case.. it's sad and regrettable.

 

[Jackonicko]

We do know that the two new Sukhois don't have 5th Gen qualities to the same degree as F-35, F-22, etc.

If The Drive says it, it must be true

We don't need 'The Drive' to point out that neither the Su-57 nor the Checkmate are 5th Gen in the way that the F-35 and F-22 are. Just look at the shape, and then look at the materials. Lovely digital camouflage, but.....

 

[Jackonicko]

I don't really understand this discussion on Checkmate and Boramae being "obsolete" in 2027. I get it doesn't match the definition on what 5th gen for everyone. But it doesn't mean they not competitive in 2027 onward. History like to rhyming.
So if F-4 and Mig-23 can be relevant when F-16 produced like canned bread, and Rafale and Typhoon keep considered by many when F-35 also produced like canned bread. How are we can absolutely said Su-75/KF-21/TF-X/AMCA obsolete when NGAD got their chance to be produced like canned bread? It could be time when F-35 get into what F-16 experience now, hardly got any sale outside upgrade package.

It's not that they're obsolete. It's that they're NOT of the same generation as F-22/F-35, let alone the new 6th Gen programmes.

Given suitable upgrades, doctrine and tactics, even Gen 4.5 aircraft still have a part to play - look at F-15EX.

 

[Jackonicko]

The existence of S70, and a few drawings of an unmanned variant of an unbuilt fighter does not begin to demonstrate the existence of a serious, well conceived, and funded system of systems, nor even of the doctrine underpinning it.

They demonstrate just that - and they were announced as loudly as possible (t-50-3, Su-57 third prototype).

There are more pieces of the system flying in Russia compared to Europe/UK(which haven't progressed far beyond the already deployed systems as of yet). The assumption that neither declared intentions nor hardware matter is at very least dubious. They matter way more than a couple of PPT slides with translucent lines between everything.

They do not demonstrate anything of the kind.

Just look at what the Germans (for example) have been doing on swarming drones. Or look at what BAE have achieved in the field of autonomous systems.

Good looking CGIs and a demonstrator are all well and good, but do not demonstrate the existence of a serious, properly conceived and funded system of systems, nor even of the doctrine underpinning it.

 

[Ainen]

They do not demonstrate anything of the kind.

Selective blindness.

 

[LMFS]

Good looking CGIs and a demonstrator are all well and good, but do not demonstrate the existence of a serious, properly conceived and funded system of systems, nor even of the doctrine underpinning it.

I think you may be confusing yourself with some sort of supervisory board of Russian MoD. Fact is you don't have a clue about materials, RCS, avionics, budget or doctrine of the VKS and their new planes mate

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

As an aviation journalist of many years experience, with books and articles published, I think he has every right to express his view here without being accused of getting his knowledge from "The Drive".

More than one person who saw the Checkmate "demonstrator" believes it was only a mockup. Historically the only times people have reused existing components of aircraft to make a new one like this is for X-Planes and tech demonstrators, and purely for cost and expediency reasons.

 

[Ainen]

More than one person who saw the Checkmate "demonstrator" believes it was only a mockup. Historically the only times people have reused existing components of aircraft to make a new one like this is for X-Planes and tech demonstrators, and purely for cost and expediency reasons.

Mirage 2000 begs to differ.
You can make a whole new gen aircraft this way - and fine aircraft at that.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

More than one person who saw the Checkmate "demonstrator" believes it was only a mockup. Historically the only times people have reused existing components of aircraft to make a new one like this is for X-Planes and tech demonstrators, and purely for cost and expediency reasons.

Mirage 2000 begs to differ.
You can make a whole new gen aircraft this way - and fine aircraft at that.

Mirage 2000 doesn't reuse actual Mirage III parts. Its a ground-up new aeroplane, with the same basic wing planform. Your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Ainen]

More than one person who saw the Checkmate "demonstrator" believes it was only a mockup. Historically the only times people have reused existing components of aircraft to make a new one like this is for X-Planes and tech demonstrators, and purely for cost and expediency reasons.

Mirage 2000 begs to differ.
You can make a whole new gen aircraft this way - and fine aircraft at that.

Mirage 2000 doesn't reuse actual Mirage III parts. Its a ground-up new aeroplane, with the same basic wing planform. Your argument doesn't hold water.

...and LMFS is a ground-up new aeroplane, with a completely different basic platform - broadly similar to what we see in Tempest and FCAS.
Assuming design is solid(you have reasons to doubt it?) and platform alignment is achieved(it is - why originally aligned surfaces suddenly won't be aligned here?), the fact that it manages to reuse components from the production line of another airplane is just to Sukhoi's merit.

Just look at the shape, and then look at the materials.

From shape alone LMFS may very well be comparable/stealthier than F-22 / F-35. If there is an advantage for older US airplanes - it isn't in shape, it is in materials and advanced hotspot/edge treatment solutions...which we can only speculate about, for both sides.

Su-57 seems to be somewhat behind, but we really don't know how far. And only one person on this forum (maybe in the whole community) actually bothered to try to check - with processing power very competitive with what Lockheed/Northrop engineers had back in the 1980-90s, by the way.

Overall problem is that right now we still aren't even here with what we know about modern stealthy airplanes:

Spoiler: just an example from the past

 

[Jackonicko]

...and LMFS is a ground-up new aeroplane, with a completely different basic platform - broadly similar to what we see in Tempest and FCAS.

It simply is not new from the ground up. It reuses the nose, wings and tailfins from the Su-57. And that is insanity, as others have pointed out. You give yourself major sub assemblies that are not optimised to the overall design. Crazy!

If you want to make a smaller, lighter, single engined fighter, the very first thing you do is design a new wing.

 

[flateric]

It reuses much more below OML.
But radome is different.

 

[Ainen]

It simply is not new from the ground up. It reuses the nose, wings and tailfins from the Su-57. And that is insanity, as others have pointed out. You give yourself major sub assemblies that are not optimised to the overall design. Crazy!

it certainly is crazy, I agree. But there is Sukhoi behind it, and this name commands some reputation.
If it will work out - well, that will be something. Would be fun as some sort of potential template for other affordable multiroles.

Like, for example, a miniature, tailless 2:3 f-35 with carefully chosen available components.

 

[Alifzero]

Don't we think Checkmate 2x AGM/bombs + 2x AAM stealth load a bit limiting compared to F-35 8x SDB + 2x AAM? Is Russia have something similar to SDB for both Su-75 and Su-57?

 

[Alifzero]

It reuses much more below OML.
But radome is different.

So they can't fit in Byelka there? I really hope they can when they reveal it last year

 

[Jackonicko]

it certainly is crazy, I agree. But there is Sukhoi behind it, and this name commands some reputation.

Not when they do that. This can only be an attention getter, a placeholder, or a sad reflection of how bad a situation Sukhoi are in.

I was speaking to a senior design engineer who handled the PDR and CDR of an ongoing fast jet programme, just to see whether I was being unfair, or whether there was a reasonable explanation for the reuse of wings and tailfin, and there isn't.

This is not the same as using the wing from a Piper on an ENAER Pillan, or like using a scaled down and refined version of the Tornado wing on an AMX.

The Checkmate, as displayed at MAKS and Dubai, is a joke.

 

[Anduriel]

It reuses much more below OML.
But radome is different.

So they can't fit in Byelka there? I really hope they can when they reveal it last year

The sizes are the same as Su-57, so only limiting factor is power delivery (only one engine compared to two) and lack of side-looking arrays (though considering that nose part is also from Su-57, I don't see why not).

Don't we think Checkmate 2x AGM/bombs + 2x AAM stealth load a bit limiting compared to F-35 8x SDB + 2x AAM? Is Russia have something similar to SDB for both Su-75 and Su-57?

Russia doesn't have SDB analog. But SDB isn't panacea and can't used for all of targets.
F-34 have and edge in bomb variety and weight - afbovementioned SDBs, various JDAMs. Russia is behind here and Checkmate suffers as result, as, for example it can carry only two 500kg bombs internally, despite having space for larger munition - there is no 1000kg analog of mk84 and 1500kg bombs are too big to fit.
OTOH with missiles situation is better - you have 2xKH-58 anti-radiation missiles, or 2xKh-38 familiy.
F-35 yet to have internal a2g missile.

 

[Alifzero]

The sizes are the same as Su-57, so only limiting factor is power delivery (only one engine compared to two) and lack of side-looking arrays (though considering that nose part is also from Su-57, I don't see why not).

If the size is compatible, i don't see they not fitting Byelka although we know it will not in full power. Well will be good for its lifetime i guess.

Russia doesn't have SDB analog. But SDB isn't panacea and can't used for all of targets.
F-34 have and edge in bomb variety and weight - afbovementioned SDBs, various JDAMs. Russia is behind here and Checkmate suffers as result, as, for example it can carry only two 500kg bombs internally, despite having space for larger munition - there is no 1000kg analog of mk84 and 1500kg bombs are too big to fit.
OTOH with missiles situation is better - you have 2xKH-58 anti-radiation missiles, or 2xKh-38 familiy.
F-35 yet to have internal a2g missile.

Yeah they have advantage in missile, especially if the customer buy Kh-69. But still think countries like Myanmar would love to be able to carry 4 or more bombs in the bay.

 

[Ainen]

Not when they do that. This can only be an attention getter, a placeholder, or a sad reflection of how bad a situation Sukhoi are in.

Sukhoi, with Su-35s as the main fighter of RuAF, new, just finished Su-57, S-70 preparing for the first flight, and LMFS on track is in a very, very sorry state.

The Checkmate, as displayed at MAKS and Dubai, is a joke.

No problem. But in this case, excuse me for being blunt, I hold their opinion higher than yours.

Russia doesn't have SDB analog.

Strictly speaking, there is this mockup from MAKS2021 (Kh-50?). But its status is unknown.

 

[quellish]

From shape alone LMFS may very well be comparable/stealthier than F-22 / F-35. If there is an advantage for older US airplanes - it isn't in shape, it is in materials and advanced hotspot/edge treatment solutions...which we can only speculate about, for both sides.

Those are very bold claims. You seem to be saying "hotspot" and edge treatments on "older"(F-117?) US stealth aircraft contribute more to RCS reduction than shape does. Do you have any evidence to support this? Edge treatments limit the contribution of diffraction to the RCS. Typically after the shape of the aircraft has lowered the RCS significantly is when diffraction becomes a major scattering source. Without shaping the edge treatments are a waste of effort.

 

[Ainen]

Those are very bold claims. You seem to be saying "hotspot" and edge treatments on "older"(F-117?) US stealth aircraft contribute more to RCS reduction than shape does. Do you have any evidence to support this? Edge treatments limit the contribution of diffraction to the RCS. Typically after the shape of the aircraft has lowered the RCS significantly is when diffraction becomes a major scattering source. Without shaping the edge treatments are a waste of effort.

Maybe I wrote not clearly enough(i often do). That was precisely the point.
Stealthy geometry (as an engineering task of way of applying fundamental physics to a flying vehicle) isn't exactly a US specialty. Maybe it was 40 years ago, but from the 2010s onwards - no, not really.
So either "unknowns" produce some miracle we can't properly judge, or there is no substantial reason to assume that, for example, F-35 is stealthier than LMFS. It may be, it may be not, it may be the other way around. Or, far more likely, the picture isn't such black and white at all.

It's the same for hypothetical MR-X - it shouldn't be expected to be less stealthy than the F-35 just because it's intended to be cheaper. It may very well be made stealthier if size limitations won't be so strict.

For all those aircraft we can assume that survivability goals against notional targets were probably met in simulated runs. This knowledge can't be translated into RCS guesstimates.

 

[quellish]

Stealthy geometry (as an engineering task of way of applying fundamental physics to a flying vehicle) isn't exactly a US specialty. Maybe it was 40 years ago, but from the 2010s onwards - no, not really.

Yes, really.
In the United States both government and industry have invested in capabilities to predict, measure, and diagnose radar cross section. This includes static and dynamic ranges, static and dynamic diagnostics, software, and more. There are decades of hard won experience behind every facet and curve of an American very low observable aircraft.

No other country comes close to these capabilities. None of them have the full spectrum of diverse capabilities listed above. Many countries do not have the capability to accurately measure very low radar cross section targets. In the United States static radar cross section ranges have been shut down due to interference sources tens and hundreds of miles away. Other countries put their ranges in the middle of cities. Or have mounts / pylons that have larger returns than the targets.

So either "unknowns" produce some miracle we can't properly judge, or there is no substantial reason to assume that, for example, F-35 is stealthier than LMFS. It may be, it may be not, it may be the other way around. Or, far more likely, the picture isn't such black and white at all.

The F-35 and Su-75 were designed with very different goals. So was the F-117, B-2, F-22, etc. To compare how "stealthy" they are against each other is foolish.
But, if you must compare, taking the X-band return from the frontal sector of those two fighters you would probably see that even the F-35 is lower.