Milley: Taliban Has Momentum, but ‘Endgame’ Not Decided in Afghanistan

Milley: Taliban Has Momentum, but ‘Endgame’ Not Decided in Afghanistan

July 21, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Taliban controls approximately half of all district centers in Afghanistan, but the Afghan military is consolidating its forces to protect population centers, and the “endgame” is not yet written, the U.S. military’s top general said July 21.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley, during a briefing at the Pentagon, said the Taliban takeover is not a “foregone conclusion,” noting Afghan forces are still well trained and equipped.

The Taliban controls about 213 district centers, roughly half of the total 419, and is fighting to cut off population centers, such as provincial capitals and Kabul. Yet while the Taliban has encroached on them, the group has not captured any of the 34 provincial capitals.

“The strategic momentum appears to be with the Taliban,” Milley acknowledged. But, Afghan forces are consolidating and “taking the approach to protect the population.”

The country is seeing a reduction in violence because of the Eid al-Adha holiday, and it is not known yet how the Taliban’s momentum will continue after the holiday.

“It remains to be seen over the rest of the summer, … but after Eid, we’re gonna find out,” Milley said. “We’re going to find out the levels of violence, whether it’s going to go up or stay the same. There’s a possibility of a negotiated outcome that’s still out there. There’s a possibility of a complete Taliban takeover, or a possibility of … all kinds of other scenarios throughout there that we’re monitoring very closely. I don’t think the endgame is yet written.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, appearing alongside Milley, said the evacuation of interpreters and their families has become an “urgent task.” The White House announced this week that the first group will be flown to Fort Lee, Va., and Austin said the Pentagon is still working on “several” overseas locations to host others who are not as far along in the visa process.

The military is still on track to complete the full withdrawal by the end of August, with more than 95 percent of it already complete. After August, the mission shifts to counterterrorism via over-the-horizon intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, strike, and other CT capabilities. The Pentagon is still working on the possible basing of these capabilities closer to Afghanistan, though nothing has been finalized or announced.

The Pentagon’s mission will be to make sure that violence and terrorism cannot “be exported from Afghanistan to our homeland,” Austin said.

“We’ll maintain the capability not only to observe that but also address that if it does emerge,” he added.

Austin Addresses Lack of Confirmed Senior DOD Leaders

Austin Addresses Lack of Confirmed Senior DOD Leaders

July 21, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

Senior Pentagon leaders would “like to see more” nominations and confirmations for top Defense Department civilian positions as several key spots remain vacant, but Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III played down concerns regarding the impact of the slow pace of picks.

“This is something … all of my leadership [team] remains focused on each and every day, and we continue to work with the White House to make sure that we have quality and qualified applicants to fill these seats,” Austin said during a July 21 briefing.

Last week, President Joe Biden’s nomination to be the DOD’s head of acquisition, Michael Brown, withdrew his nomination amid an investigation into hiring practices at the Defense Innovation Unit. Several other positions in the Pentagon, including chief information officer, the deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, the executive director of international cooperation, the assistant secretary of defense for readiness, and the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, among others, are being held by temporary officials pending the confirmation of nominees.

Within the Air Force, the nomination of Frank Kendall to be service Secretary is still held up in the Senate, and the nomination of Gina Ortiz Jones to be undersecretary is awaiting a vote. The Air Force’s top acquisition job is also awaiting a formal nomination.

About six months into the Biden administration, Austin said six senior positions have been confirmed, 10 are waiting for a vote, and five more are in committee in the Senate.

On the position of undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, which Brown had been nominated for, Austin said he is working with the White House on submitting a new nominee.

“I’m concerned about the A and S position, … and absolutely, we’ll make another nomination, provide another name … for the White House to consider,” Austin said. “But that’s an ongoing process, and, again, when we do get that person, it will be the best person available, and I consider that job to be very, very important.”

Russia Officially Unveils New Checkmate Fighter, But Performance Claims are Ambitious

Russia Officially Unveils New Checkmate Fighter, But Performance Claims are Ambitious

July 21, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Russia officially unveiled its new Checkmate fighter at the MAKS airshow July 20, offering a series of ambitious performance claims about the jet, which it is clearly promoting as a low-cost, single-engined alternative to the F-35 in the world market. Company officials said an unmanned version may become available.

United Aircraft Corp.—parent company for all of Russia’s aircraft makers, including Sukhoi, Ilyushin, MiG, and Tupolev—says the Checkmate will fly in 2023, will be in series production in 2026, and will be offered for export at the bargain basement price of $25-$30 million per copy. That’s well below the price of the F-35, which is running at just under $80 million a copy for the conventional-takeoff F-35A model, after some 665 examples have been produced. A company press release said the Checkmate was developed “in record time.”

Russia’s new Checkmate fighter jet was unveiled at the MAKS-2021 air show in Zhukovsky, outside Moscow, July 20, 2021. Image from RT video.

Yury Slyusar, general director of UAC, said the company’s task is to offer the Checkmate in large numbers “starting from 2026,” with smaller lots produced before that. The company did not say whether the article on display was a mockup or prototype. It will be capable of defeating “fifth-generation foreign aircraft” as well as be able to “withstand sixth-generation systems that may appear in coming decades,” Slyusar said.

Russian deputy prime minister Yury Borisov, at ceremonies unveiling the Checkmate, said there’s a market for 300 of the aircraft in Africa, India, and Vietnam. Company videos have suggested that Argentina and the United Arab Emirates are also potential customers.   

Checkmate is not a natural Russian phrase; the term “shakh” is used in chess to put a player in “check,” and “mat” is declared after making the final, winning move. “Mat,” pronounced “maht,” is also used to refer to vulgar or obscene language. The Checkmate name appears to be a work of propaganda, designed for Western consumption. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlBQD2IkZNY&t=116s
Russia unveiled its newest fighter, built to compete with the F-35 and other fifth-generation aircraft, during the MAKS airshow July 20, 2021.

The jet is claimed to have a short take-off and landing (STOL) capability—though no specifics were given—and a payload, including fuel, of 15,000 pounds. It is to have a combat radius of 930 miles, versus 770 miles for the F-35 on internal fuel. Sukhoi claims the jet will have a maximum turn loading of 8G, between the 9G of the Air Force F-35A and the 7.5G of the Marine Corps/Navy F-35B and C.

Although a variant of the Saturn AL-41F1 is the presumed engine, officials at MAKS have hinted at a thrust in the 32,000 pound class; just above what the Saturn can produce. The F-35’s F135 powerplant generates about 40,000 pounds of thrust.  

The jet will have an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar able to engage six targets at once, “even under conditions of strong electronic interference,” and the AESA will work cooperatively with the sensor and electronic warfare capabilities of the jet, UAC said.

A mirror reflects the body form of Russia’s new Checkmate fighter jet unveiled at the MAKS-2021 air show in Zhukovsky, outside Moscow, July 20, 2021. Image from RT video.

Press statements about the jet say its pilot will be assisted by artificial intelligence capabilities and other “innovative solutions.” A two-seat model may also be available.

The cockpit features one large and several smaller color multifunction displays, unlike the F-35’s single-piece flat panel, along with a standard heads-up display.

Observers at MAKS said the jet does indeed have a ventral weapons bay, as well as two slender side bays for internal carriage of weapons. Besides the KH-59MK anti-ship missile shown in pre-unveiling images, the Checkmate display also includes long- and short-range air-to-air missiles and an assortment of air-to-ground ordnance including the GROM-E1 and GROM–E2 winged bombs, comparable to the StormBreaker Small Diameter Bomb II. It’s unclear from promotional material at the display whether a 30mm internal gun is part of the basic aircraft or will be “available” to customers. Only the F-35A version has an internal gun as standard gear.

Unexplained transparencies on the side of the aircraft suggest a capability similar to the F-35’s Distributed Aperture System. There was no direct reference to a helmet that could take advantage of such a system, like that on the F-35.

Company officials also said the Checkmate will be more field maintainable than other jets in its class with its capability. The F-35’s operating cost and maintainability have remained stubbornly high; so much so that the Government Accountability Office and the U.S. military services have considered cutting back on purchases due to affordability. The UAC claims at this point are purely speculative.

Images of the Checkmate circulated by various press organizations show the planform and main air intake are broadly similar to that of the Boeing X-32 Joint Strike Fighter contender in the competition won in 2001 by the Lockheed Martin F-35. It also echoes features of other also-ran U.S. fighter designs of the 1990s.

An Air Force spokesman did not have any comment about the Checkmate.

Acquisition Rules Block the Building of War-Winning Networks

Acquisition Rules Block the Building of War-Winning Networks

July 20, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Rules governing how the U.S. military can buy software and networking tools are standing in the way of rapidly developing adaptable networks that can win future wars, according to a new paper from the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

“Speed is Life: Accelerating the Air Force’s Ability to Adapt and Win” posits that “bureaucratic systems” actually prevent the Air Force and other military services from rapidly developing, experimenting with, and fielding new software and networks, author Heather Penney said on a streaming webcast to discuss the paper.

“How we use” new aircraft and weapons “in new and creative ways … will make the difference” in future conflicts, Penney said. Datalinks and networks are “becoming the foundation of how we fight,” she added. To prevail in a future conflict, “We’re going to need to adapt our architecture faster” than an enemy can attack, disrupt, or exploit it. That means the services must be able to quickly buy software or “mission integration tools” that can automatically build patches needed to get disparate systems talking to each other, she said.

Such mission integration tools will be key to the Air Force’s joint all-domain command and control, Advanced Battle Management Systems, and similar systems in the Army and Navy, Penney said. But, “believe it or not, we found that the primary barriers to being able to field these software tools” have to do with how funds are appropriated in certain accounts; the “color of money.”

Bending the rules on how the money is spent “scares people, because you can go to jail if you get it wrong,” she said. “This is serious stuff,” she added, but “the funding categories are fundamentally ill-suited for the pace of software development.” The limitations on who can spend the funds “prevents us from fielding software tools.”

There’s also no dedicated system program office for datalinks, she said. These and the waveforms that connect systems are typically managed as part of the data package for individual major weapon systems, Penney explained. That makes them subject to the broader weapon system’s timelines for upgrade and modification, which is too slow for today’s battlefield.

“Too often, mission integration falls below the cutline,” she said. Finally, “our networks are constructed at the [Combatant Commander] level, where they take months to engineer.” Because different datalinks can be incompatible with each other—the Air Force’s F-22 Intra-Flight Datalink (IFDL) and the F-35’s Multifunction Advanced Datalink (MADL) still can’t talk to each other, Penney noted—“it takes trained experts to build these over-arching battle networks to optimize connectivity.” But because the terminals are fixed, “we can’t change the way we fight,” she said.

If the services are going to become more adaptable to fast-moving changes on the battlefield, “we must address these bureaucratic barriers to fielding these mission integration software tools that can provide our forces with an adaptive advantage. Accelerating the pace of war means not only being “faster than the old Blue,” but being faster than “the Red.”

Penney said development times for network linkages are also too long, and again, are hampered by the fact that they are typically associated with individual systems.

Asked who should be making the case for change, Penney said the Office of the Secretary of Defense should be educating Congress “on some of the constraints and limitations these kinds of colors of money impose on not just the Air Force, but all the services. Networking is a service-“agnostic” issue, she said.

There’s been such discussion for several years, and Penney noted that the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act created new software acquisition categories.

The OSD and Congress need to come to some agreements, though, because the issue isn’t limited to networking tools but “every kind of changing and adaptive software that we’ll have, which includes autonomy, [artificial intelligence], anything that has machine learning sprinkled into it, … and how we do test and verification.”

Timothy Grayson, director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Strategic Technology Office, also on the streaming session, said he thinks Congress “has actually been incredibly strong advocates for a lot of this.”

He noted that Congress has been supportive of an effort called STITCHES—System-of-systems Technology Integration Tool Chain for Heterogeneous Electronic Systems—tried out in last September’s ABMS experiment—and understands that “the only way you discover these issues is if you try it. So this is programmatic experimentation in parallel to warfighting experimentation.”

Grayson said Congress has been pushing precisely this kind of acquisition reform in recent years, but “the bigger problem,” he said, is the appropriations process.

“Because that’s where there’s a tendency to say, ‘I want things that are very accountable. We need accountability.’ By definition, this effort to be very adaptive, and trying to leave a lot of discretionary freedom on the money side, is counter to the concept of accountability.”

What the Pentagon should do, he said, is get ahead of the inevitable question and “think about how we can generate that accountability. How we create a … way to measure how well we’re spending that money while we have discretion. And I think that’s an … interesting open-ended problem.”

Penny said that such accountability “is one of the major concerns” of Congress.

“That’s their constitutional responsibility. We need to develop that kind of oversight as well as providing the kind of flexibility the services will need” to prevail in future conflicts, she added.

The Mitchell paper recommended that:

  • The “color of money” problems be swiftly resolved
  • Mission integration tools be given their own programs of record and program executive officers, and not be tied to their “parent” hardware systems
  • Joint integration officers be trained and embedded at all operational levels to ensure connections and patches are created and fixed when broken
  • There be a stepped-up series of network integration experiments made and development of tactics, techniques, and procedures in this field.
US Conducts First Airstrike in Somalia Under Biden Administration

US Conducts First Airstrike in Somalia Under Biden Administration

July 20, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

U.S. forces July 20 conducted an airstrike targeting al-Shabab fighters in Somalia, the first such strike under President Joe Biden.

The strike, which comes after most American troops have left the country, supported partner Somali forces under attack in the vicinity of Galkayo.

“There were no U.S. forces accompanying Somali forces during this operation,” Defense Department spokesperson Cindi King said in a statement. “U.S. forces were conducting a remote advise-and-assist mission in support of designated Somali partner forces. U.S. forces are authorized to conduct strikes in support of combatant commander-designated partner forces under collective self defense.”

The last airstrike in Somalia was Jan. 19, just before Biden was inaugurated as President.

In December, then-President Donald J. Trump ordered U.S. troops to leave Somalia as part of a large, fast airlift mission called Operation Octave Quartz. Since then, American forces have been “commuting to work” by flying in for short-term missions then leaving the country, commander of U.S. Africa Command Army Gen. Stephen J. Townsend said.

Last month, however, Townsend said the Defense Department is considering sending American troops back to the country. The “fairly sudden repositioning out of Somalia” has made the mission more risky and complex, he said.

“So, what we’re trying to do is manage that risk and complexity as we still try to help our African partners with their security challenges,” he added. 

Military Justice Reform Advances in Senate

Military Justice Reform Advances in Senate

July 20, 2021 | By Greg Hadley

The Senate Armed Services personnel subcommittee voted July 20 to include New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand’s bill to remove prosecution of serious crimes from the military chain of command in its markup of the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, setting up a debate in the full committee over just how far reforms of the military justice system will go.

Gillibrand’s bill, which would have a military attorney from a Judge Advocate General’s Corps review completed investigations for serious crimes, then decide if the case should go to court instead of to base commanders, has attracted broad bipartisan support, with 66 co-sponsors from both sides of the political aisle. 

But while much of the focus on the bill has been on how it would combat sexual assault and harassment in the military, it would also change how prosecutorial decisions are made with regard to a range of other felonies not related to sex crimes, including murder, robbery, kidnapping, and bribery, among others.

That would go further than the military justice reforms proposed by Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, which focus more narrowly on taking decisions about crimes related to sexual assault out of the chain of command.

Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) included Austin’s reforms in his chairman’s markup of the 2022 NDAA under general provisions, but Gillibrand, who chairs the personnel subcommittee, said during the July 20 subcommittee markup she was “deeply disappointed” that Reed did not include her more expansive bill in his markup. Reed and Gillibrand have opposed each other on this topic before.

“While I have disagreed strongly and publicly with the chairman on the substance and the merits of this bill, I do recognize that he is the first chairman of this committee to support at least moving sexual assault and related crimes from the chain of command,” Gillibrand said July 20. “That is an important piece of the puzzle, but we must resist the urge to isolate sex crimes and create a separate but unequal system of justice within the military for survivors.”

The personnel subcommittee voted 5-1 to include Gillibrand’s bill as an amendment, garnering support from some of the Senate’s most noted liberal and conservative members, including Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren to Missouri Republican Josh Hawley. 

“I believe that when we have servicemen and women who have had serious crimes committed against them, felony crimes, as are addressed in this bill, it is absolutely imperative that justice is done to these men and women, and that the procedures and standards that they can expect are uniform and are predictable, that trained military prosecutors make the final call as to whether or not this will go forward, these cases will go forward for prosecution,” Hawley said in explaining his support for the broader bill.

The lone dissenting vote came from North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis, the subcommittee’s ranking member and only member that is not a cosponsor to Gillibrand’s bill. In explaining his reasoning, though, Tillis indicated his opposition was due to his belief that the amendment should have been introduced in the full committee markup.

As it is, that full committee markup, now including Gillibrand’s amendment, will come July 21 in a closed session.

During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the topic, Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) raised concerns about the impact of removing commanders from the decision to prosecute. Jackson, a former Navy rear admiral, said “it is important that a commander is engaged in all aspects of his or her unit so that he or she has the entire picture when making decisions.”

Taking that responsibility away from commanders “could undermine the foundation of a unit,” he said.

Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen H. Hicks, in response, said the issue of sexual assault and sexual harassment has proven unique in this regard. Service members have expressed concern about their trust in the chain of command, “and we believe that the price we are paying for that lack of trust is not acceptable.”

Hicks said by adopting the recommendations of the Independent Review Commission, the Pentagon aims to give commanders other tools “so that they are in a stronger position to stay connected.” Removing a leader from the decision to prosecute is a “best-in-class practice in the civilian sector” as well, she said.

Pentagon Editor Brian W. Everstine contributed to this report.

Air Force Asks Industry for Information on a ‘Bridge Tanker’

Air Force Asks Industry for Information on a ‘Bridge Tanker’

July 20, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine

The Air Force on July 19 released a request for information to the defense industry for the proposed “bridge tanker” to follow the KC-46, with a list of questions emphasizing how the future refueler will continue the service’s push for improved command and control on its aircraft.

The “bridge tanker” proposal calls for 140-160 commercial-derivative aircraft to come online after the last KC-46 is delivered in 2029, to replace KC-135s that are aging out and to cover the gap until the service develops its future Advanced Air Refueling Tanker. The RFI states the aircraft need to be based on existing and emerging technologies, with delivery beginning no earlier than 2029 at a rate of 12 per year.

The RFI follows the “sources-sought” notice released last month, which stated the final request for proposals will be released by the end of 2022 once requirements are locked in. Companies have until Aug. 2 to respond to the RFI.

While the Air Force looks for any interested companies to respond, only two aircraft are mature enough for the competition: the existing KC-46 and the Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport, which already lost to the Pegasus in the previous controversial competition.

The Air Force, in an extensive list of questions, asks companies for the range and off-load capacity of their tankers and whether that range could be increased. Additionally, it calls for the aircraft to be capable in existing tanker roles: delivery of cargo, passengers, and aeromedical evacuation missions.

The service also asks companies how their aircraft will approach command and control and the Advanced Battle Management System initiative, which calls for advanced sensors and situational awareness across aircraft.

Additionally, in the wake of the KC-46’s Remote Vision System debacle, which has delayed initial operational capability, the Air Force wants details on how prospective tankers would approach the boom operator station.

“What are the capabilities, to include effectiveness and reliability, of your candidate aircraft(s) visual system(s), including 3-dimensional and night vision?” the RFI asks. “What backup/redundancy system is part of your design?”

Brig. Gen. Scott P. Van Cleef, Former AFA Chairman, Dies at 71

Brig. Gen. Scott P. Van Cleef, Former AFA Chairman, Dies at 71

July 19, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

Scott P. Van Cleef, former Chairman of the Board of the Air Force Association, a 29-year veteran of the Air Force, and an Aggressor pilot who retired as a brigadier general, died July 18 at the age of 71.

Van Cleef served as AFA’s Chairman of the Board from 2014 to 2016. During his tenure, the CyberPatriot student cyber defense competition grew to new heights of participation, and the reinvigorated Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies expanded in size and activities. He previously served as Central East Region President and was President of the Virginia Chapter of AFA when it was named Outstanding State Organization of the Year for 2008. He was also Vice President of AFA for Field Operations and had served on the Field Operations and Strategic Planning committees. He was AFA Member of the Year in 2004 and Virginia Member of the Year in 2004 and 2010.

In his highest-ranking position in uniform, Van Cleef was the Air Force’s director for regional affairs, heading up the office overseeing international security assistance and technology transfer. He previously commanded the 52nd Fighter Wing at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, and the 52nd Air Expeditionary Wing during the Kosovo conflict. A command pilot with more than 3,300 hours, he flew the F-4 Phantom, F-5E Tiger II, and the F-16, among other aircraft.

As an F-5E pilot, he trained pilots with the pre-revolutionary Imperial Iranian Air Force in Iran and served as an Aggressor pilot and instructor with the 65th Fighter Weapons Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. He commanded an F-16 squadron and training wing and ran Air Combat Command’s training and tactics division in the Directorate of Operations. On the Air Staff, he was deputy director of plans for the deputy chief of staff for plans and operations and later was deputy director of joint matters for the deputy chief of staff for air and space operations. He also ran the aviation section of the Office of Military Cooperation with Egypt in Cairo.

In retirement, Van Cleef served on the Board of Directors of the Virginia Museum of Transportation and the Board of Visitors for the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership at Mary Baldwin College. He was a chapter officer in the Military Officers Association of America, a Civil Air Patrol senior member, and was a self-employed maker of fine furniture.

He held a bachelor’s degree in business economics from Purdue University and a master’s in political science from Auburn University.

New Russian Fighter in F-35 Class Echoes Other JSF Designs

New Russian Fighter in F-35 Class Echoes Other JSF Designs

July 19, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The new Russian single-engine fighter in the F-35 class—a field that is getting crowded—echoes designs dating back to the Joint Strike Fighter competition of the 1990s; ironically, borrowing most from the two concepts that lost that contest.

The Checkmate fighter from Sukhoi is to be officially unveiled at the MAKS airshow near Moscow on July 20, but leaked photos of a mockup in the exhibit hall, and fast-edited clips from promotional videos released by Russia’s United Aircraft Corp., appeared on the internet in the last few days.

The images show an aircraft with a large angular chin inlet reminiscent of Boeing’s X-32 contender in the JSF contest ultimately won by Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and also on China’s J-10B.

Checkmate also seems to have a short, clipped delta wing, which does not extend to the tail; again, like the X-32. The jet has two canted elevons rather than a standard empennage of stabilizers and elevators, harkening to both the X-32 and McDonnell Douglas’s JSF entrant, as well as to the YF-23 on which McDonnell Douglas was partnered with Northrop. The YF-23 lost out to the Lockheed Martin F-22 in the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition, and McDonnell Douglas’s loss in the must-win JSF contest was a major factor in the company’s 1996 merger with Boeing.

The new fighter’s tail arrangement offers reduced radar cross section—with a lower profile and fewer tail surfaces to harmonize with other aircraft edges—as well as potentially high agility. A chine beginning on the jet’s nose and inlet becomes a shallow leading edge root extension (LERX).   

Like its larger Su-57 stablemate, the Checkmate has a bubble canopy that slides back, and its infrared search and track feature is mounted on the windscreen, as it is on all recent MiG and Sukhoi fighters. However, UAC has shown images online in recent weeks of a faceted electro-optical aperture like the F-35’s, seemingly mounted on the underside of an aircraft. Other images that have circulated on the internet showing portions of the Checkmate have revealed sawtooth edges on the otherwise round exhaust, very similar to those on the F-35’s F135 engine.

The Checkmate is expected to use a variant of the Saturn AL-41F1 engine used by the Su-57; much as the F-35’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine derives from the F119 powerplant on the F-22.

In the leaked airshow image, a starboard weapons bay is open. Narrow and long, it suggests capacity for just one long-range air-to-air missile, or perhaps multiple, small, tandem-mounted air-to-air missiles in the R-60 Aphid class. The jet may also have a large ventral weapons bay, but this is not clear from the image.

The width of the nose is hard to ascertain, offering no clues about the capacity of what will surely be an active electronically scanned array radar. The aircraft may also make use of sensors or radar mounted in the LERX and wing leading edges.

With a thick wing root and heavy twin “booms” under the twin tails, the aircraft may have high fuel capacity. No external stores or fuel tanks were shown on the aircraft.

A KH-59MK anti-ship missile is also visible in the airshow image, but it’s not clear if its presence is meant to indicate it’s a primary weapon of the Checkmate. The missile might just fit in the Checkmate’s narrow side weapons bay.

The MAKS mockup is painted in a blue-gray “spatter” scheme not very similar to those seen on previous Russian jets, such as the Su-57. The scheme bleeds slightly over the sharp edges onto the light blue underside.  

In a UAC video ad released in the last week, putative pilots from Argentina, India, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, and other countries are shown expectantly awaiting the arrival of the Checkmate, suggesting it is an export fighter targeted at these countries, or that UAC is seeking a financial partner among them to develop and build it.

More images of the aircraft will allow a better analysis of whether it is intended to have all-aspect stealth—unlikely, given that its more expensive stablemate, the Su-57, is not stealthy in all aspects—or whether it has only been optimized for forward-quarter, low, or reduced observability.

The Checkmate joins a lengthening list of aircraft competing in the F-35’s category. Korea is developing a twin-engined F-35 lookalike called the KF-21, billed as a generation 4.5 fighter but lacking internal weapons bays. Turkey’s twin-engined developmental TF-X also resembles the F-35, as does China’s twin-engined FC-31. Britain’s Tempest combat jet design is similar to the F-35 in its nose area but has more of a delta wing. Japan’s F-X fighter is more in the F-22 class, and a consortium (France, Germany, and Spain) is developing the Future Combat Air System, billed as an advancement over the F-35, which in mockup form resembles a more streamlined and flatter F-22.

UAC’s website shows a countdown to the Checkmate’s unveiling, suggesting it will be midday July 20.