I just made one realization: the Checkmate is the first medium/light weight fifth gen to use side bays.
I just made one realization: the Checkmate is the first medium/light weight fifth gen to use side bays.
X-32 also had its bays in the flanks of its tall fuselage (in fact there was no belly bay at all, AFAIK). One of several similarities, though Boeing positioned them right next to the main landing gear (good for STOVL, as that put them very close to the CG, but probably a pain to load).
Regarding weight, I've notched up my estimation of its size and weight considerably as more information became available - it's definitely in the medium class, only marginally lighter than the F-35 (if at all). Not sure what configuration the quoted 18t take-off weight represents, but I doubt it's actually the maximum. The main weapons bay is the same as those on the Su-57 (i.e. up to 2x 800kg munitions!) and so, amazingly, are the tail fins, cockpit section and probably even the wings! On the Su-57, the latter aren't actually as big as they seem, most of the area is contributed by the truly massive centroplane, making them a decent fit for this smaller airframe.
All this combined makes for an aircraft that approaches the F-35 in size, and any weight advantage from not requiring any hooks for STOVL is probably lost to adopting "overbuilt" structure from a much larger aircraft. It's an incredibly bold and potentially very clever move, it's quite astonishing how well these borrowed parts, made for something twice the size, come together into a coherent design! I've always been impressed by how much commonality Lockheed-Martin was able to achieve while satisfying the wildly contradictory requirements of the three F-35 variants, but even that seems almost pedestrian in comparison. Could go some way toward explaining the seemingly ridiculously low cost, though I'm sure some massaging was involved in arriving at those figures regardless.
All in all, I expect an OEW of around 12t, possibly a bit more.
It was actually quoted as MTOWNot sure what configuration the quoted 18t take-off weight represents
It was actually quoted as MTOW
SU35 runs estimates are between 40-60 million unit cost though it’s been sold for 80 million. You are saying that this thing will cost less than a hot rod version of an established platform of development. I know the Russians can pay less but that’s not realistic. It’s beyond under bid. Might as well have offered for $10.56.It may end up being bigger, somewhat over 30 million, but it is worth remembering that a wage of any worker working in the production and development chain of f35 and his counterpart in russia for the LTS is hugely different.
F-15EX is more expensive than F-35, too.SU35 runs estimates are between 40-60 million unit cost though it’s been sold for 80 million. You are saying that this thing will cost less than a hot rod version of an established platform of development. I know the Russians can pay less but that’s not realistic. It’s beyond under bid. Might as well have offered for $10.56.
Short term. Then again when F35A was earlier block it cost as much as current early F15EX. My point is the 30million dollar figure doesn’t make any sense at all. It sounds much like claims of the cost of SU57 or Armata costing fractions of current equivalent.F-15EX is more expensive than F-35, too.