Sukhoi T-75 LTS (CheckMate)

[Avimimus]

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.

 

[snne]

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.

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.

 

[Mr.T]

 

[VTOLicious]

Still a very attractive appearance, but will it ever materialize? I actually very much hope so, from an aviation enthusiasts point of view!

 

[Elysium]

Damn the angle makes it hard to see, but is that a flat nozzle?

 

[flateric]

It's clearly seen that it's not.

 

[Geo]

Still a very attractive appearance, but will it ever materialize? I actually very much hope so, from an aviation enthusiasts point of view!

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.

 

[TSARb]

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".

 

[TSARb]

2. Military aspect: It seems that the military is interested in the T-75 platform, especially given recent combat experiences.

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.

 

[flateric]

2. Military aspect: It seems that the military is interested in the T-75 platform, especially given recent combat experiences.

How 'recent combat experiences' did advocate the need for single-engined fighter for RuAF?

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.

Fighterbomber is not 'connected to the interests of the VKS command', neither he's an active pilot.

 

[Geo]

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?

 

[Elysium]

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.

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.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

View attachment 735613

Please add the sources of any posted images please.

 

[flateric]

Haven't you noticed that a lot has changed since May 14, 2024?

what exactly?

ИТ is not an active pilot? Or at least wasn't recently? Really?

not active pilot since 2018

 

[stealthflanker]

Still waiting for prototype manufacturing and unveilling. Before building hype, this thing must fly first.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[Hydroman]

All the hype but they have to build and fly it.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Now that I see the model, one thing I can say for sure is that Sukhoi really designs the double-seater variants attractive

 

[Archibald]

I would like to give my feelings about that plane future, but the Ukraine war makes it impossible to discuss such matters rationaly, so...

 

[TinWing]

I would like to give my feelings about that plane future, but the Ukraine war makes it impossible to discuss such matters rationaly, so...

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.

 

[Ainen]

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.

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

 

[Avimimus]

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.

 

[igor-mich]

...

Dear, flateric can you tell me where these models are displayed?

 

[flateric]

Temporary exposition on Sukhoi 85 anniversary evening.
I guess they will appear at Army'24.

 

[igor-mich]

Temporary exposition on Sukhoi 85 anniversary evening.
I guess they will appear at Army'24.

Thanks

 

[stealthflanker]

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.

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.

 

[Acatomic]

Imagine if they joined these two things:




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.

 

[AGS-1787]

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.

 

[snne]

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.

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.

 

[Ainen]

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.

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

 

[Acatomic]

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.

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

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

 

[paralay]

Boeing has a maximum takeoff weight of 9842 kg, T-75 - 25000 kg
In one picture, the Boeing is enlarged to the size of the T-75, in another on a real scale

 

[F-14ATomcat]

when it is supposed to fly?

 

[Geo]

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).

 

[AGS-1787]

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.

 

[FighterJock]

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.

 

[stealthflanker]

It needs to fly first. Then it probably can attract VKS the potential first big user , after that, export market. No one really build fighter exclusively for export nowadays, not even Russia.

 

[FighterJock]

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.

 

[riggerrob]

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

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

Makes you winder why more fighter jets do not have thrust-reversers.

 

[stealthflanker]

Makes you winder why more fighter jets do not have thrust-reversers.

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.