Once a high-stakes rival to the F-35, Russia’s stealthy single-engine fighter has vanished into a haze of production delays, funding gaps, and unverified technological promises.
By Kris Osborn, Warrior Maven
Years after its “flashy” arrival upon the global 5th-generation stealth fighter jet scene, the once highly praised Russian Su-75 Checkmate seems to be fading into a mist of uncertainty, if not simple “non-existence.”
What happened to a jet which seemed like a fast, stealthy Russian effort to rival the West’s F-35 network? Despite the emergence of an F-35-like single-engine design and stealthy, rounded blended wing-body, little to no actual sensing, targeting or computing details of the Su-75 were discussed or analyzed much. Apart from “renderings” of its external configuration, very little actual technological detail emerged in a substantial way. Specs of the aircraft refer to a digital cockpit, 1,500 mile range, internal weapons bay and speeds of Mach 1.8. These attributes, if true, might indicate the possibility of a capable 5th-generation stealthy jet faster and potentially more maneuverable than an F-35. Why then, did the aircraft essentially “disappear?”
Su-75 vs F-35?
The idea is to “mass” produce an exportable, lower-cost 5th-generation stealth fighter for Russian allies or customers interested in a multi-national 5th-generation network of jets to “mass” attack across formations. There are reasons to “pause” at this possibility, given Russia’s production challenges and the massive deficit the Su-75 would operate with in relation to NATO. There are already hundreds of F-35s spread globally across more than 18 countries, and estimates from Lockheed Martin suggest there will be at least 600 F-35s on the European continent by 2030. Russia is known for its fighter-jet production and budget problems, as evidenced by its floundering fleet of Su-57s. Russia has been planning to build hundreds of Su-57s for years, but has never been able to put together an actual “force” or formation of Su-57s, so it seems unlikely that things could be at all different with the Su-75.
Even if Russia could mass produce Su-75s, something for which there is little to no actual evidence, it would take Russia years to rival an international allied 5th-gen fighter force able to rival the F-35. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the Su-75 would operate with an F-35 like multi-national datalink. All F-35s can seamlessly exchange targeting and intelligence data across combat formations using a common Multi-Function Advanced DataLink (MADL). Could allied "checkmate" Su-75 countries operate with a similar secure command and control multi-national networking technology?
Is it really Stealthy?
External configuration is but one element of stealth technology, meaning it can reduce radar signature by virtue of having few protruding structures or sharp angled configurations more likely to generate a radar return signal. However, while it can help direct air flow for vectoring and greatly decrease radar cross section, external configuration is but one element of a stealth configuration. Does it have radar absorbent materials? How is it bolted and seamed in terms of connected joined elements of the fuselage? Of equal importance are questions about its thermal signature. The back end has been tough to see with available photos, although the aircraft does certainly have an internally buried engine likely optimized for low heat emissions.
The Su-75 does appear to have an internal weapons bay, yet the quantity and composition of its arsenal, as well as its max payload weight, are not likely to compete with an F-35. Available specs of the Su-75 say it has an F-35-like max take-off weight of 26,000 pounds, speeds up to Mach 1.8 and advanced Infrared Search and Track targeting technology. An operative question here clearly relates to the range, accuracy and resolution of its sensing, as the aircraft is unlikely to rival the sensing capacity of the F-35, an aircraft which has shown in wargames to be capable of “seeing” and “destroying” groups of 4th-gen aircraft from ranges where it cannot itself be detected.
If one of the aircraft were far superior to the other in terms of targeting range, weapons reach and guidance or computing and EW, actual numbers of aircraft might not be as crucial. However, should they be in any way comparable, the force with larger numbers will be more likely to win a war of attrition, outlast the other and cover wide areas of combat space an opponent could not defend.
Kris Osborn is the Military Technology Editor of 1945. Osborn is also President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University