Sukhoi T-75 LTS (CheckMate)

Well, they have the S-70 Okhotnik-B project for that purpose. But an LTS derived unmanned drone would provide supersonic dash (which can be useful for supporting a supersonic platform) as a kind-of loyal wingman, and you can sell a manned export version to cover some of the development costs. I think there is a room for both doctrinally.
 
Avimimus said:
Well, they have the S-70 Okhotnik-B project for that purpose. But an LTS derived unmanned drone would provide supersonic dash (which can be useful for supporting a supersonic platform) as a kind-of loyal wingman, and you can sell a manned export version to cover some of the development costs. I think there is a room for both doctrinally.
Click to expand...
Okhotnik is not quite what I mean, it is certainly as complex as the Checkmate. What I propose would be more in the class of nEUROn, Anka 3, X-47B, etc. . It would be less complex and cheaper to acquire&operate.
 
It's clearly seen that it's not.
 
VTOLicious said:
Still a very attractive appearance, but will it ever materialize? I actually very much hope so, from an aviation enthusiasts point of view!
Click to expand...
And why shouldn't it materialize? Just because of some media-suggested current "inability of the Russian industry to develop combat aircraft"?

1. Commercial aspect: Rostec is pushing this project because it knows that this is the only exportable and competitive combat aircraft of Russian manufacture for the future. We're not talking about the next 5 years, but the next 50 years. The world is changing very rapidly now, and considering the dynamics with which BRICS is growing (number of member states, economic strength, and aggregated military power), we can assume that the situation will be completely different in the next decade than it is now.

2. Military aspect: It seems that the military is interested in the T-75 platform, especially given recent combat experiences. Btw, the image above was taken (without source attribution) from the Telegram channel "Fighterbomber," which is allegedly connected to the interests of the VKS command, not only by the fact that it is run by an active pilot. He described this image as the future of operational-tactical aviation.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2024-07-30-13-17-26-14_948cd9899890cbd5c2798760b2b95377.jpg
    Screenshot_2024-07-30-13-17-26-14_948cd9899890cbd5c2798760b2b95377.jpg
    464.3 KB · Views: 295
Caption under unmannad variant says "ЛТС Т-75Б". "ЛТС" means Light Tactical Aircraft, and now it's clear that "Б" stands for Unmanned. Just like "Б" in "С-70Б".
 
Last edited:
Geo said:
2. Military aspect: It seems that the military is interested in the T-75 platform, especially given recent combat experiences.
Click to expand...
As far I remember, there was a quote from a high-ranked speaker, that Russian military is still not interested in manned single-engine aircraft. So there aren't many options.
 
Geo said:
2. Military aspect: It seems that the military is interested in the T-75 platform, especially given recent combat experiences.
Click to expand...
How 'recent combat experiences' did advocate the need for single-engined fighter for RuAF?
Geo said:
Btw, the image above was taken (without source attribution) from the Telegram channel "Fighterbomber," which is allegedly connected to the interests of the VKS command, not only by the fact that it is run by an active pilot. He described this image as the future of operational-tactical aviation.
Click to expand...
Fighterbomber is not 'connected to the interests of the VKS command', neither he's an active pilot.
 
Haven't you noticed that a lot has changed since May 14, 2024?

ИТ is not an active pilot? Or at least wasn't recently? Really?
 
TSARb said:
As far I remember, there was a quote from a high-ranked speaker, that Russian military is still not interested in manned single-engine aircraft. So there aren't many options.
Click to expand...
I wonder where that policy comes from and what's the justification. The Mig-23/Su-17 and earlier Soviet fighters were all single engine. Engine tech has bound to have improved loads since then so there's even less reason to stay away from single-engine jets.
 
...
 

Attachments

  • 20240729_172633.jpg
    20240729_172633.jpg
    3.1 MB · Views: 289
  • 20240729_172515.jpg
    20240729_172515.jpg
    3.1 MB · Views: 279
  • 20240729_172421.jpg
    20240729_172421.jpg
    3.2 MB · Views: 267
  • 20240729_172605.jpg
    20240729_172605.jpg
    3.1 MB · Views: 282
  • 20240729_172552.jpg
    20240729_172552.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 295
Archibald said:
I would like to give my feelings about that plane future, but the Ukraine war makes it impossible to discuss such matters rationaly, so...
Click to expand...
To look at it dispassionately, the T-75 is a project that is more pragmatic than revolutionary and exists entirely within the realm of possibility.
 
TinWing said:
To look at it dispassionately, the T-75 is a project that is more pragmatic than revolutionary and exists entirely within the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...
Well, it's revolutionary in how pragmatic it is - and sitting on the shoulders of concurrent programs (su-57, su-57m, s-70) it shouldn't be lacking.
The only small problem is of course making it
 
Last edited:
I think we're all new considering that W. E. W. "Teddy" Petter might have been on to something - at least in a war that doesn't lead to a full nuclear exchange.

So, if affordability can transfer to a higher production rate, then there is an appeal to lighter designs. On the other hand, the ability to persist in environments where surface to air missiles may exist may drive up costs (both stealth requirements and performance requirements) - and there is also the issue of avionics costs and whether a single engine really provides that much savings overall.

Then there is the context of a lot of export situations where we're talking about situations more along the lines of an airforce of 24 fighters going up against one with 30 fighters... which is a completely different set of requirements than what we usually think of... and the effect of even small numbers of exports on subsidising production.

In short, none of us can say whether the Su-57 or Su-75 will become major fighters for the VKS... the balance of these calculations isn't clear yet.
 
TinWing said:
To look at it dispassionately, the T-75 is a project that is more pragmatic than revolutionary and exists entirely within the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...

I agree. Especially with apparent T-50 technologies being employed. All it needs now is perhaps political support to get it running. Especially if desire to have "medium" fighter exist. After it flies and demonstrated, then things can be hoped to flourish.
 
Imagine if they joined these two things:
IMG_0249.png

IMG_0169.png

But honestly, I would take thrust reverses over flat nozzle anytime. That would give it some extreme STOL capability. As we can see from this conflict Air bases are OK during peace time but during war they’re nice big juicy targets. Dispersed ops is (at least I believe that) the new norm.
 
I feel this design has the potential for being more stealthy than the su-57. The engine is hidden better, it lacks horizontal tails. It smaller and most likely cheaper to operate.
 
Acatomic said:
Imagine if they joined these two things:
View attachment 736028

View attachment 736029

But honestly, I would take thrust reverses over flat nozzle anytime. That would give it some extreme STOL capability. As we can see from this conflict Air bases are OK during peace time but during war they’re nice big juicy targets. Dispersed ops is (at least I believe that) the new norm.
Click to expand...
You can fix runways within hours, that could indeed be a problem during the initial hours of a conflict but in a long duration combat environment that'd hardly matter much against a peer/near-peer as we've seen in Ukraine.

That'd be an investment worth looking into if you're island hopping as in the Pacific but aside from that it just increases compexity and costs (without a significant ROI). And mind you, in every kind of procurement ever it is always about getting the most bang for the buck.
 
Last edited:
snne said:
You can fix runways within hours, that could indeed be a problem during the initial hours of a conflict but in a long duration combat environment that'd hardly matter much against a peer/near-peer as we've seen in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
There are ways to damage them for much longer, Russia(and, to be fair, almost anyone else) didn't bother to procure it in standoff form
 
snne said:
That'd be an investment worth looking into if you're island hopping as in the Pacific but aside from that it just increases compexity and costs (without a significant ROI). And mind you, in every kind of procurement ever it is always about getting the most bang for the buck.
Click to expand...
I think they already made such an investment. From the patent on double seat version of Su-57:

“The aircraft is characterized by the fact that the wing consoles are smoothly connected to the fuselage, the fuselage extension is located above the engine air intakes and includes controlled rotating parts, the aircraft engines contain a jet nozzle with a deflectable thrust vector and a thrust reverser,…”

ИЗ №2807624

www.fips.ru www.fips.ru

It does have a parachute system, but trust reverser would be more practical:
LTS (T-75) parachute patent

 
And is it necessary to hurry at the expense of maturing the project and incorporating the results of combat experience?
The T-75 platform can easily begin to replace part of the world Flanker fleet in the second half of the 30s (the current conflict shows that - in the given conditions - a combat radius of up to 1000 km is more than sufficient).
 
Sukhoi is in a tight spot here; the export market for Russian fighters has closed; China now makes their own stuff, India is trying to build their own projects, there is sanctions galore. They will have to be careful with how they allocate funds and what projects they build to secure their future.
 
The two biggest export customers for Russia are no more so they need to find new customers elsewhere mainly some of the African countries that don't buy western fighters due to the cost, so the Su-75 may be an attractive option especially for those that still operate the MiG-21.
 
So no idea as to when the Su-75 will fly then? It will be a pity if it does not fly, all that effort put into designing the fighter for nothing.
 
Acatomic said:
I think they already made such an investment. From the patent on double seat version of Su-57:

“The aircraft is characterized by the fact that the wing consoles are smoothly connected to the fuselage, the fuselage extension is located above the engine air intakes and includes controlled rotating parts, the aircraft engines contain a jet nozzle with a deflectable thrust vector and a thrust reverser,…”

ИЗ №2807624

www.fips.ru www.fips.ru

It does have a parachute system, but trust reverser would be more practical:
LTS (T-75) parachute patent

Click to expand...
Makes you winder why more fighter jets do not have thrust-reversers.
 
riggerrob said:
Makes you winder why more fighter jets do not have thrust-reversers.
Click to expand...

Weight and complexity, weight especially as Thrust reverser is practically a deadweight for most of the time and not contributing to mission or performance.

Landing gears too, but it's needed for the aircraft to properly land.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom