Sukhoi T-75 LTS (CheckMate)

coreu said:
An analysis on the Su-75 as done by Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute, the J-20's designers.
Translated by "zwz" over on f-16.net
Click to expand...

Interesting analysis. It basically supports a lot of the more reasonable interpretations:
- The design can theoretically do what they claim, but not simultaneously (e.g. range figures require additional tanks reducing weapon loads etc.)
- The design will have inferior manoeuvrability compared to other types and will only be able to be partially subsonic without afterburner (rather than true super-cruise).
- It may be a decent replacement for the Mig-21 (especially if maintenance costs can indeed be kept down) although it is a much larger aircraft (almost twice the size)

Regarding the analysis - shouldn't the lower power-to-weight ratio and manoeuvrability also impact BVR and defence against surface to air missiles (i.e. make kinematic defence harder)? That is the one part of this analysis that seemed to be missing something.

That said, if air-breathing missiles become common in the next three decades than kinematic defence might become irrelevant?
 
To what address i should sent glasses for "Chengdu engineers" so that they can see the radome has the same diameter as on the Su-57?
Also a dictionary so they know the meaning of the word "mockup".
Estimation of RCS based on a photo. Seriously? Are these Chengdu engineers for sure, and not some swindlers?
?
 
Last edited:
Geo said:
It will be interesting to see what Russia does with the T-75 project in the context of the conflict in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
I believe nothing major will change for VKS.
Plan is: Su-57 for mostly Air to Air and Okhotnik for mostly Air to Ground/Surface targets. This conflict just showed that they needed them "yesterday" and in greater numbers that they have.

Maybe there's a chance for a unmanned version of LTS for VKS, but Okhotnik is much more capable platform (sensors and range).

That being said, what about Russian Navy?
During the MAKS 2021 presentation a carrier based version was mentioned. Mig-29K replacement maybe? I mean the plane was designed with STOL capability from the get go.

@paralay
What's the final assessment on the size of LTS?
As IRC it was approximately:
Length:17m
Width: 11m
Height: 4,7m

Thx
 
Last edited:
They have rather rich attitude knowing that until recently they were just building license and unlicensed airplanes. The vertical tails on the su-57 work as rudders and elevators, there is plenty
Jackonicko said:
Ainen said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

Sukhoi has delivered fewer than 20 Su-57s in 13 years, and has orders for just 76. This is not an economically viable programme.
Nor is the Su-57 particularly impressive, and it has struggled to win export orders.

The fact that the company is relying on what was meant to be an interim aircraft awaiting the development of the PAK-FA (Su-57) is a bit sad. And even that programme has hardly been a great money spinner.

Sukhoi is probably not receiving sufficient orders to cover its costs, it certainly isn't doing well.
Click to expand...
well it just means that the sanctions have worked to stop orders from coming, thus slowing down the program.
 
It is not unusual for Chinese and Russian defense industry watchers to make petty snipes at eachother. For different reasons. There are plenty who admire both Russian and Chinese designs. That said usually the Chinese military aircraft fans join in on looking down or expecting the worst in current Russian design. Russian military aircraft fans look at the chinese as copiers and upstarts.

I'm making broad generalizations here but all this sounds pretty typical to me. Many dont join in on the pettiness. I admire the new developments of the Chinese and they are truly stepping out into their own. I admire the new Russian developments because their ideology and design of military equipment is so different from the usual variations of the western approaches.

Frankly some of the criticisms strike me as odd and simplistic. Kind of similar to NI tier criticisms that I wouldnt expect from engineers much smarter than I am. Oh and I just got to see the f-16.net thread on this. The amount of seethe that comes from anything ruskie related is delicious to watch.

Edit: added a sentence
 
TVC has a number of potential advantages, but they actually depend on the specific configuration, and whether TVC is designed in from the start. There are also other means of getting manymof the same advantages e.g. larger aerodynamic control effectors
 
Yeah I think that report was s very simplistic, I honestly think the Russians had a leap with the su-27 family, I think they are top notch when it comes to aerodynamics, but their approach to weapon designs make them not try to built the ultimate weapon, but to fit their requirements without sacrificing practicality. The Su-27 flight by wire for example; seems to have a slight delay designed into the programming and it is made to be easy to fly. The airframe can pull things like a cobra by entering very high aoa, well why they didn’t make the thing extract more of that type of envelopes? I think they didn’t want to make the airplane more complicated to fly. Later versions like for example the su-33 Have less restrictive flight control. They never go for over complicated things like an sr-71 as far as I can tell. Is their approach to stealth bad? Think it is an approach that allows them to park them out in the frigid weather conditions in Russia, be useful and not be too complicated to fix. As far as I can tell the su-57 has a lot of interesting aerodynamic features that you don’t see on an f-35. Lifting body with a tunnel under, long center weapons bay, levcons that operate independently, tvc optimized design, not as an addition, all moving vertical tails, the gun port has a really cool design, lots of wing area, and it seems to have lots of power even with the current engine.
 
Re-reading the report.. well I'm kinda wonder why the comparison between Irbis and AWG-9. Phased arrays tho allows flexible dwell time and quick repositioning of the beam. So Irbis and subsequently AESA like N036 will have faster track rate and therefore better mid-course update ability and myriad other capabilities other than range.

The 350-400 km range can be achieved by other way than just power. In fact doubling the power is only 19% increase to range. One can also get more ranges from say extending the pulse (sacrificing minimum range) or doubling the dwell time. For example, making the pulsewidth say 2 microseconds instead 1 microseconds allows "gain" of 52% in range. For the same PRF's but this might be unlikely due to eclipsing loss. The PRF can then be reduced (e.g 250 KHz to 150 KHz) to prevent excessive eclipsing loss but still allow 39% gain in range which much better than mere increasing transmit power.

The other option is to double the dwell time. This for say same 250 KHz PRF allows 19% gain in range or the same as increasing transmit power by 2. The cost is of course it will take longer to search an area. But well isn't that's why GCI and AEW exist ? Does having to rely on external designation is a severe weaknesses ? Despite everyone in the block is trying to introduce more and more "net centric" in their warfighting ?

Also one can expect degradation of detection range when searching a wide area to be the same for ALL fighter radar, not limited to just Irbis. And this is not include the addition of things like signal strengh (SNR/Do) etc to ensure what is being detected is "real" target instead of false alarm. That could also be one other way to get more detection range, by lowering the threshold (thus accepts lower SNR's) Automatic detection AFAIK requires 15-17 dB's for 50% probability of detection and maybe as high as 24 dB's for 90% detection probability for a Swerling-1 Target. But what if we can make somehow lowering that threshold while keep false alarm probability low ? using like say 10 dB's. That allows for 19% gain in range. If one can go lower by say 3-4 dB's as suggested in Introduction to RF stealth.. one can gain 68% in range.

Phased array have the advantage here that it does not get constrained in terms of physical antenna movement so it can basically have any dwell time it wants. The cost is reduced detection rate as basically like one searching an area with a flashlight, his target is moving it takes longer to search the target as by the time the beam sweep into the area of the target, it may no longer be there. But wait... why we can't defocus the beam ? That's an option for AESA's or maybe a PESA like Irbis which have receive channel embedded in antenna. Something which slotted planar array or reflector antenna can't really do.

The other thing is TRM counts this is important to AESA. the thing is that what is the current N036 module configurations ? Does it the same as what NIIP shows back then ? Or do they actually improve. Piotr Butowski's article credit N036 with 1552 TRM's for the nose aperture. Comparing it with F-35's 1676 would make it looks pale but.. assuming same power rating the LTS only lose about 6% of the range from the TRM standpoint.

If the Russians does improves upon their module technology..the potential for the Su-57 aperture of 90 x 70 cm allows for 1953 TRM's which give about 12% advantage in terms of range. Limited by the cooling available in the aircraft.
 
A small reminder in the context of the T-75 idea & UAE :cool:
 

Attachments

  • 12-03-2003 02_18_22PM.JPG
    12-03-2003 02_18_22PM.JPG
    73.3 KB · Views: 118
Geo said:
A small reminder in the context of the T-75 idea & UAE :cool:
Click to expand...

That's "dream" Block 80's. but they went conservative with that.

---------

One thing related to LTS Stealth is, maybe Sukhoi can forego the nose IRST and rely on the one below intake instead. That will take care of most people's complain very fast. Or go with smaller IRST with subsequently trading off detection range due to smaller aperture.
 
Geo said:
Russia to invite India to LTS project:
tass.com

Russia set to invite India to Checkmate fifth-generation fighter jet project

The Checkmate incorporates the latest systems, including its open architecture configuration to meet the customerâs requirements and unique artificial intelligence technologies
tass.com tass.com
Click to expand...


Not have much hope after the FGFA. Especially if India desires something beyond the basic design of the airplane.

One thing i noticed about FGFA debacle was that the immense design changes demanded by India to the baseline T-50 which equates to new aircraft. The thing is JV or Joint Venture means each side contributes 50% in the project. If what i heard was right (50 : 50 shares for FGFA) Russians would end with aircraft which they wont really use yet have to contributes 50% of the cost.
 
Geo said:
Russia to invite India to LTS project:
tass.com

Russia set to invite India to Checkmate fifth-generation fighter jet project

The Checkmate incorporates the latest systems, including its open architecture configuration to meet the customerâs requirements and unique artificial intelligence technologies
tass.com tass.com
Click to expand...

I wonder if India would join the LTS/Checkmate program after all India dropped out of the FGFA program when they said that it was not stealthy enough, but who knows.
 
I think the point is, how much is India willing to kill: Both the AMCA and the LTS is IMO unlikely and within the Checkmate project India will at best be a junior partner who pays.
As such it will be interesting to see, what Russia offers and India has in mind with its own projects … since there is not only the AMCA but also the TEDBF.
 
From a pragmatic point of view, this may not be a hopeless solution at all.

It can also be a very good option in the prospective continuation of the AMCA and TEDBF programs (which is a Navy program). However, the Tejas Mk2 program would be in jeopardy, that's true.

Why?

Thus, India can solve the delay of AMCA and at the same time solve the desired diversification of aviation technology in the assumption of further Rafale purchases.

1. LTS can be operational much earlier than AMCA (perhaps by 10-15 years) if adequately funded.

2. It will offer sufficiently proven and robust technologies (India has good experience of operating Su-30MKI/AL-31FP) and:

3. ToT and production of entire aircraft (HAL has a complete infrastructure for the production of an originally Russian platform) according to the "Make in India" scheme (this was announced by the UAC during Army-2022);

4. the possibility of a share in the profit from exports to third countries;

5. LO design, distributed sensor system with full integration and proven radar with more than 1500 T/R modules;

6. open architecture and wide application possibilities of Indian technologies (there are also good experiences);

7. the possibility of integrating own weapons (the combination of 2x Astra Mk.2 + 2x scaled down Brahmos-M derivative in internal weapon bays can be extremely attractive);

8. unique capabilities that other platforms will not offer at the time (Izdeliye 810 ultra-long range AAM, Lichinka-MD hypersonic missile, etc.).
 
stealthflanker said:
But well isn't that's why GCI and AEW exist ? Does having to rely on external designation is a severe weaknesses ? Despite everyone in the block is trying to introduce more and more "net centric" in their warfighting ?
Click to expand...
The biggest problem with air forces that are GCI centric in their C2 structure is that they are more often than not very restrictive when it comes to pilot decisions and flexibility. Such has not been all that different with Russia, until very recently at the very least. Also you should not forget that the current "net-centric" isn't just connecting actors to a network. One of the biggest issue is ad-hoc and self-healing networks, which GCI-centred networks are not.

Obviously, for what they are, GCIs are much more heavily fortified and well protected and we are yet to see how an adequetly defended GCIs are to fare against attacks, but in any case those defences are compromised, which is more and more likely with better stealth, stand-off and introduction of atrritable drones, a major part of your network and C2 also goes down with them. That is not how you want to build your force "net-centric".

Geo said:
Russia to invite India to LTS project:
tass.com

Russia set to invite India to Checkmate fifth-generation fighter jet project

The Checkmate incorporates the latest systems, including its open architecture configuration to meet the customerâs requirements and unique artificial intelligence technologies
tass.com tass.com
Click to expand...
Geo said:
1. LTS can be operational much earlier than AMCA (perhaps by 10-15 years) if adequately funded.

3. ToT and production of entire aircraft (HAL has a complete infrastructure for the production of an originally Russian platform) according to the "Make in India" scheme (this was announced by the UAC during Army-2022);

4. the possibility of a share in the profit from exports to third countries;

6. open architecture and wide application possibilities of Indian technologies (there are also good experiences);
Click to expand...
1. This I agree, but under current economic conditions, "adequatly funded" sounds more like "if India foots the whole bill", which again feels very unlikely with all the Indian programmes on work. Also, if you recall how they've scrapped almost the entirity of MRCA program in favor of Tejas MWF (current MMRCA is more of a replacement for the scrapped FGFA deal), I don't see them scrapping the MWF in favor of the Russian LTS.

3. Based on how FGFA was canned, I don't think India will ever be satisfied with what Russia could realistically offer in terms of ToT and industrial workshare.

4. That sounds good and all, but India would be aware of significantly reduced export prospects of Russian aircraft following both CATSAA and more recently the war.

6. Could be possible, as seen by how the Indians have integrated their own MC into the MKI and is now planning to integrate their own AESA with future plans to even integrate self protection EW suite. Though would the Russians allow such endeavors? Considering how the individual sensors and RF systems are integrated in LMS, letting the Indians to intsgrate their own MC is not a possibility here, meaning that they'll need to let Indians integrate their own sensors and avionics as well as the OFPs to a Russian MC and RTOS. I don't think there have been such extensive integration of Indian subsystems to a Russian avionics architecture.

Overall I'm still skeptical of India taking the Russian proposal.
 
Given the current situation the Russians might be willing to transfer more technology and production to India. They'll need partners, are burning through a lot of their defense budget, and would likely find an alliance with India easier to sustain than one with China. So it might be a lot more likely than it was. Of course those same factors might also make it less likely (for diplomatic reasons).
 
One lesson of Ukraine is that everybody just needs more of everything, more planes, tanks, boats, artillery, more mass so that you aren't scared of losing one of your precious 30 aircraft.

In that case, if someone makes a MIG-21 / 23 replacement for the 4th gen era (a dubious question in itself if such a thing is possible), I could see renewed interest from external countries. But the designer would have to prove low operating costs and decent performance before anyone bought on, something tricky to prove ahead of time.

A second lesson of Ukraine is the major benefits from designs that can operate off highways and besieged airfields. It would be curious to see if this program returns to the Soviet rough-field practice.

Practically speaking: Russia will have to (at least) tie or win in Ukraine to get any major external arms deals in the near term, so the program's success depends on the battlefield.
 
Last edited:
didn’t Russian design a pretty fancy attack helicopter for China? And they went ahead and put it together? India could hire the Russians to do the aerodynamic studies and then build it themselves like China did.
 
So, almost two years have passed since the unveiling at MAKS 21... Any progress? Has a date for the first flight been announced yet?
 
They have been trying to get India onboard the Checkmate project, if they succeed that will make India the first foreign buyer for the Checkmate and will encourage other countries that currently use Russian military aircraft to buy the type.
 
FighterJock said:
They have been trying to get India onboard the Checkmate project, if they succeed that will make India the first foreign buyer for the Checkmate and will encourage other countries that currently use Russian military aircraft to buy the type.
Click to expand...
The main encouragmenet is usually official adoption into own airforce. Which, TBF, Russia does need, partially to offset looses in Ukrainian conflict, partially because for country of such big size and at odds with the most powerful military block that has world's first military as member 500 new tactical planes produced from 2000 is nearly not enough.
 
FighterJock said:
They have been trying to get India onboard the Checkmate project, if they succeed that will make India the first foreign buyer for the Checkmate and will encourage other countries that currently use Russian military aircraft to buy the type.
Click to expand...
India simply has too many projects on their plate. Tejas Mk.2, TEDBF, AMCA, MMRCA tender, etc. all eat up too many resources. Even developing an indigenous semi-stealthified Rafale at the dawn of the widespread use of 5.5th gen aircraft does not make any sense. It appears that there are many competing camps within their armed forces.

If I were them, I'd just commit most of the resources to existing/in active development aircraft that actually promise something, i.e. Tejas Mk.2 and the AMCA.
 
Anduriel said:
FighterJock said:
They have been trying to get India onboard the Checkmate project, if they succeed that will make India the first foreign buyer for the Checkmate and will encourage other countries that currently use Russian military aircraft to buy the type.
Click to expand...
The main encouragmenet is usually official adoption into own airforce. Which, TBF, Russia does need, partially to offset looses in Ukrainian conflict, partially because for country of such big size and at odds with the most powerful military block that has world's first military as member 500 new tactical planes produced from 2000 is nearly not enough.
Click to expand...
I agree, they need to accelerate the testing phase (if it can even get to that stage) through late 2020s and then replace the entire existing Flanker and Fulcrum production completely with Checkmate.

I have doubts whether they can induct a large number of Felons, that is why they need something like a modern Mig-21 asap.
 
Last edited:
So that effectively rules out a Checkmate purchase for now for the Indian Airforce, which is a shame because I would like to have seen the Su-75 in Indian airforce colours. As you rightly say snne they have too many in house projects to have money left over for a purchase of the Checkmate any time soon.
 
Cannonfodder43 said:
Other than news about the first few prototypes being assembled and the first flight being projected for 2024 things have been quiet.
Click to expand...
To be fair, whole Russian MIC went into silent war mode.

Officials showing stuff during visits, spotters - and that's all.

Like recently we only came to know that a new Russian HALE made it's first flight several months ago...through a US leak.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom