Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
I just made one realization: the Checkmate is the first medium/light weight fifth gen to use side bays.

X-32 also had its bays in the flanks of its tall fuselage (in fact there was no belly bay at all, AFAIK). One of several similarities, though Boeing positioned them right next to the main landing gear (good for STOVL, as that put them very close to the CG, but probably a pain to load).

Regarding weight, I've notched up my estimation of its size and weight considerably as more information became available - it's definitely in the medium class, only marginally lighter than the F-35 (if at all). Not sure what configuration the quoted 18t take-off weight represents, but I doubt it's actually the maximum. The main weapons bay is the same as those on the Su-57 (i.e. up to 2x 800kg munitions!) and so, amazingly, are the tail fins, cockpit section and probably even the wings! On the Su-57, the latter aren't actually as big as they seem, most of the area is contributed by the truly massive centroplane, making them a decent fit for this smaller airframe.

All this combined makes for an aircraft that approaches the F-35 in size, and any weight advantage from not requiring any hooks for STOVL is probably lost to adopting "overbuilt" structure from a much larger aircraft. It's an incredibly bold and potentially very clever move, it's quite astonishing how well these borrowed parts, made for something twice the size, come together into a coherent design! I've always been impressed by how much commonality Lockheed-Martin was able to achieve while satisfying the wildly contradictory requirements of the three F-35 variants, but even that seems almost pedestrian in comparison. Could go some way toward explaining the seemingly ridiculously low cost, though I'm sure some massaging was involved in arriving at those figures regardless.

All in all, I expect an OEW of around 12t, possibly a bit more.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
X-32 also had its bays in the flanks of its tall fuselage (in fact there was no belly bay at all, AFAIK). One of several similarities, though Boeing positioned them right next to the main landing gear (good for STOVL, as that put them very close to the CG, but probably a pain to load).

Regarding weight, I've notched up my estimation of its size and weight considerably as more information became available - it's definitely in the medium class, only marginally lighter than the F-35 (if at all). Not sure what configuration the quoted 18t take-off weight represents, but I doubt it's actually the maximum. The main weapons bay is the same as those on the Su-57 (i.e. up to 2x 800kg munitions!) and so, amazingly, are the tail fins, cockpit section and probably even the wings! On the Su-57, the latter aren't actually as big as they seem, most of the area is contributed by the truly massive centroplane, making them a decent fit for this smaller airframe.

All this combined makes for an aircraft that approaches the F-35 in size, and any weight advantage from not requiring any hooks for STOVL is probably lost to adopting "overbuilt" structure from a much larger aircraft. It's an incredibly bold and potentially very clever move, it's quite astonishing how well these borrowed parts, made for something twice the size, come together into a coherent design! I've always been impressed by how much commonality Lockheed-Martin was able to achieve while satisfying the wildly contradictory requirements of the three F-35 variants, but even that seems almost pedestrian in comparison. Could go some way toward explaining the seemingly ridiculously low cost, though I'm sure some massaging was involved in arriving at those figures regardless.

All in all, I expect an OEW of around 12t, possibly a bit more.

I guess I should've made it clear -- Checkmate is the only proposes fifth gen with dedicated side bays for WVR missiles. Technically the F-35 didn't have ventral bays either going by the F-32 example.

This makes me feel that this bird is a lot more capable, or is planned to be, in WVR than a lot of analysts are giving it credit for.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
It may end up being bigger, somewhat over 30 million, but it is worth remembering that a wage of any worker working in the production and development chain of f35 and his counterpart in russia for the LTS is hugely different.
SU35 runs estimates are between 40-60 million unit cost though it’s been sold for 80 million. You are saying that this thing will cost less than a hot rod version of an established platform of development. I know the Russians can pay less but that’s not realistic. It’s beyond under bid. Might as well have offered for $10.56.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
SU35 runs estimates are between 40-60 million unit cost though it’s been sold for 80 million. You are saying that this thing will cost less than a hot rod version of an established platform of development. I know the Russians can pay less but that’s not realistic. It’s beyond under bid. Might as well have offered for $10.56.
F-15EX is more expensive than F-35, too.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
What is the likelihood of China putting political pressure on Russia to stop them supplying this to potential adversaries? China is Russia's biggest economic partner and geopolitically they are natural allies. I don't see that sitting well with Russia arming the likes of Vietnam and India with what seems to be a very capable and cheap aircraft.

Perhaps a secret software backdoor disabling stealth in case of conflict with China or something.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
F-15EX is more expensive than F-35, too.
Short term. Then again when F35A was earlier block it cost as much as current early F15EX. My point is the 30million dollar figure doesn’t make any sense at all. It sounds much like claims of the cost of SU57 or Armata costing fractions of current equivalent.
 
Top