744SPX wrote:

Essentially a single engine SU-57. Looks like it uses the same cockpit (makes sense) and wings/tail surfaces look similar with the difference of not having horizontal tails. Looks to be aerodynamically superior to the F-35 with better area-ruling and fewer control surfaces. But then it doesn't have to be capable of STOVL flight. Probably not as stealthy. This might be closer to what the F-35 would look like if it wasn't for the Marines.

As great as the F-35 no doubt is, it does have some trade-offs that Sukhoi can dispense with here. With only one picture to go off I can't say for sure, but I wonder if there is space enough for internal storage? And how is the shielding of the engine blades handled? Might be an internal kink or radar reflecting strakes (I don't know the proper name in my own language or English) in the tunnel though. It's just a mock-up at this point though, so everything can change naturally.

It's got a very clean design from what can be see in that one picture though. Hopefully it will be cheap enough for Russia to mass-produce and solid enough to be improved over time.

Leovinus wrote:

744SPX wrote:

Essentially a single engine SU-57. Looks like it uses the same cockpit (makes sense) and wings/tail surfaces look similar with the difference of not having horizontal tails. Looks to be aerodynamically superior to the F-35 with better area-ruling and fewer control surfaces. But then it doesn't have to be capable of STOVL flight. Probably not as stealthy. This might be closer to what the F-35 would look like if it wasn't for the Marines.

As great as the F-35 no doubt is, it does have some trade-offs that Sukhoi can dispense with here. With only one picture to go off I can't say for sure, but I wonder if there is space enough for internal storage? And how is the shielding of the engine blades handled? Might be an internal kink or radar reflecting strakes (I don't know the proper name in my own language or English) in the tunnel though. It's just a mock-up at this point though, so everything can change naturally.

It's got a very clean design from what can be see in that one picture though. Hopefully it will be cheap enough for Russia to mass-produce and solid enough to be improved over time.

I saw another picture where it has 2 internal weapon bays on the "cheeks" below the cockpit. I'll see if I can find it. It might have been in the link that was posted earlier.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Slugman, the whole discussion and the other projects I said were military, we aren't in the civilian area here. You haven't acknowledged you were wrong about the J-15 and haven't given and justification for any other claims, ignoring the BRICs bonkers as well.

So back to the original stupidness, how can Russia buy some FC-31s that are only one maybe two prototypes that won't be ready for production for 10 years. China doesn't even operate them!!!!!

Except you never said a military example. You said "a single other" agreement. Which I did. And I'm not exactly wrong about the J-15. I didn't know that they acquired a single Su-33 prototype from Ukraine. However, most of the J-15 development came from the Su-27s they acquired from Russia. And still operate. They no doubt reverse engineered some improvements from the Su-33, which did upset Russia.
The J-15 further developed into the J-16. China also has Su-30s. But given that Russia still supplies engines, there is obviously some sort of compensation going on. And Russia still allowed them to acquire the much newer Su-35.

There is at least 3 prototypes of the FC-31, the wings and vertical tails have changes among all three. This is a lot further along than Russia's new mockup, which currently has to be towed around. Pooling their cash flow together would obviously have production advantages and speed things up.

I really dont get why you're so upset by this.

Again, one poor example outside of what we are rugging about does not a justification make.

Why I care, because you are spouting stuff like it is true when it is actually rubbish. FYI J-16 came from J-11 not J-15, they are totally different aircraft. If you can't get the basic poo right then what else also smells funny?

I never said anything "like it is true". The whole thing is a mute point anyway, given that it is being offered by Sukhoi, and not Mikoyan. All I was saying is, it would be cheaper for Mikoyan to approach Shenyang to license build a variant of the FC-31 Instead of a clean sheet, if they wanted a 5th gen offering. I was simply playing off a comment from a previous poster.
Anything more than that, was your interpretation of what I was actually saying. Maybe poor wording on my part.

I shouldn't have to spell out the obvious, but yes the J-16 came from the J-11. So did the J-15. Considering the J-15 is a single seat carrier fighter, and the J-16 is a 2 seat conventional fighter, the J-16 would not need the HD components and structural integrity the J-15 needs. By "further developed" I was only implying the applicable improvements that went into the J-15. If there were no improvements to take, they would have just kept building new build J-11s.....

This is seriously off topic now though.

Slug71 wrote:

Leovinus wrote:

744SPX wrote:

Essentially a single engine SU-57. Looks like it uses the same cockpit (makes sense) and wings/tail surfaces look similar with the difference of not having horizontal tails. Looks to be aerodynamically superior to the F-35 with better area-ruling and fewer control surfaces. But then it doesn't have to be capable of STOVL flight. Probably not as stealthy. This might be closer to what the F-35 would look like if it wasn't for the Marines.

As great as the F-35 no doubt is, it does have some trade-offs that Sukhoi can dispense with here. With only one picture to go off I can't say for sure, but I wonder if there is space enough for internal storage? And how is the shielding of the engine blades handled? Might be an internal kink or radar reflecting strakes (I don't know the proper name in my own language or English) in the tunnel though. It's just a mock-up at this point though, so everything can change naturally.

It's got a very clean design from what can be see in that one picture though. Hopefully it will be cheap enough for Russia to mass-produce and solid enough to be improved over time.

I saw another picture where it has 2 internal weapon bays on the "cheeks" below the cockpit. I'll see if I can find it. It might have been in the link that was posted earlier.

I somehow missed that link, but yes I see them clearly in the video there.

And the most recent teaser trailer certainly isn't being coy about who Russia would prefer as customers, showing pilots of the UAE, India, Vietnam and Argentina rushing to line up for the aircraft. Nicely done video though.

Leovinus wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Leovinus wrote:

As great as the F-35 no doubt is, it does have some trade-offs that Sukhoi can dispense with here. With only one picture to go off I can't say for sure, but I wonder if there is space enough for internal storage? And how is the shielding of the engine blades handled? Might be an internal kink or radar reflecting strakes (I don't know the proper name in my own language or English) in the tunnel though. It's just a mock-up at this point though, so everything can change naturally.

It's got a very clean design from what can be see in that one picture though. Hopefully it will be cheap enough for Russia to mass-produce and solid enough to be improved over time.

I saw another picture where it has 2 internal weapon bays on the "cheeks" below the cockpit. I'll see if I can find it. It might have been in the link that was posted earlier.

I somehow missed that link, but yes I see them clearly in the video there.

And the most recent teaser trailer certainly isn't being coy about who Russia would prefer as customers, showing pilots of the UAE, India, Vietnam and Argentina rushing to line up for the aircraft. Nicely done video though.

Yeh I have high doubts about the UAE or India though. The UAE is almost cleared for the F-35. And India.....well we know how that goes. They're that person that change their clothes 3 times a day, but wear the same underwear for days.

Is it me or did they took the cue for the air scoop from the X-32?

bt

Slug71 wrote:

Yeh I have high doubts about the UAE or India though. The UAE is almost cleared for the F-35. And India.....well we know how that goes. They're that person that change their clothes 3 times a day, but wear the same underwear for days.

I know too little in depth about either nations security needs, local ambitions, and international positions to make anything remotely resembling a fair assessment. But it wouldn't surprise me if Russia is quite willing to make trade off-sets and package deals to sweeten any potential deal. Russia needs international partners, be they above or below board. I'm quite interested in knowing how they feel with regards to China stepping in and applying similar tactics as they did previously. Especially as international pressures are making the two become more or less forced to cooperate. I don't think national pride would ever allow Russia to play second fiddle to China. Equals or nothing. So they kind of need something like the new fighter to succeed. If for no other reason other than to gain "friends" and put a foot down with regards to China.

Again, I'm widely speculating. Though I think there is some logic to that speculation vis-a-vis Russia, how any overtures will be welcomed by their target nations is another story. UAE might take a chance on it if the price is right and their other powerful political interests (the US and Saudi Arabia primarily) don't object much too loudly. India would most likely be rather hesitant. I don't understand your saying there, but I think I get what you're saying. But India wants IP and their own production lines. And partnerships with Russia has generally soured of late. But Russia could make amends. Who knows?

Argentina and Vietnam are nations I know next to nothing about security wise. So I won't even try with them. What would Russia be able to gain from them aside from their purchases of the fighter? And would Russia be likely to offer better deals for those resources than say... China?

bikerthai wrote:

Is it me or did they took the cue for the air scoop from the X-32?

bt

I wonder if it isn't more likely that, given the purpose and requirements for the scoop, the math guided them to the same place?

Leovinus wrote:

the math guided them to the same place?

It's probably the physics and the desire to have those two additional forward weapon bay and mentioned above.

Still can't help but recall the ridicules the X-32 received with the high wing and chin inlet. Though the final F-32 proposal looked slightly better.

bt

Makes me wonder about the fighter prototype the USAF has apparently flown. If they made a F-35 relative with all the VTOL requirements removed minimizing complexity while leveraging the technology developed for the F-35... it would likely have moved fairly quickly (as it seems to have). It feels like this is what the Russians did with this fighter, just made a smaller SU-57 relative rather than completely reinventing the wheel. Subtract an engine, adjust the airframe accordingly... boom, light fighter.

Oroka wrote:

Makes me wonder about the fighter prototype the USAF has apparently flown. If they made a F-35 relative with all the VTOL requirements removed minimizing complexity while leveraging the technology developed for the F-35... it would likely have moved fairly quickly (as it seems to have). It feels like this is what the Russians did with this fighter, just made a smaller SU-57 relative rather than completely reinventing the wheel. Subtract an engine, adjust the airframe accordingly... boom, light fighter.

If you're referring to NGAD, you may not be far off. The way I see it, this SU-75 is what many countries may be quickly realizing: field a smaller contingent of true stealth fighters for the first strike of the war, then rely on a lighter and cheaper Gen 5.5 aircraft like this as the stalwart stealthy bulk force. In terms of the US, you have your F-22 playing air superiority, F-35s playing air dominance, and then NGAD playing the role of your F-16s and A-10s. For Russia, you have your SU-57, SU-30s (30-34-35) and then this SU-75 can factor in for the role of MiG 29s and SU-27s.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-air-force-has-built-and-flown-a-mysterious-full-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/

bikerthai wrote:

Still can't help but recall the ridicules the X-32 received with the high wing and chin inlet. Though the final F-32 proposal looked slightly better.

bt

Personally I have a soft spot for the F-32, even the prototyper chonker. Kind of reminded me of a futuristic Sabre. And the chunky prototype looked happy!

Apparently the high wing was a production saving technique (though very novel and complex at the time), as the entire CFRP wing could be made as one part. Making the design a bit modular and easier to assemble.

In lots of ways I wouldn't have minded it reaching full production. It looked less elegant and less lithe, but I'm sure it would have become a useful setup. and possibly cheaper since it didn't use a dedicated lift engine. But that's all speculation of course.

In fact I'm surprised at how lithe the Sukhoi appears. It reminds me of the F-5/F-16 etc in that respect. And I'm sure plenty of nations wouldn't mind cheap stealth. So long as it actually provides on the stealth part.

It's going to look fantastic in the next Ace Combat game.

I'd really like for this to be more than just a mockup and more like flyable prototype.

Slug71 wrote:

They're that person that change their clothes 3 times a day, but wear the same underwear for days.

Thanks, I'm definitely stealing this!

Oroka wrote:

It feels like this is what the Russians did with this fighter, just made a smaller SU-57 relative rather than completely reinventing the wheel. Subtract an engine, adjust the airframe accordingly... boom, light fighter.

They certainly seem to have solved the engine shielding issue from the Su-57...

Honestly this whole thing looks a lot more interesting and better considered than the Su-57, which always had a bit of "warmed over Flanker" air about it.

Leovinus wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Still can't help but recall the ridicules the X-32 received with the high wing and chin inlet. Though the final F-32 proposal looked slightly better.

bt

Personally I have a soft spot for the F-32, even the prototyper chonker. Kind of reminded me of a futuristic Sabre. And the chunky prototype looked happy!

Apparently the high wing was a production saving technique (though very novel and complex at the time), as the entire CFRP wing could be made as one part. Making the design a bit modular and easier to assemble.

In lots of ways I wouldn't have minded it reaching full production. It looked less elegant and less lithe, but I'm sure it would have become a useful setup. and possibly cheaper since it didn't use a dedicated lift engine. But that's all speculation of course.

In fact I'm surprised at how lithe the Sukhoi appears. It reminds me of the F-5/F-16 etc in that respect. And I'm sure plenty of nations wouldn't mind cheap stealth. So long as it actually provides on the stealth part.

Even the wing (delta shape) and lack of horizontal tail, bares similarities to the X-32. Very sleek looking in this form.
I dont know why, maybe because it's so different for a Russian fighter, but I keep thinking of it as more of a Advanced Trainer fighter. Even though its clearly not.

Summary of specs so far known:

Max. speed: 1.8-2.0 Mach
Max. combat radius: 1500 km
Max. range: 3000 km
Max. load: 7400 kg
Max. altitude: 16,500 m
Max. limit: 8 g
STOL: several hundred meters

Weapons in bays: up to 5 air-air missiles (2x RVV-MD, 3x RVV-SD)
Weapons under wings: anti-ship missiles (2x Kh-59MK)

First flight planned: 2023
New test planes: 2024-2025
Initial series: 2026
Time to serial production: 5.5 years

Cost: under 30 million USD per plane
Possible orders: up to 300 plane

alberchico wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7BHZGtQjPI&ab_channel=%D0%A1%D0%95%D0%93%D0%9E%D0%94%D0%9D%D0%AF

Beautiful aircraft, have to say. I do wonder why they didn't make the cheek weapons bays go all the way down alongside the air intake. That way you could have increased storage and avoided that awkward little step. Though in the grand scheme of things my aesthetic wants and wishes have no bearing on the quality of the product I'm sure. Still, it irks me however. Overall I like the looks of it though.

Looking at the portrayed image behind it, the wingtip looks like it's all moving? Or is it a ripple in the screen used for the projection? I can't quite tell.

Fresh video from Rostec.
In English.

https://youtu.be/PNDrTSDmaZY

The name seems to be SU-75 Checkmate.

The internal weapon bays (i assume one in the front) can house a cannon / gun instead of a missile.
It uses AI to a high degree, simplifying the operation of the plane for the pilot, especially in combat.

Designed and built in record time, with a "supercomputer".

The narrator in the video said it was "ready to fly", but I don't know if that's accurate. The model in the video seems to be a fairly complex mockup.

India will spend the development life cycle of this aircraft trying to the get the LCA to final spec instead of buying this aircraft.

sturmovik wrote:

India will spend the development life cycle of this aircraft trying to the get the LCA to final spec instead of buying this aircraft.

Or it will repeat the SU-57 story. The aircraft will fly in a few years as a highly unstable and experimental prototype. It will have an engine failure and a crash. 13 years after the first unveiling Russia will then only have a dozen of these prototype aircraft built with severe design flaws. Zero sales and they will still be waiting for improved engines.

I wish the Russians luck. Commercial off the shelf CAD software has improved rapidly since the SU-57 first flew. This might be the first Russian aircraft that doesn't continuously fall apart.

Hey guys,
I wonder if this fighter will end up in widespread use in Asia? I am guessing that quite a few Asian powers such as Malaysia and Indonesia may be interested in both this and whatever China puts up against it. Vietnam would go Russian but Pakistan and Laos I feel would go Chinese. India would never buy Chinese and I can see them keeping a close eye on Checkmate, especially if Pakistan started fielding some of China's latest and greatest warplanes. Thailand? Maybe a few of each if they follow past form! I can't see the Philippines buying anything new but probably second-hand US warplanes. Devilfish, I guess that you would have a better idea on the Philippines' possible requirements.
I would love to read Ozair's analysis on Checkmate.... and have enjoyed reading the above posts - RJMAZ: as always, total respect to you!
Take care,
Bunumuring

RJMAZ wrote:

sturmovik wrote:

India will spend the development life cycle of this aircraft trying to the get the LCA to final spec instead of buying this aircraft.

Or it will repeat the SU-57 story. The aircraft will fly in a few years as a highly unstable and experimental prototype. It will have an engine failure and a crash. 13 years after the first unveiling Russia will then only have a dozen of these prototype aircraft built with severe design flaws. Zero sales and they will still be waiting for improved engines.

I wish the Russians luck. Commercial off the shelf CAD software has improved rapidly since the SU-57 first flew. This might be the first Russian aircraft that doesn't continuously fall apart.

Seems like a very ambitious price and time to production. If they dont get one of those intended hopefuls soon, this will be the likely outcome. They need a decent financial backer, so hopefully one of those will come through. I could see China being a possibility, to replace the J-7 and J-8

Can't help but wonder if this is in part, to try to generate some cashflow for the Su-57.

This could make a good EW aircraft too.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
I wonder if this fighter will end up in widespread use in Asia? I am guessing that quite a few Asian powers such as Malaysia and Indonesia may be interested in both this and whatever China puts up against it. Vietnam would go Russian but Pakistan and Laos I feel would go Chinese. India would never buy Chinese and I can see them keeping a close eye on Checkmate, especially if Pakistan started fielding some of China's latest and greatest warplanes. Thailand? Maybe a few of each if they follow past form! I can't see the Philippines buying anything new but probably second-hand US warplanes. Devilfish, I guess that you would have a better idea on the Philippines' possible requirements.
I would love to read Ozair's analysis on Checkmate.... and have enjoyed reading the above posts - RJMAZ: as always, total respect to you!
Take care,
Bunumuring

I kinda have my doubts that China will compete with this. I think they'd be more concerned with getting sales of the FC-31. They are also supposedly working on a naval variant of it. So their development focus seems to be on it, and the J-20. Keep in mind, they are spending big on their navy right now. New carriers, subs, and other surface ships. As mentioned in my earlier post, I could see them as a potential customer to replace their J-7s and J-8s.

An interesting plane, if they can get it beyond the prototype phase and keep the specs, especially the price.

bunumuring wrote:

I would love to read Ozair's analysis on Checkmate.... and have enjoyed reading the above posts - RJMAZ: as always, total respect to you!
Take care,
Bunumuring

Unfortunately Ozair hasn't posted since the admins kept deleting posts and banning people for posts without references. Sometimes you don't need a reference when you are an expert and are a primary source of information.

My opinion on this Russian fighter is that it has no market. To make a cheap fighter these days it has little to do with cheap labour and all to do with engineering the design to snap together like Lego with very few parts.

The US will have a lightweight, low cost fighter that will enter service in the next 10 years. The, development, purchase and operating costs of this new fighter will be less than just the operating cost of the existing F-16 fleet over say a 15 year period. The same reason the F-15X was rushed is that it was cheaper to buy new planes than to operate the old maintenance hungry F-15C's.

It will most likely be a single seat Boeing T-X with a small AESA radar. By having a larger fuel fraction it will allow a fighter two thirds the size and weight of the F-16 to have similar range. Modern aerodynamic allow F-16 levels of agility to be easily attained.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... placement/

Antaras wrote:

Fresh video from Rostec.
In English.

https://youtu.be/PNDrTSDmaZY

Why does he have to speak like an idiot ? Marketing at its worst.

RJMAZ wrote:

The US will have a lightweight, low cost fighter that will enter service in the next 10 years. The, development, purchase and operating costs of this new fighter will be less than just the operating cost of the existing F-16 fleet over say a 15 year period.

What makes you so sure of that? Looking at the last 2 or 3 decades, it’s hard to point to anything the US military/industrial complex did that ended up low cost or on time. Especially for anything flying.

Only thing I can think of right now is the Lakota. IMHO that one does not count since the only contribution of the US military/industrial complex was adding a few “made in the USA” stickers to what is basically an off-the-shelf Eurocopter.

petertenthije wrote:

What makes you so sure of that? Looking at the last 2 or 3 decades, it’s hard to point to anything the US military/industrial complex did that ended up low cost or on time. Especially for anything flying.

All the programs you think of were started and developed when digital design wasn't around. We only had single core desktop CPU's until 2005. As CPU power increased the development times have decreased.

Look at the Boeing Loyal Wingman and the Boeing T-X. From idea to production ready demonstrator ready in under 2 years. Hundreds of engineers can now be working on one large design at once and all the changes are updating in real time. You have just paralleled the development.

petertenthije wrote:

it’s hard to point to anything the US military/industrial complex did that ended up low cost or on time.

The P-8A,while not low cost, they reduced the cost over the lots that the Navy had extra money to buy a few more frames and have managed to deliver early for most of the program. Scan Eagle (although that started out as a civilian drone).

And it is no longer the US military industrial complex. Half the T-7 fuselage is built by Saab and every AH-64 fuselage is now built by TATA.

And before the EX, new F-15 development were solely funded by foreign buyers.

bt

RJMAZ wrote:

All the programs you think of were started and developed when digital design wasn't around. We only had single core desktop CPU's until 2005. As CPU power increased the development times have decreased.

In 2005 the Wedgetail program transitioned from Unix workstations to PC. CATIA still ran through the main frame. In 2008, the P-8A ran CATIA localy on the PC with only the database held on the servers.

In 2020, the VC-25 program runs CATIA through laptops and unless you are working secret stuff, you can work from home with your high speed internet.

But digital design have been around for a while. The revolution is the mating of digital design with digital manufacturing where advance NC machines can fabricate parts with so much accuracy that the designer can design parts to fit up like legos.

It did not happened over night. The digital manufacturing processes that Boeing is touting took years to develop and more years to deploy across the company.

The military program noted are just the tip of the iceberg. The true payoff will be when Boeing start building the new 757 replacement.


bt

Bikerthai summer it up perfectly. Now all companies are moving towards this digital development but some companies are much further ahead and have invested in their own software. A small technology lead effectively allows for massive cost reduction in development cost and time. This allows a company to develop a product and win contracts by offering a lower price and better reliability.

Boeing is leading with Lockheed and Airbus in second place. The Russians and Chinese are much further behind.

To put this into perspective let's say each of these companies wanted to make the same cheap light fighter from scratch . It might take Boeing 1 year and $1 billion. It might take Lockheed and Airbus 2 years and $2 billion. The Russians 4 years and $4 billion. You simply can't just put more engineers on a project to speed it up unless things are done in parallel.

Only in theory, because as long as we do not 3D-print the whole thing, a digitized version still needs to be produced.

seahawk wrote:

Only in theory, because as long as we do not 3D-print the whole thing, a digitized version still needs to be produced.

The original 777 was an all digital airplane. Albeit it was in witeframe mode and not necessarily digital manufacturable.

Still, all modern design have all structural components in digital form, not only for integration but also for manufacturing. Even if you do not use the CNC machine to make the part, you will use some form of computerized fabrication technique to build the tooling.

As far as I know, 3D printing by itself does not yet provide sufficient accuracy to be used with the digital assembly process that Boeing uses. A secondary CNC operation would be needed.

bt

RJMAZ wrote:

Bikerthai summer it up perfectly. Now all companies are moving towards this digital development but some companies are much further ahead and have invested in their own software. A small technology lead effectively allows for massive cost reduction in development cost and time.

That’s all nice and well, but it is only a matter of time before it gets hacked and data is stolen and/or deleted. All systems are hacked eventually. Considering the potential gains, I am sure Russia, China, Iran etc will consider it a prime target.

bikerthai wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Only in theory, because as long as we do not 3D-print the whole thing, a digitized version still needs to be produced.

The original 777 was an all digital airplane. Albeit it was in witeframe mode and not necessarily digital manufacturable.

Still, all modern design have all structural components in digital form, not only for integration but also for manufacturing. Even if you do not use the CNC machine to make the part, you will use some form of computerized fabrication technique to build the tooling.

As far as I know, 3D printing by itself does not yet provide sufficient accuracy to be used with the digital assembly process that Boeing uses. A secondary CNC operation would be needed.

bt

The fully digital model is something used for a long time and while it has made engineering a design a bit quicker, it does not do the same for the manufacturing site. Your limits for acceptable tolerances shrinks and with this the challenges on the manufacturing site grow. And that is something you can not really simulate because you will only learn in the end if the CNC machines keep within the tolerance levels over time or if your workforce is able to work correctly under the pressure of a full running production line.

seahawk wrote:

Your limits for acceptable tolerances shrinks and with this the challenges on the manufacturing site grow. And that is something you can not really simulate because you will only learn in the end if the CNC machines keep within the tolerance levels over time or if your workforce is able to work correctly under the pressure of a full running production line.

Exactly. That is why it took Boeing some time to develop the process. CNC machine tolerances may degrade over time, but the process and associated verification steps will assure the necessary tolerance is maintained.

They did real word manufacturing study with "livesize" structural fuselage section to provide the data point for the MQ-25 competition. I saw the manufacturing demonstration article in real life, although at the time I did not know it was for the drone tanker competition.

bt

seahawk wrote:

The fully digital model is something used for a long time

CAD software has been around for 20 years. That is not what we are talking about. The best description is a cooking analogy. Let's say a restaurant needs to make 10 pots of soup. If you only have one pot it doesn't matter how many chefs you put in the kitchen. That is how early CAD design was done. That is why the A380 didn't bolt together perfectly as they effectively had two pots in two different kitchens. Boeing now effectively has 10 pots in the one kitchen and any chef can stir any pot. The soup is now produced 10 times quicker.

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing now effectively has 10 pots in the one kitchen and any chef can stir any pot. The soup is now produced 10 times quicker.

A better analogy would be Boeing has a Robot Chef in each of 10 different kitchens. And each kitchen has its own green house farm growing the raw ingredients the same way.

So any batch of ingredients from any batch of greenhouse can be cooked by any robotic chef and the taste and consistency of the food would be the same.

Only then can the 10 different kitchen can be effective. Otherwise, you'll have a few bad kitchen screws up your ratings and bottom line (the early days of the Charleston plant any one?)

bt

So it bring us back to why I believe that India will not buy this Russian plane.

So as Saab proves itself to be one of.these "kitchen", if will be in perfect position to be a sub-contractor for the next lucrative Boeing commercial aircraft.

The major India manufacturers want to be where Saab is right now. To do this, they will need to cooperate with Boeing to build a frame locally, either the F-15EX, the T-7 or an indigenous airplane frame designed to Boeing's digital manufacturing process. Not sure if the timing will be right, but the possibility is tempting.

Note that TATA has a foot in the door with the AH-64 fuselage. Not sure if Boeing has implement the digital manufacturing process on that frame. If it has, then the future of the India fighter buy will be easier to predict.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing now effectively has 10 pots in the one kitchen and any chef can stir any pot. The soup is now produced 10 times quicker.

A better analogy would be Boeing has a Robot Chef in each of 10 different kitchens. And each kitchen has its own green house farm growing the raw ingredients the same way.

So any batch of ingredients from any batch of greenhouse can be cooked by any robotic chef and the taste and consistency of the food would be the same.

Only then can the 10 different kitchen can be effective. Otherwise, you'll have a few bad kitchen screws up your ratings and bottom line (the early days of the Charleston plant any one?)

bt

And those farms will not have the same weather. The challenge lies in the supply chain and not in the design. The car industry is on that level for a much longer time and they learned the hard way that the challenges lie in the mass production, which is still different from prototype production, even when using the same tools and machines.

seahawk wrote:

And those farms will not have the same weather.

Thank goodness we can control the environment of a factory better than the weather. I recall a story of a subcontractor trying to assenble a large sub-assembly and is having trouble because the variation in temperature during the day affected thermal expansion of the metal.

The purpose of digital manufacturing is to use NC machining to reduce the need for tool/fixture.

seahawk wrote:

The car industry is on that level for a much longer time and they learned the hard way that the challenges lie in the mass production,

Kind of funny. When we think of mass production of cars, we think of thousands per day. Mass production of airplanes is one per day.

bt

RJMAZ wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The fully digital model is something used for a long time

CAD software has been around for 20 years. That is not what we are talking about. The best description is a cooking analogy. Let's say a restaurant needs to make 10 pots of soup. If you only have one pot it doesn't matter how many chefs you put in the kitchen. That is how early CAD design was done. That is why the A380 didn't bolt together perfectly as they effectively had two pots in two different kitchens. Boeing now effectively has 10 pots in the one kitchen and any chef can stir any pot. The soup is now produced 10 times quicker.

20 yrs? I remember working serious CAD (sparc stations) 35 years ago, us students exchanging illegal autocad versions for PC a little later. We weren't first, so 40 years at least. On the A380 disconnects, I saw the infamous drawings. If I rememver correctly it were critical bending radius issues of massive wiring bundles. Replacing those on existing frames was a drama.

keesje wrote:

35 years ago, us students exchanging illegal autocad versions for PC a little later. We weren't first, so 40 years at least.

Summer 1989, I began my Engineering career sitting in CATIA wire frame classses

bt

Mikoyan, the premier Russian fighter supplier of the fifties, sixties, seventies has fallen behind Sukhoi.

At the show they could show upgrades and concepts only.


https://www.airway1.com/overshadowed-by ... maks-2021/

Two smaller engines have some advantages in term of redundancy, stealth profile, internal weapons bay..

But Mikoyan is far behind and doesn't have the cash flow from existing programs.

keesje wrote:

Two smaller engines have some advantages in term of redundancy, stealth profile, internal weapons bay..

Strongly disagree. The twin engines makes packaging very hard for internal weapons bays. If you shrink the F-22 design down to 80% for two smaller engines there is nowhere to place the internal weapon bays. In the F-22 the air intakes flow above the weapons bay and then expand for the engines that are located entirely aft of the weapons bay. If the design is shrunk there is not enough fuselage length forward of the engines.

Making the engines widely spaced gives a single awkward narrow but deep weapon bay. Not long enough for two missiles not deep enough for two missiles. Great for a single 2,000lb bomb but it might only fit two AMRAAM class missiles.

The F-35 packaging allows the side air intakes to quickly move to the centre of the fuselage giving space for two side weapon bays. There is plenty of length for the weapons bays. The rocket motors of the AMRAAM missiles are further aft of the front of the turbofan.

RJMAZ wrote:

keesje wrote:

Two smaller engines have some advantages in term of redundancy, stealth profile, internal weapons bay..

Strongly disagree. The twin engines makes packaging very hard for internal weapons bays. If you shrink the F-22 design down to 80% for two smaller engines there is nowhere to place the internal weapon bays. In the F-22 the air intakes flow above the weapons bay and then expand for the engines that are located entirely aft of the weapons bay. If the design is shrunk there is not enough fuselage length forward of the engines.

Making the engines widely spaced gives a single awkward narrow but deep weapon bay. Not long enough for two missiles not deep enough for two missiles. Great for a single 2,000lb bomb but it might only fit two AMRAAM class missiles.

The F-35 packaging allows the side air intakes to quickly move to the centre of the fuselage giving space for two side weapon bays. There is plenty of length for the weapons bays. The rocket motors of the AMRAAM missiles are further aft of the front of the turbofan.

I think it is not as simple as that, we shouldn't narrow our reference too much. E.g. Sukhoi makes good use of the space between the engines.The Su-57 can carry cruise missiles there and SU30 and Su57 have a radar to beam, track, jam, lock targets behind them. The Su-57 is testing cruise missiles being launched from the big bays between the engines. The Mig concept also seems to have an antenna in between the engine outlets.

keesje wrote:

I think it is not as simple as that,

Correct. However if you look at it from a simple geometric analysis, you'll find that a larger engine larger nozzle area is much more efficient than two smaller engines, both in volume and weight for a specific amount of thrust. And don't forget reliability issues, specially Russian engines.

bt

keesje wrote:

Mikoyan, the premier Russian fighter supplier of the fifties, sixties, seventies has fallen behind Sukhoi.

At the show they could show upgrades and concepts only.


https://www.airway1.com/overshadowed-by ... maks-2021/

Two smaller engines have some advantages in term of redundancy, stealth profile, internal weapons bay..

But Mikoyan is far behind and doesn't have the cash flow from existing programs.

I don't know if its that they have fallen behind or that they have fallen out of favor with Moscow. MiG wasn't even allowed to produce a competitor to the SU-57, unless you count the MiG-1.44 from almost 30 years ago. The model shown here appears to be nothing more than a slightly more stealthy MiG-1.44. The MiG-41 (MiG-31 replacement) hasn't gone anywhere either.
I think its more of a funding issue than anything else, and for whatever reason Moscow decided to choose Sukhoi.