The US press questioned the Russian origin of the Checkmate fighter

On July 20, in the city of Zhukovsky, Moscow Region, a presentation of the new Russian fifth-generation light fighter Checkmate, created by the Sukhoi Design Bureau, took place. Its name is translated from English as "Check and checkmate".

The American specialized magazine Air Force Magazine published an article by John Tirpak, in which he questioned the Russian origin of the aircraft.

The US press has suggested where Russia borrowed the design of its new lightweight single-engine fighter. Tirpak found the similarity of the Russian novelty with the participants in the American competition for a single strike fighter, which took place in the United States in the 90s. At the same time, according to the author, it reminds by its design features of two projects that were rejected by the commission.

After examining photos and video footage from Checkmate, Tirpak noticed a large air intake under the fuselage. He found it similar to a similar design feature of the Boeing X-32, which participated in the competition, which eventually lost to the F-35 from Lockheed Martin. He found other design details reminiscent of the X-32. In addition, some elements of the Russian aircraft, according to Tirpak, were borrowed from another participant in the American tender - the YF-23 from McDonnell Douglas, to whom the F-22 was preferred.

But on the whole, the author attributed the new Russian Checkmate fighter to the "F-35 family", which has been noticeably expanding lately. This category, according to Tirpak, also includes the Turkish TF-X, the Chinese FC-31 (J-31), the South Korean KF-21 and some other fighters.

Russian developers insist that Checkmate is a unique Russian project.

Comments

[rocket757]

The US press has suggested where Russia borrowed the design of its new lightweight single-engine fighter. Tirpak found the similarity of the Russian novelty with the participants in the American competition for a single strike fighter, which took place in the United States in the 90s. At the same time, according to the author, it reminds by its design features of two projects that were rejected by the commission.

Same thing ... let's share / dress up for something that doesn't exist yet.

[NIKN]

Damn, he has wings, just like American planes. Almost a Wright Brothers concept.

[kenig1]

Then already like Icarus

[Vladimir Mashkov]

Well, of course! Can Russian barbarians really invent something worthwhile? Of course they stole from the foremost Americans!
In general, all aircraft are similar to American ones: they have wings, a fuselage, an engine ...

[Starover_Z]

Quote: Vladimir Mashkov

Well, of course! Can Russian barbarians really invent something worthwhile? Of course they stole from the foremost Americans!

Are there any claims about the similarity of designs? What are the problems, staff members? Write and approve the new laws of aerodynamics with your exclusive laws and we will be the first to fly on cubic airplanes!

They will have more capacity!

[Andrei Gurov]

I will say more, while there were no American planes, even birds flew without a tail.

[TANKISTONE]

Vladimir Mashkov (Vladimir Mashkov)

... of course they stole from the foremost Americans! ..

Pederovik-Americans sleep and see how to impose sanctions and patent fines on "unhealthy" competitors

[Yaro Polk]

Strange, Russian tanks also have a cannon and tracks, just like American ones, the American stupid ones enrage)

[Tusv]

Quote: NIKNN

Damn, he also has wings like American planes

There is no such belly as comparable American units.
This is not criticism, this is awesome envy

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: Sergey269

F-35 is based on Ilyushin

which is the IL-96?

[Kuroneko]

Quote: rocket757

Same thing ... let's share / dress up for something that doesn't exist yet.

This amused me more:

But in general, the author attributed the new Russian Checkmate fighter to the "F-35 family"

Maybe then, the respected Xperd should refer our new hawk to "To the Yak-141 family"? For according to the developments and documentation of the Yak-141, bought by the Yankees for a penny in the "holy 90s", they created their F-35 penguin.

[URAL72]

Not certainly in that way. More precisely, not at all. Yakovlev Design Bureau won the tender for the development of a rotary nozzle, ahead of Rolls-Royce. So it completely developed it. Although it is not clear why not engine builders. As for the air intake, there is also a Chinese J-10C, there is the same. Yes, even the F-16, Corsair, this is just a choice of concept, and the design is completely Russian.

[syndicalist]

Quote: URAL72

and the design is completely Russian.

It hardly makes sense to talk about the design of the presented plywood layout.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: URAL72

Yakovlev Design Bureau won the tender for the development of a rotary nozzle, ahead of Rolls-Royce.

Not just a rotary nozzle. The system of balancing the aircraft during vertical ascent, hovering, landing, the algorithms for the operation of this system, which, by the way, the Americans did not really succeed.

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: Bad_gr

Quote: URAL72

Yakovlev Design Bureau won the tender for the development of a rotary nozzle, ahead of Rolls-Royce.

Not just a rotary nozzle. The system of balancing the aircraft during vertical ascent, hovering, landing, the algorithms for the operation of this system, which, by the way, the Americans did not really succeed.

truth? But what about the X-32 flew then? Or was it stolen on him?
Does the difference in designs mean anything to you - lifting turbojet engines on the Yak-141 and a fan on the F-35?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Ivanoff_Ivanoff

But what about the X-32 flew then?

And before him, the English Harier flew. I’m not saying that they didn’t succeed at all, but ours is better.

Quote: Ivanoff_Ivanoff

Does the difference in designs mean anything to you - lifting turbojet engines on the Yak-141 and a fan on the F-35?

It's not about the device, but about the algorithms for managing this entire economy.

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: Bad_gr

It's not about the device, but about the algorithms for managing this entire economy.

that's why he was interested: how did the X-32 fly with them? Ok, in your opinion, Martin stole from the Russians on the X-35 (only the algorithm on those planes is inseparable from iron. And iron, you say, is different?), And Boeing too?
The Kh-32 had only one engine - and this is the most complex control algorithm for takeoff / landing and transient modes.
They used Harrier - they were thoroughly familiar with his device. They had a Convair mod200, which almost completely duplicated the Yak-141 (only 10 years before it). It was the design of the rotary nozzle of the JTF22A-30A motor from the Convair that served as the basis for the design of the nozzle of the F-35 motor.
Maybe it's enough to have enough myths to procreate that everything is seamless from the Yak?

[Bad_gr]

I wrote what I read about. I see no point in debating this topic.

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: Bad_gr

I wrote what I read about

what if it's not a secret?

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: Kuroneko

For according to the developments and documentation of the Yak-141, bought by the Yankees for a penny in the "holy 90s", they created their F-35 penguin.

can you clearly explain that our incredible friends borrowed from the Yak-141, what they copied from it?

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

and 19 more people cannot. Only they are able to throw an evil anonymous minus. Impotent

[rocket757]

Quote: Kuroneko

Maybe then, the respected Xperd should

Such "respected experts" got divorced, a patch for a bunch!
We WILL NOT remember, regret, how it was right before, we had to see / listen to everyone ... but there was much less turbidity like now.

[cniza]

They are setting the stage for justifying why their F-35 is so expensive ...

[Yaro Polk]

He whined, probably a liberoid.

[Ros 56]

Correctly doubt the striped ones, we bought this miracle of technology from aliens when we flew to Alpha Centauri.

[keeper03]

Well, this is not a flight model, this is just a mock-up!

[carstorm 11]

Prototype. Not a layout.

[jaroff]

It is the layout. Its abbreviation is LTS-M. M-layout. And who does not hide this from Sukhoi

[Orange bigg]

Quote: zharyoff

It is the layout. Its abbreviation is LTS-M. M-layout. And who does not hide this from Sukhoi

Well, as if it's just a name. It is clear that this is a prototype.

Multifunctional indicator MFI-25SH on the Su-75 model.

Tail assembly and nozzle of the "Product 30" engine.

[Orange bigg]

Quote: keeper03

Well, this is not a flight model, this is just a mock-up!

According to the general director of the UAC, "the plane will fly in 2023." Slyusar stressed that “this is a sample, this is not just a model, not just a demonstrator. Here he will rise into the air. "

... Rostec showed a prototype of a light fighter at the MAKS 2021 air show

There are many photos confirming this at the link below.

http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/142413/

[URAL72]

This is not just a mock-up, this is already a demo sample, with a real engine, for example, and everything else. In the process of fine-tuning and testing, of course, a lot will be replaced there.

[sanya_sergant]

I have a purely practical question.

How will it slow down? Where is his braking parachute?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: sanya_sergant

How will it slow down? Where is his braking parachute?

Confused by the hit on the jet or the asymmetry of braking? Solved by TWO parachutes! Don't thank.

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

the author of the question apparently wanted to clarify where he had the brake parachute gondola. Where is the container stacked?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Ivanoff_Ivanoff

the author of the question apparently wanted to clarify where he had the brake parachute gondola. Where is the container stacked?

I thought about this too, just a little later: the keels are on clearly fixed bases and parachutes will perfectly fit in the ends of these bases, because they will be smaller than a single one with an equal total area. As a last resort, these grounds can make it more complete.
Again, I do not ask for gratitude! (Joke)

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

As a last resort, these grounds can make it more complete.

so here the people claim that this is a ready-made sample, which will rise into the sky.
For my part, I note that there is not enough space for containers. And most likely. there will be the antennas of the EW and RTR stations of the rear hemisphere. In addition, two parachutes do not fit into the ideology of low-cost ground handling, and on unprepared sites. Either put one parachute, or two?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Ivanoff_Ivanoff

and so here the people claim that this is a ready-made sample, which will rise into the sky. For my part, I note that there is not enough space for containers. And most likely. there will be the antennas of the EW and RTR stations.

Maybe the people are right who we are to argue with the people.
But the plane will not rise into the sky tomorrow and the tips are not the basic design of the plane, so they can be altered or added more than once.

Quote: Ivanoff_Ivanoff

In addition, two parachutes do not fit into the ideology of low-cost ground handling, and on unprepared sites. Either put one parachute, or two?

Something tells me that, for example, six small parachutes will be cheaper both in manufacture and in operation and in replacement than three large ones. Or 8 and 4.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Something tells me that, for example, six small parachutes will be cheaper both in manufacture and in operation and in replacement than three large ones.

And the fact that the strength of the airframe will decrease, someone does not tell you?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

And the fact that the strength of the airframe will decrease, someone does not tell you?

How? In general, on the contrary, they reinforce the structure in order to take the load.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

How? In general, on the contrary, they reinforce the structure in order to take the load.

Any "structural reinforcement" will turn into overweight - even a novice designer, not necessarily an aviation one, will confirm this to you. Excess weight for a combat aircraft is nonsense.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Any "structural reinforcement" will turn into overweight - even a novice designer, not necessarily an aviation one, will confirm this to you. Excess weight for a combat aircraft is nonsense.

Your intelligence is just scary , and the central position of the parachutes will not require reinforcement of the structure and an increase in weight, or what? By the way, I see the real minus of my assumption, but I won't tell you.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Your intelligence is just scary

Your statement about six parachutes for such a relatively light aircraft generally looks enchanting.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

By the way, I see the real minus of my assumption, but I won't tell you.

And it is not necessary, I already understood that you suffered nonsense.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Your statement about six parachutes for such a relatively light aircraft generally looks enchanting.

Are you talking about such a phrase or what?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Something tells me that, for example, six small parachutes will be cheaper both in manufacture and in operation and in replacement than three large ones. Or 8 and 4.

The fact that we are talking about six small OR three large parachutes for THREE aircraft only remained unclear to you, even despite the addition of 8 and 4.

Quote: ccsr

And it is not necessary, I already understood that you suffered nonsense.

Well, of course, what is unclear to you is nonsense, of course.

[sanya_sergant]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Confused by the hit on the jet or the asymmetry of braking?

Confused by his absence.
Although, however, in his younger brother in mind, the TP container is also not immediately discernible.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: sanya_sergant

Confused by his absence.
Although, however, in his younger brother in mind, the TP container is also not immediately discernible.

Well, that's great, if we have the same, then personally I do not mind.

[avg avg]

Well, thank God! Vladimir_2U himself does not mind! The editorial board must be unsubscribed in the KB, which you allowed! And then the boys began to pack their suitcases, preparing to be sent to Magadan for logging and gold mining!

[Vladimir_2U]

How witty you are, how interesting you are. It's a pity you only get out of your basement once a year ... Gurgle something.

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: URAL72

This is not just a mock-up, this is already a demo sample, with a real engine, for example, and everything else. In the process of fine-tuning and testing, of course, a lot will be replaced there.

And the same device will pass static tests?

[URAL72]

I think not, for statics they do not put equipment in the car - they manage with massive dimensional models of the engine and other things.

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

the aircraft must first pass static tests. And many more. Only then, taking into account the shortcomings identified in the course of them, build a flight model. But not the other way around. Otherwise, it may come out that you cannot fix it on a finished glider. What is the conclusion from this?

[URAL72]

It is not the aircraft that undergoes static tests, but the glider. Who said that he is not and these tests have not been carried out? Why do you need a layout with a real chassis, seat, engine? The mock-up is made by carpenters - there is only one task - to try on how the equipment, engine, etc. will fit into the fuselage.

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

In less than a year we will run out of static tests aircraft, which will allow us to enter the organization of the first flight ", - added Deputy Chief Designer of Checkmate Alexey Bulatov

[URAL72]

And what, this refutes my idea? Maybe the static tests are not completed, but judging by the quote, they are already underway, so there is a glider for this, and no one will definitely pull it to the exhibition - this is the installation and dismantling of hundreds of sensors, and there is nothing to look at. Naked glider with weights. And do not care about the minuses, I was completely neglected by lovers of freebies at the expense of the state in the neighboring "oil" branch.

[ccsr]

Quote: URAL72

they are already going, so there is a glider for this,

I think that the project itself was developed a long time ago, as one of the R&D options at the level of technical documentation, but our videoconferencing systems were not going to buy it and the case died out. But apparently happiness came, and some of the potential foreign customers wished to have a cheap plane, and ours quickly rushed in advance, giving everyone the idea that we had created a completely new plane. That is why we can assume that the flight will take place in 2023, otherwise Putin would not shine against its background if it were a crude version of the aircraft. From my own experience, I know that in Soviet times, the industry secretly from the customer developed something new or modernized (or for the budget money of its ministry), and then, with an innocent look, offered the customer to conduct R&D in order to cut down money in a full cycle - as they say, swam, we know ...
So I dare to assume that our designers have thrown someone, and this is correct, because scientific thought must be financed.

[URAL72]

I do not think that someone was thrown, because the new one here is essentially a fuselage. The engine is still AL-41, stuffing from the Su-57, plus new developments for it. Here, many are saddened by the fate of the Su-47, they say, did not go into production.
No one even thought about it, since it was a purely experimental aircraft for research in the field of aerodynamic vehicles with CBS. The chassis and avionics of the Su-27, the engine from the MiG-31. It was not planned to be produced, the development was at its own expense. This novelty is made in the same way - from what is already there, albeit not in the series. There is little new in it compared to the Su-57, but what is there will go to the modernized Su-57. So the development cost a penny. Later, a new engine will be delivered - product 30. So it will fly very soon.

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: URAL72

And what, this refutes my idea?

at some point - yes. you did not argue with the statement that you first need to conduct static tests, and then sculpt a flight model? This is actually the case, smart people wrote the stages of the aircraft development, and for a reason.

There is also such an option that this shown sample will remain non-flying. It was built to show the product to a potential customer. Not a model made of plywood, not a plastic model, but an "almost flying copy". This says a lot - the customer can touch the plane and see with his own eyes that the work is in full swing, and there is even an intermediate result. If funding is normal, why not? The device itself will still come in handy - an airplane for ground tests can be built for anyone. And here the possible defects of the airframe are not critical - for example, during ground tests of the same gun. A new flight model will be built. There will be at least three of them.

[URAL72]

Of course it will come in handy - while the device takes off, you still need to carry out high-speed taxiing, check the operation of the equipment on the ground. And then it depends on funding - it will be weak (as usual), which means that this model will be brought up and taken off. I'm still waiting for him to take off at the exhibition or at least take off. Here some depression will begin! Protracted.

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

If, according to the results of ground tests, it is not necessary to alter the glider, then it is possible that it will be lifted into the air. But it is too early to say so. Our eminent men with peremptory statements, as always, hastened.

Quote: URAL72

I'm still waiting for it to take off at the exhibition now

So if the plane has not finished ground tests, where is it in the air? Especially at the international air show? I perfectly understand your desire, but intelligence must prevail

[URAL72]

The glider will not have to be altered too much - now computer modeling is at such a level that it is not uncommon to do without a wind tunnel. It’s quite possible to just take off, make a circle, it’s not overload. But to twist aerobatics, of course, too early.

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

No amount of computer simulation will give you a guarantee. Otherwise, they would simply immediately collect a serial sample, why test (time, money)? Everything is calculated and modeled by electronic brains and programs of the highest level.
Su-57 and F-35 were also counted on a computer. And what do we see? ..

Computer simulation makes it possible to significantly speed up and reduce the cost of the development stage, to minimize "childish surprises" such as when one node does not fit into another, and so on. But no program will allow you to create an airplane "from a sheet" solely on a computer. Not mature enough yet.

Quote: URAL72

It’s quite possible to just take off, make a circle, it’s not overload.

but the machine must have confirmation of the declared characteristics. How much do we have? + 8g? We were not informed of the negative overload.
And not only overloads. Corkscrew, flutter ...

[avg avg]

you have forgotten about buffing, you are our specialist!

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

in addition, I am generally not a supporter of all kinds of rushwork and ill-considered actions. If something happened to the car in the air at the air show - and the whole world will point fingers and yell "the Russians could not even copy the F-35!" Do we need it? The plane will fly as usual - and if it flies on time, it will be a victory.
How many times have we tried to do something "under the herringbone" - and what happened? Let them work in accordance with the accepted schedule, do not rush people. It takes 8-10 years from the beginning of development to the first flight - and this is quite normal.

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

those gentlemen who put minuses may not be cowardly jackals, but will show their face and explain why the minus is set? Well, at the same time, since the great specialists, will they answer the questions?

[jaroff]

Where did you see the engine?

[Orange bigg]

Quote: Ros 56

Correctly doubt the striped ones, we bought this miracle of technology from aliens when we flew to Alpha Centauri.

Victory has many fathers, defeat is always an orphan. Here are the Americans and say that everyone who makes 5th generation fighters ripped up everything from them.

[Seryoga64]

, Tirpak drew attention to the large air intake under the fuselage. He found in it a similarity with a similar design feature of the Boeing X-32 that participated in the competition,

It also has wings and much more like the X-32.

which took place in the USA in the 90s

And all this time we hid these developments under the covers and for some reason never applied

[OgnennyiKotik]

They are about Northrop MRF-54E.

[Wedmak]

We were discovered, we disperse ... they took a photo of the model, an ax and a log. Well, they scoffed. For a long time .. of course, try to make an engine with an ax!
Now everything that is somehow similar to our new will be attracted by the ears. I would not be surprised if they also present about "they stole the drawings and made it according to their technologies." And since technology lags behind American (well, you know ..), it turned out a little different from the photo.

[smart ass]

Looks like a devil as ak47 and stg 44

[501 Legion]

Well, according to this logic, if the planes are slightly similar in layout, then someone stole someone from someone.

[Peak]

Quote: 501Legion

Well, according to this logic, if the planes are slightly similar in layout, then someone stole someone from someone.

What did we need to do, a biplane-whatnot, so that the overseas "partners" did not have any suspicions and claims?

But something suggests that in this case they would have found a reason to find fault ...

[tihonmarine]

Quote: PiK

But something suggests that in this case they would have found a reason to find fault ...

The Chinese steal everything, make products and call it by their proper names. But the main thing is that they do everything in silence, and do not respond to requests and claims from different states and non-states ..

[Peak]

Quote: tihonmarine

The Chinese steal everything, make products and call it by their proper names.

We must pay tribute to the Chinese, the period of blind copying "1 in 1" is already behind them, and they began to rethink designs, introducing something of their own, sometimes so original that the products are literally transformed.
And in general, it should be noted that the Chinese are doing OK with military-technical intelligence and industrial espionage.

They wanted to spit on some kind of "copyright" if they were interested in something.

Unfortunately, in this respect, we are still trying to play according to the "laws of the market", where we are mercilessly pressed.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: PiK

we, in this respect, are still trying to play according to the "laws of the market", where we are mercilessly pressed.

And on the market there are only rogues.

[Peak]

Quote: tihonmarine

And on the market there are only rogues.

So we were bred
We thought that we were entering the "free market" by joining the WTO, but we ended up in a smelly flea market - flea market without rules and order.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: PiK

We thought that we were entering the "free market" by joining the WTO, but we ended up in a smelly flea market - flea market without rules and order.

Yes, compared to the "free market" and the WTO, the Arab bazaar is a Moscow supermarket.

[ccsr]

Quote: PiK

They wanted to spit on some kind of "copyright" if they were interested in something.

So we also spit on all "copyright" when the question concerns military equipment, even if we create 95% of the product according to someone else's documentation.

Quote: PiK

Unfortunately, in this respect, we are still trying to play according to the "laws of the market", where we are mercilessly pressed.

You are mistaken - and in Soviet times we carried out industrial espionage not only in the field of design, but also in the field of technologies for obtaining various materials. We can be pressed in the civilian segment, and as for military products, we boldly send everyone to a well-known address in Russia.

[Peak]

Quote: ccsr

You are mistaken - and in Soviet times we carried out industrial espionage.

I am not mistaken, because I am writing exclusively about today.

Quote: ccsr

We can be pressed in the civilian segment, and as for military products, we boldly send everyone to a well-known address in Russia.

The Chinese in all segments are sent to the Chinese mother.

Are you saying we copied your car? What is it called?

- Ah, BMW XXXXXXX?

- GET OUT !

- You have a BMW XXXXXXX, and we have a "Shining Path" ...

[ccsr]

Quote: PiK

I am not mistaken, because I am writing exclusively about today.

And how is he so different from the past in the conduct of intelligence?

Quote: PiK

The Chinese in all segments are sent to the Chinese mother.

Well, not quite so, because this is how they work for the domestic market. And when selling abroad, they are already looking at world concerns with an eye. The case with Huawei showed that the Chinese are very vulnerable to sanctions when selling their products abroad, especially to developed countries.

[Peak]

Quote: ccsr

And how is he so different from the past in the conduct of intelligence?

In the ways - nothing, but in the approaches stipulated by "international agreements", they differ in many respects.

[Babay Atasovich]

Quote: ccsr

Quote: PiK

They wanted to spit on some kind of "copyright" if they were interested in something.

So we also spit on all "copyright" when the question concerns military equipment, even if we create 95% of the product according to someone else's documentation.

Quote: PiK

Unfortunately, in this respect, we are still trying to play according to the "laws of the market", where we are mercilessly pressed.

You are mistaken - and in Soviet times we carried out industrial espionage not only in the field of design, but also in the field of technologies for obtaining various materials. We can be pressed in the civilian segment, and as for military products, we boldly send everyone to a well-known address in Russia.

Bond stole the drawings of the Yak-42. The British built a steam locomotive on it! !! Dismantled, reassembled - STEAM TRUCK! !! Humpbacked, the collapse of the USSR, the naglo-Saxons come to the KB and are interested in why the STEAM? The General takes out several weighty folders from the safe with the words "do you know how many improvements were made after ???!"

[Rome]

anecdote about "PARAVOZ" is a remake, as I understand it, an anecdote from the 80s:
CIA stole blueprints for the latest Soviet fighter jet in the United States, they transferred the documentation to an advanced aircraft building corporation so that they could assemble a flight sample to assess the capabilities of the fighter by the military. Work began to boil, a week later they inspect the resulting product, and this is a LOCOMOTIVE! the military asks the aircraft manufacturers: - did you collect exactly according to the instructions? those answer: YES! decided to transfer the drawings to another aircraft building corporation, the result is the same, as a result TEPLOVOZ! turned to NASA, all the same DIESEL LOCOMOTIVE! The CIA confirms that the drawings are correct, in the USSR they began to assemble fighters from them and they fly! Without Soviet specialists, not how! The CIA stole a couple of locksmiths from an aircraft factory, they say you will assemble a fighter according to the drawings, go home and give another million dollars. We started work in the locksmith's hangar, a week later the American military arrived and there was a fighter in the hangar! the military asks: - how did you do it? our specialists turned out a DIESEL LOCOMOTIVE! The locksmiths answer: the instructions at the end say: "AFTER ASSEMBLY, THE PRODUCT TO FINISH WITH A FILE!"

[Bradley]

Well, according to this logic, if the planes are slightly similar in layout, then someone stole someone from someone.

I remember how everyone tore their shirt on when the F-15 had the same air intakes as on the MiG-25, they say everything was copied from the MiG when Bilenko hijacked the plane. However, we will not say anything about the A-5.
I don't mean you specifically, if that.)

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: Bradley

Well, according to this logic, if the planes are slightly similar in layout, then someone stole someone from someone.

I remember how everyone tore their shirt on when the F-15 had the same air intakes as on the MiG-25, they say everything was copied from the MiG when Bilenko hijacked the plane. However, we will not say anything about the A-5.
I don't mean you specifically, if that.)

so then only pin..sy and the Chinese can borrow, from us - no, here the rule of "the same laws of aerodynamics" applies. True, it is not clear why the F-16, a classmate and almost the same age as the MiG-29, does not look like it at all. The laws are the same?

[lucul]

True, it is not clear why the F-16, a classmate and almost the same age as the MiG-29, does not look like it at all. The laws are the same?

The laws of aerodynamics for subsonic speeds are the same, but for supersonic ones they are slightly different))))
Both the MiG-29 and Su-27 glider are sharpened for supersonic speed (dynamic modes), just watch a visual video of how Sushka climbs 20 km in height and back.
But the F-16 and other Western models are designed for subsonic flight speed (dynamic flight modes), although they can easily overcome supersonic.

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: lucul

Both the MiG-29 and Su-27 glider are sharpened for supersonic speed (dynamic modes), just watch a visual video of how Sushka climbs 20 km in height and back.
But the F-16 and other Western models are designed for subsonic flight speed.

what are you talking about! All 4th generation aircraft (not to be confused with 4 ++, etc.) are tuned for transonic speed. They can’t fly for a long time on super sound (and the MiG-29 and F-16 with their fuel supply - so generally ridiculous). These aircraft were still designed for close maneuvering combat - and such battles are fought at near-sonic speeds, below the speed of sound.

Do you compose nonsense yourself, or what source do you use? Can I have a link?

[lucul]

Do you compose nonsense yourself, or what source do you use? Can I have a link?

Don't you use a compass to go to the toilet by accident? Not? )))

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

You are not a Jew by chance? Didn't you learn to answer the questions?

[lucul]

Didn't you learn to answer the questions?

Have you heard anything about dynamic flight modes?

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

I think I explained to you reasonably that your explanation is not consistent? You have not been able to explain why the F-15 is somewhat similar to the Su-27, while the F-16 is not like the MiG-29. F-18 and MiG-29 - yes, but MiG-29 and F-16 - no. Considering that "the laws of aerodynamics are the same for everyone."
Instead, you only managed to squeeze out something about the toilet.

[lucul]

I think I explained to you reasonably that your explanation is not consistent?

Arguably - give a link? ))) I did not see any other explanations)))
So what about dynamic modes? How much height does the F-16 gain with a dynamic slide? )))

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: lucul

Arguably - give a link?

link to what? That BVB jet vehicles are going at transonic speed? And what exactly is why they are optimized for flying at transonic speeds? Or that the flight range of the F-16 and MiG-29 babies becomes ridiculous in supersonic mode?

Quote: lucul

How much height does the F-16 gain with a dynamic slide? )))

what does it have to do with it? How does this affect whether the side air intakes and two motors or the lower and one motor?

[lucul]

what does it have to do with it?

Despite the fact that they practically do not do it.

That BVB jet vehicles are going at transonic speeds?

Maneuvering is not just a bend)))

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Supersonic machines of the 4th generation were achieved with afterburner. Not the most economical mode, is it? On it, the motor almost eats into itself. And it was for this mode that the plane was optimized? where have you read such nonsense?

[lucul]

And was the plane optimized for this particular mode?

Glider aerodynamics)))

Supersonic machines of the 4th generation were achieved with afterburner. Not the most economical mode, is it? On it, the motor almost eats into itself.

A fighter is not a Boeing to fly 10 hours)))

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: lucul

Fighter, this is not a Boeing

but not Bi-2 or Nutter - he took off quickly, fired once, then sat down. Optimizing the airframe for supersonic sound is only possible if:
1.supersonic afterburner is achieved
2. the car does not lose its maneuverability on subsonic. Because the BVB is conducted precisely on it, a person is not able to endure the overload of maneuvers at supersonic. And the glider of many planes too.

The 4th generation machines, which our heroes are, are "supersonic" machines. They cannot fly on it for a long time. Why optimize an airplane for a mode that is not the main one? Have you tried to ask yourself this simple question?

Supersonic - quickly reach the point of battle. Exit the battle. Etc.

And you never revealed your sources to me. compose yourself?

[Babay Atasovich]

- Moishe! Your wife anti-secular behavior
- And yours???!
-.... but anyway!

[Bradley]

so then only pin..sy and the Chinese can borrow, from us - no, here the rule of "the same laws of aerodynamics" applies. True, it is not clear why the F-16, a classmate and almost the same age as the MiG-29, does not look like it at all. The laws are the same?

Likewise, the Tu-4 is not a copy of the American B-29. The laws of aerodynamics are the same, you know. )

[Rome]

"True, it is not clear why the F-16, a classmate and almost the same age as the MiG-29, does not look like it at all. The laws are the same?"
MIG29 has 2 engines, therefore the airframe is different, more optimal for a two-engine scheme! Do you not notice the difference yourself?

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: Eroma

MIG29 has 2 engines, therefore

Captain obvious! Why two? After all, the laws are the same, and, according to your logic, one of the planes is wrong.
Can I give you examples of twin-engine airplanes whose layout is different from the MiG-29? "Typhoon" for you as an option.

The moral is this. The common saying "the laws of aerodynamics are the same, therefore they are similar", does not always work. When you have two devices in front of you, similar as twins, there is a borrowing. It's not always bad if good things are borrowed. After all, the designer is not stupid people, so as not to apply a positively proven solution just because someone has already applied it.
And you need to take it calmly. Without proving foaming at the mouth that Russia is the homeland of elephants, that everyone is only doing what they borrow from us, and we - no, no.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: 501Legion

Well, according to this logic, if the planes are slightly similar in layout, then someone stole someone from someone.

Once they missed their secrets, then there is nothing to tweet, but the staff members themselves have half of the stolen goods.

[Runoway]

Well, according to this logic, if the planes are slightly similar in layout, then someone stole someone from someone.

Judging by the people on this resource, I would very much like
FIRST to post a photo of the layout with the inscription PRC MADE BY A NEW FIGHTER, and only then it would turn out that this is our new chess knight.
Then here a lot of experts would call it a crooked copy of the X-32
And since ours then "beautiful will fly so will fly" ©
The Americans say everything correctly, they took a lot of new design solutions, "ran it on computer simulation" © and chose the optimal configuration
Why not then ???? We decided to make a profitable economic proposal, using all possible information in the development, if it shoots, then the winners are not judged, only the Chinese can do that.
So our MiG did not come up with anything but to tear off the airframe of the drone.

[Borz]

Is the opinion of the expert Three so important ..., oh, excuse me, Tirpaka? It is normal practice when developments have some similarities. The concept is one, there are many variations. Do we need to blush with shame? So there is nothing to blush. Does Mr. Three want ... oh, sorry, Tirpak to explain how many technical solutions they copied from Soviet planes? Huh?

[Piramidon]

Quote: Borz

Does Mr. Three want ... oh, sorry, Tirpak to explain how many technical solutions they copied from Soviet planes?

I would take and compare the F-35 with the Yak-141.

[Borz]

Yes, the Yak-141, in particular. The 90s were golden years for American intelligence. "Partners" saved themselves decades in the development of promising military equipment at the expense of the collapsed great state.

[Bradley]

Is the expert opinion so important? Three...,Oh sorry,Tirpaca?

Would Mr. Three....Oh sorry,Tirpac explain how many technical solutions they copied from Soviet aircraft? Huh?

How Tirpak touched you a lot.

[Borz]

No, not at all. I allowed myself to misbehave a little There was no need for him to write nonsense, moreover categorically and confidently.

[Babay Atasovich]

Quote: Bradley

Is the expert opinion so important? Three...,Oh sorry,Tirpaca?

Would Mr. Three....Oh sorry,Tirpac explain how many technical solutions they copied from Soviet aircraft? Huh?

How Tirpak touched you a lot.

In the surname Tirpak, the main letters cannot be changed in places !!!!

[marchcat]

similarity with a similar design feature of the Boeing X-32 that participated in the competition

Passion is as similar as "P" to the hedgehog. And from what hangover did the "F-35 family" suddenly appear ???

[Sergey39]

Yes, all modern fighters of the alleged fifth generation look the same. Who stole the idea from whom can be argued until the carrot's plot.

[Aleksandr97]

It's scary to look at this misunderstanding. Compare it with the Su-75 ??!
"Ugly planes do not fly" - said Tupolev

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Alexander97

Compare it with the Su-75 ??!

Yoksel-moxel! So immediately and the Su-75! So, because of you, no math is enough!

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

Quote: Alexander97

"Ugly planes do not fly" - said Tupolev

and made a "handsome" TB-3

For your information, the Kh-32 has flown quite successfully. And his performance characteristics were excellent. The wing with excellent load-bearing properties ensured high maneuverability and controllability at low speeds:

We're preparing for war, not dancing

was the motto of this aircraft. They did not look at their appearance, they tried to fulfill the requirements of the TTZ. The plane lost to the X-35 (the future F-35) for two reasons - Martin's lobby turned out to be stronger, and the Boeing aircraft was more expensive and more complicated. In toga, the project was given to Lockheed.

Alas, nowadays there are such iksperds in VO that you can send them back to school through at least one. And only a few people know the history of aviation.

[Aleksandr97]

And why did TB-3 displease you ??
Not a bad bomber for its time ... and even it is prettier than the Kh-32

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

I didn't say he was bad. But only a person with a peculiar sense of beauty can call him a handsome man. Below is a photo of another Tupolev product.
As you can see, there are exceptions to the catch phrase.

[Ivanoff_Ivanoff]

here's another "handsome" from Tupolev, by the way. Which flew very well.

[Vadim237]

This is an experimental vertical takeoff aircraft - only similar airframe elements have in common with the Su 75 - nothing else.

[provergatel]

Tupolev said "a beautiful plane and flies well."

[Baron pardus]

Read it. X-32 flew. It flew better than the Kh-35, surpassing it both in maneuver and in rate of climb. At the last moment, the performance characteristics were changed, the Lockheeds KNEW about this and created an aircraft that could take off and land vertically. Boeing has created TWO different aircraft - one GDP, the other not. The Boeing project was hacked to death. We chose the X-35, like - you won't need 2 options, we have one - it's great versatility and economy. But "they fought on paper, but forgot about the ravines." And as a result, instead of TWO options as proposed by Boeing with its X-32: one for the Air Force and the Navy, the second for the Marines with GDP, they made as much as 3. One for the Air Force - without GDP, the second for the Navy, without GDP but with an increased wing area and reinforced hull, and the third for the Marines, which land vertically and cannot take off vertically. Or rather it can, but it is NOT recommended. Lobbyists for Lockheed paid, received a contract, as a result of which the US Armed Forces received 3 options instead of 2, and even each with performance characteristics that are inferior to the performance characteristics of the X-32 ... ingenious.

[113262a]

And what about the fact that he looks like a yak-144-forgot to write?

[gloomy]

And this and that have two wings.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: gloomy

And this and that have two wings.

And where did you see the biplane, you are our big-eyed ?!

[Avior]

No, one has two wings, and the other has one. But two half-planes :))

[Morituri68]

It is not clear what the news is about ... that in America, journalists also do not care about what to write about, just to write? .. And with this logic for this Tirpak, all WWII fighters are also the same?

[svp67]

The US press has suggested where Russia borrowed the design of its new lightweight single-engine fighter.

Of course ... the Wright brothers

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: svp67

Of course ... the Wright brothers

Abidna! Abidna, panima, for Mozhaisky!

[From Tomsk]

Our plane has a circular thrust vector. And the F-35 has only up and down. Airplanes, like bicycles, are similar in appearance, as they are tested in the same wind tunnel.

[Xlor]

He found in it a similarity with a similar design feature of the participant in the competition

This reminds me of Apple's claim against Samsung for allegedly stealing the design of its smartphone from Apple. And the whole design is an ordinary rectangle ...

[jeka424]

even the name gives out))))))

[Zaurbek]

There are many fighter schemes ... ... and many typical for specific tasks. B1 and Tu160, for example ..... Su25 and the loser A10 in the tender attack aircraft. F15 and Su27 and MiG25 ....

[Max PV]

Did he accidentally refer the F-35 to the Yak-141 family?

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

its design features resemble two projects that were rejected by the commission.

did the mattress plane have two wings ?!

[akarfoxhound]

I dare to correct you - it has one wing, but the half-wing has left and right, that's why the scheme is called a monoplane. Two wings are a biplane - An-2, for example, triplanes were mass-produced only during WWI, the red Baron Richthofen fought on this

[Nikolaevich I]

Tirpak found the similarity of the Russian novelty with the participants in the American competition for a single strike fighter, which took place in the United States in the 90s ... Once a well-known aircraft designer was asked why his plane is so similar to the plane of "competitors" ... or is the plane of "competitors" similar to its design? And the aircraft designer replied "modestly" that when it is the turn of the next technical generation, this generation sets the same requirements for all designers and engineers, regardless of which design bureau and country they work in! That is why the technology, weapons of different countries, creators, but of the same "generation", are often similar to each other!

[Baron pardus]

Mirage 2000 and F16 were created under the same requirements. Something I do not see much similarity. Wiggen, Mig23 and Mirage F1 were created under the same requirements - somehow they are not very similar. Kestrel (Harrier), Mirage III / V, Yak 38, and at the same time the German VAK191 were created under the same requirements ... Something I do not see much similarity.

[akarfoxhound]

Yeah, and he also has a wing - it means it was definitely borrowed from the mattresses!
BO, why was this crap posted for the news?

[ODERVIT]

Some X carries some X.
Let me explain that the aerodynamic line-up of heavier-than-air aircraft has changed over the century.
Who, where and who is the dispute of amateurs.
Aerodynamics and dynamics
flight evolve independently.

[Piast]

Let the expert cure and calmly eat lard

[Editor]

https://i.imgur.com/Dzo18AS.png

[xorek]

They haven’t even shown it yet, but they are already pouring mud on it ..

[K-50]

The Sha have questioned the Russian origin of the Checkmate fighter

Aha, aliens from Tau-Kit gave it to us!
What kind of x ren pin dos si do not come up with in order to belittle the experience and skill of our designers!

[APASUS]

The Americans work strictly according to the established scheme. Marketing in advertising of weapons has not been canceled. Therefore, the first comments of unnamed bloggers have now gone, the opinions of authoritative experts, articles in magazines and interviews with officials will follow. The whole point is to spoil the reputation at the start, how it was with Armatha. Creating a negative image is also work

[sifgame]

I was expecting this, though here in the comments, and here is a whole article. Of course, everything was stolen, copied, copied. Do not go to the fortune-teller. The Russian aircraft industry, of course, cannot create anything on its own. Jews take the Su-75 from the F-35 family only cheaper))) you know how to count money better than others.

[bubasa]

And nothing that all the participants in that US program used as a base for the Yak-141?

[Baron pardus]

"Expert from the USA" is not needed. We go looking for a photo of F32. And we see that it is LIKE. The same air intake under the short nose a la A-7 and F-8. The same tailless waddle with a two-keeled tail. Seem to be. More than similar. True, the X-32 had larger wings, and if so, then the wing area was larger and better maneuverability. However, the fact that the Chess Plane is similar to the X32 is nothing new. The Su-25 is very similar to the A-9. By the way, according to the flight characteristics, the X-32 was better than the X-35 (which became the F-35)

[sifgame]

It looks like an ordinary brick to a silicate one. The Su-27 is very similar to the Su-30SM.

[Tornado]

And how many of our developments, after the collapse of the USSR, were stolen by the Anglo-Saxons, the expert does not write?

[Givi_49]

There is no gun. The nozzle is round. The thrust vector seems to be deflected only in the center plane. The crowd removes it from all sides, and the article gives only one view of nothing. What is "check and checkmate" is not clear. We are waiting, sir.

[Volzhanin64]

Why even discuss the nonsense of some American expert.
I am personally surprised why a purely Russian development was assigned a "not our" name, if as a future marketing move, then so far neither a horse nor a cart. Make a quality product, and the fact that it will be cheaper than Yankee planes is unambiguous, then even if you call it "Meat grinder", they will buy it. Example Kalashnikov

[ficus2003]

Quote: NIKNN

Damn, he has wings, just like American planes. Almost a Wright Brothers concept.

This is not even the most important thing here, but the fact that this website is relaying a bunch of anti-Russian propaganda.

[Split]

Well, yes, the engines were copied, the glider, materials, etc. Over there, the Chinese have lived like this for half a century and do not care. The dogs are barking - the caravan is coming! In order to even copy - you also need brains! We have China, even if there are samples - and even then, they did not schmogh to copy ... This is me to the question that they copied ... ours also started the most belligerent tank with Renault FT 17 - for some reason, the T64 generation and its heirs - the T72 / T80 / T90, and not the vaunted Abrams (which, in fact, are not a tank, but an ACS with powerful frontal armor) - the role of which is to get out of the ambush, shoot and hide back (those who did not understand this purpose of the "tank" burned alive). the modern generation T72 + is our "34ki" of the Second World War. Yes, not ideal, but mobile, have a fairly powerful weapon - you need a competent crew ... Yes, competent people always decide in any case

[sifgame]

Yes! Russian weapons need an intelligent defender. Surprisingly, this can be seen in all branches of the military, pilots! submariners! tankers! simple Russian Soviet soldier! The rocket men.

[Nikolaevich I]

The American specialized magazine Air Force Magazine published an article by John Tirpak, in which he questioned the Russian origin of the aircraft.
The Great Aviation Power of Ukraine is in solidarity with him! Here's what they said:According to the Ukrainian Information and Consulting Agency, the new aircraft, dubbed Checkmate ("Checkmate"), resembles, in particular, the Boeing X-32, which participated in the tender for a fifth-generation American multifunctional fighter, but lost to the F-35 Lightning II. The publication claims that the Russian single-engine aircraft was "written off from the poor". Hear! This is the excellent students say! It’s scary to imagine what it would be like if they not only spoke, but also did!

[tranquil]

And here is what Tyler Rogoway, one of the creators and editors of another popular US publication, The Drive / The War Zone, writes on his pages and on his twitter:

As you can see, to the displeasure of some forum "well-wishers" even in the USA, not everyone sees a copy on this plane :)

[Varaga]

You would also translate - in general, "fire" would be.

[123456789]

What do they say in the US about the F-35?
“This plane is no good,” said expert Dan Grazier of the Washington Government Oversight Project. “We've created a monster,” Christopher Miller, the last defense secretary in the Trump administration, said of the program. - This is a piece ... ".

"After twenty years of development, the aircraft has not yet passed certification even in the Pentagon's own test bureau: at least 871 unresolved defects were recently discovered there, 10 of which are fraught with" lethal outcome "and other equally undesirable outcomes" (C)

[Babay Atasovich]

It is necessary to write correctly: "Fu-35 times"!

[Babay Atasovich]

Neighed at night from the comments! !!

[Sprut 270286]

I agree, the air intake is the same as that of the x32

[Pavel57]

Borrowing a scheme does not mean copying, otherwise the F-15 is copied from the MiG-25, and the one from the A-3 Vidzhelent.

[Nord11]

Come on, Ukraine has traditionally stated that the hybrid aggressor stole the idea from her while the designers went away to collect the master's strawberries ..

[AC130 Gunship]

I remember in the 90s I often worked at exhibitions. Such an uncle will do, always in a tie and with a rumpled briefcase. And he will say: well, what have you got here? - I will explain what and how. His next phrase: Yes, we have developed such a solution in our EPRST design bureau back in the 77th year. And off we go ... After 40 minutes of conversation, which is not moving anywhere, I ask: what are you interested in specifically? - He says nothing. I just asked. He picks up pens, cups with the logo, puts everything in a briefcase and went on to spread the people to the next stand. And the sea walked like that. We hid from them

[Klingon]

In the F-35, the design and some technical solutions were borrowed from the Yak-141, moreover, thanks to liberalization, they also received all the technical documentation for the Yak-141. So whose cow would moan

[Varaga]

Absolutely true.

[tolmachiev51]

Why should I quote idiots from Fashington, we will have enough dill for another 10 years.

[Siegfried]

if something was stolen from the Boeing X-32, then the name of the project is checkmate and checkmate ... Boeing in fact developed a glider for a new fighter for the Russian Air Force, more precisely for the Air Force of many countries that are not quite friends of America ... what is worth congratulating our military-technical intelligence.

[Dzafdet]

Quote: Yaro Polk

Strange, Russian tanks also have a cannon and tracks, just like American ones, the American stupid ones enrage)

Well, the tanks are exactly from the American Christie's licked. There is nothing to argue ...

[GAndr]

And sometimes I like to troll Westerners on Instagram. When they post a photo of their vertical penguin there and start hooting, what a cool flyer. And then I kind of like an ignorant appear and ask them - "Is this a Yak 141? Nice photo I haven't seen it before" (Is this a Yak 141? I haven't seen a good photo before). Oh, how I am amused by ripping farts and proving that this is a penguin that has nothing to do with the Yak. And on my indication that, due to the lack of stealth, virtually everything is ripped off the Yak, do you know what they are responsible for? And the fact that the Penguins have already produced more than 600, and the Yak remained in only one copy.
This is me to the fact that sometimes I just want to stick in their same comments when they say that the Su 75 is nothing more than a copy of the Boeing X-32 ...
Like what - Boeing X-32 was produced in 1 copy, and we have produced 75 Su-600s already :)) I believe there will come a time when I can do it!

[Varaga]

It's great that you "breed" them. I agree. Wait ...

[Kostadinov]

The Russian plane has a krill, fuselage, engine, landing gear - everything is copied from the Wright brothers' plane.

[bihola]

A donkey also looks like a zebra, so what.
YUSA stole many Soviet developments in the 90s.

[Sayeret Matkal]

The air intake and wing shape are copied from the x-32. This is obvious to anyone.
It’s a pity that the layout, well, it’s 20 years old and we’ll see it at the parade

[Varaga]

This Tirpak paid for this bullshit. The X32's air intake resembles a bulldozer blade. Our ShahMatist is not at all like the Boeing X32 or any other aircraft.