Almost featherweight in comparison to their fighters.It will be around 7.4 thousand kg
Two seat Su 35 variant weights almost as much as American F-111 bomber.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Almost featherweight in comparison to their fighters.It will be around 7.4 thousand kg
I think 7 tons is about payload, not jet weight.Almost featherweight in comparison to their fighters.
Two seat Su 35 variant weights almost as much as American F-111 bomber.
Official presentation, in English.
The specialist accompanying the head of state added that “ Support algorithms based on artificial intelligence have been applied, which eases the burden on pilots from routine operations and allows them to focus on key tasks.”The more I learn about this aircraft, the more I like it and the entire strategy by Sukhoi with the way they've brought it out and are trying to market it and most of all, the way they've managed to use certain parts already tested on the Su-57 and proven to work to cut down on the eventual testing coming up.
Also the fact that they named it "Checkmate" is really outstanding. If you go back into the storied history of Soviet aircraft building with giants like Mikoyan and Sukhoi and Yak etc. and into the new era post-communism Soviet Union of the late 80's all the way into current Russia, they never named their aircraft with a particular name. It was always a classification related to the type, followed by a number, like MiG-XX or Su-XX or even Yak-XX.
But never a name like the Mirage, or the Fighting Falcon or Eagle or Gripen or Phantom or Rafale etc. That actually drove NATO into pulling that BS NATO designations like Fishbed and Flogger and the worst of all, the insulting and denigrating Felon for the absolute deadly beauty and powerful Su-57. To call it the Felon is a disgrace and now I'm looking at the next creation after the Su-57 which is this aircraft here and before they even gave it a designation with a number, they've already given it a name for the first time in Soviet/Russian history, in hopes that now it gives NATO a useless task in coming up with one of it's own silly and defunct names that start with "F" for fighters but have asinine and cryptic intentions like Fagot, or Frogfoot, but especially Felon.
Maybe now that it HAS a RUSSIAN given name to it in the CHECKMATE, NATO will be forced to shut the heII up and not come up with a stupid and insulting name, but we know that won't happen. They'll still give it a "stick it in your face" name except now it'll be challenged as many -- if not most -- people out there will ignore the given NATO name and stick with the Checkmate. Brilliant strategy.
Also, the lack of horizontal stabilizers was a little perplexing to me at first since I'm sure others who watch a lot of fighters flying as well can notice how much the H-stabs are used to control pitch, even rolls and banking turns etc. The H-stabs are super valuable and play a huge role in an aircraft's maneuverability. Just on takeoffs alone, once the aircraft reaches rotating speed, the ever so slight pull back of the stick lifts the H-stabs just a tad bit and that's enough to raise the nose, bring more airspeed under the wing and immediately creates lift allowing the plane to instantaneously take off.
Suddenly we have an aircraft with essentially the same wing pattern as the Su-57 but sans the H-stabs which is conflicting TBH.
View attachment 763940
View attachment 763941
But then I thought of mostly delta aircraft (not delta/canards, just delta) like Mirages or Delta Dagger etc. They had no issues whatsoever essentially using their ailerons only on their delta wings to substitute for the function of the H-stabs and they did them very well. Looking at the two pics above, one can't help but think the Checkmate is missing something without the H-stabs and will take a while to get used to even when we saw the YF-23 perform incredibly well with essentially the same layout. However, in the YF-23, the canted stabilators were set at a much steeper angle than what we see here on the Checkmate. It was almost like they took the flat 180 degree of a standard H-stab and a standard pitched or canted vertical stabilizer (like what it would be on the F-18 or Su-57) and then split the difference and set them right in the middle middle angle of those two to compensate for the most of both angles. But it doesn't look like we see that here on the Checkmate and that the angle of the V-stabs is that of a normally pitched or canted vertical stabilizer. Strange that they didn't pitch those stabs a bit more but they should work just fine if the ailerons are large enough to compensate for the lack of H-stabs and the current angle of the V-stabs.
So those few items (albeit in great detail lol) are what I have taken from this great new inception for the Russian aviation industry and Sukhoi in particular. Looking forward to more pics of this fighter outside of all the crazy fancy lighting so we can see better and less distorted details.
Agreed ... A few years ago at Zhuhai 2018 during a small "private" lecture, Piotr Butowski talked about the fading away into insignificance of the Russian military aviation industry and predicted something like a swansong! Maybe this is one last final rearing up to prevent the inevitable end?
New Recruit