S-70 "Okhotnik" UCAV

Hole wrote:The F-35 is subsonic.

And it sucks

There are tactics you can use against any defence... you just have to look at upgrades to Soviet air defence systems to work out what they were... the Kub/Buk family which are related is an excellent example of development...

The SA-6 KUB was used in the Middle East and was very effective initially, but Israel realised it could send in drones and when the radars detected and were tracking the drones wild weasel aircraft could launch anti radiation missiles to take out the single radar of the battery and then while the battery was down they could send in F-16s with bombs to take out the now defenceless TELs.

The next generation system is the BUK, SA-11, and every TEL has its own tracking and engagement radar so even if the main radar is hit each missile vehicle can still engage aircraft. The SA-11 also increased the number of ready to fire missiles by having four missiles per launcher instead of three.

The BUK and also the KUB were upgraded with optical guidance channels too in case of serious jamming or lots of ARMs.

The next BUK upgrade was the SA-17 with shorter fins and improved flight performance that allowed the missiles to engage ARMs as well as aircraft and drones and cruise missiles... range was also increased.

The current new model BUK has 6 ready to fire missiles on the launchers and 12 missiles ready to launch on the reload vehicles... so clearly they fear the response to their previous upgrades would simply be an overwhelming attack of greater numbers.

It sounds flippant... just use more missiles... but there is a reason they never previously planned to launch hundreds or thousands of missiles or drones at each air defence unit, but it becomes orders of magnitude more expensive, rather difficult to manage and organise, and to be honest it becomes a very serious counterstrike target... if you want to launch hundreds of ARMs then you need a lot of planes and to maximise the number of ARMs those planes will be mostly carry ARMs and not other weapons to fight with... which means a long range SAM attack or a pre-emptive attack with armed drones like the S-70 could ruin your attack before it even starts costing you a lot of assets.

Imagine an attack on an S-400 battery... satellite images show what is there so they know they need at least 500 targets to overwhelm the system comfortably, so they prepare... they have tomahawks from ships and subs, and they have 10 B-1Bs, and they also have 50 F-35s that are going to deliver just over 500 munitions at the battery... but defensive radar detect the aircraft forming up so several S-70s are launched out into international airspace towards where the B-1Bs are forming up and the F-35s are detected... the ship and sub missiles have to travel the furthest and are launched first so they all arrive together and those launches are detected so it is weapons free... each of the 10 or so S-70s then selects aircraft and starts engaging them at long range with RVV-BD missiles... which can outmanouver 8 g targets so the F-35 and B-1Bs with missiles have no chance at all to dodge... four missiles per drone means the B-1Bs are probably dead meat, and a good portion of the F-35s are going to splash down too... this is a very serious loss just to take out one S-400 site... and the early warning of the attack provided by satellite and S-70 means aircraft can be mobilised to help defend the S-400 base which might come out of it without a scratch...

Obviously I idealised that in favour of the defender, but I ignored things like GPS jammers rendering the tomahawks inaccurate, active jamming and decoy systems to deal with ARM based weapons and of course any other air defence unit that might be activated between the S-400 battery and the attackers that could also pick off incoming threats... but knocking down the B-1Bs would serious reduce the attacking force of missiles... they would likely be carrying 24 munitions each so that halves the attack strength alone...

Russian heavy strike drone Okhotnik makes first flight

The first flight lasted for over 20 minutes

MOSCOW, August 3. /TASS/. Russia’s Okhotnik (Hunter) heavy unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV), developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau, has made the first flight, the Russian Defense Ministry told reporters on Saturday.

"Under the test program, a long-duration flight time UCAV Okhotnik has performed its first flight," says the press release circulated by the defense ministry. "The first flight took place at 12.20 Moscow time and lasted for over 20 minutes. The aerial vehicle flown by the operator made several circles around the airfield at an altitude of 600 meters and then successfully landed.".

https://tass.com/defense/1071784

The first prototype S-70 "Okhotnik" at the aerodrome of the 929th State Chkalov Flight Test Center in Akhtubinsk (Astrakhan region). June 2019

dino00 wrote:Russian heavy strike drone Okhotnik makes first flight

Good news....now hopefully they will release the footage

...

Some interesting tid bits of information from Paralay's forum

a Message from Oct 2015 - Speaking at the "round table" in the presence of journalists, Kutakov said that Russia after 2020 will appear strategic supersonic drone with a range of about 8 thousand kilometers.

A message from 25.02.2018 - Conducted the development of unmanned complex for long-range, capable of performing automatic low-altitude supersonic flight in operational, strategic depth, and hit both stationary and mobile targets, - told the TV channel "Zvezda", the representative of Central research Institute of the air force Alexander Nemov.

Also, a model of what looks like another strike drone....possibly also in development

Here's a short video of the 1st flight....

Cyberspec wrote:Here's a short video of the 1st flight....

zg18 wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:Here's a short video of the 1st flight....

 

Niiice!

Big booty!

S-70 first flight

https://twitter.com/vezhlivo/status/1159047176464621568

Interesting... didn't use AB, and climbed quite rapidly, though for a test it probably didn't have a full payload of weapons or fuel...

It clearly uses split flaps for yaw control as shown during landing... while in flight it looked a bit like the F-117 from below...

During takeoff from behind there is a large rear facing hole to the right of the engine... interesting...

Propably for cooling of the engine or internal equipment.

Why are they using a rounded engine outlet? Did they not have the time/money to design one???

calripson wrote:Why are they using a rounded engine outlet? Did they not have the time/money to design one???

Engine and landing gear are placeholders

Round engine outlet. Really weird. Must be lack of money.

Sarcasm aside. More pics.

The engine is probably for test. They will make a special engine for it by taking into account the range wanted by the air force, the weight of the drone and if they want it to be supersonic or not. All those parameters will be determined by tests, lot of tests.

Izd 30 is the priority and they are working hard on it. Once finished they will switch for a new engibe for thos drone.

Just my opinion.

Since it's meant to operate in conjuction with the Su-57, it's likely it will have the same engine

Cyberspec wrote:Since it's meant to operate in conjuction with the Su-57, it's likely it will have the same engine

Not really an argument. Those are two different aircraft.

Isos wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:Since it's meant to operate in conjuction with the Su-57, it's likely it will have the same engine

Not really an argument. Those are two different aircraft.

Wanna bet on it?

It has been discussed ad nauseam that 2D "stealth" nozzles kill the value of 3D thrust vectoring. For such a small cross section of
EM scattering given the overall size of the frame, this is an unacceptable sacrifice. The F-35 just hammers in the nail into this stupid
fanboi trope.

If one really cared about the ability of the jet to survive, then it would be the IR signature of the engine exhaust. For all the
supposed benefits of 2D nozzles, the amount of cooling they achieve is marginal. An IR chasing missile will still do its job regardless
of all the "stealth" features. IR and and optical targeting work on "stealth" wunderwaffen as well.

Normally intakes for cooling face forwards and are intakes rather than rear facing exhausts... and considering the stealth design I would expect any such intake to be incorporated into the engine intake so cold air is taken as it enters the intake and directed through pipes over anything that needs cooling and might have its own exhaust to prevent blowback where it is directed back into the engine or the engine exhaust where the higher pressure might result in a reverse airflow through the system so it stops being a cooling system and starts being a heating one...

It doesn't seem to have a cover so it probably isn't an APU exhaust system used when the APU is running on the ground... might be a position for a rear facing optical or radar system for self awareness to be filled in later...

despite what people say … to me its obvious this thing isn't meant to fly with an AL-41 its meant for the new engine Iz-30 which is more compact
you can see the lines of the craft quite clearly and how the big engine doesn't fit

and don't forget the Iz-30 is dual cycle … which will allow it to loiter longer
most people are thinking the wrong way … this thing is more like an Su-34 …. a long loiter aircraft

as for the shape of it in plan view …
is it me ? but every time you watch these type of aircraft fly they have these split flaps way out of the wing ends opening and closing

and with the steep angle of the wing … this makes the wing tips the "rear" of the plane ….
and hence …. the tail(s)
and as the thing doesn't have a fixed tail giving a natural self correction …. to make the back slower and the sides of the tail providing "unnoticed" corrections to yaw ….
the extreme ends of the wings are detecting yaw variation and the split flaps then correct it to keep it flying straight …

I don't think the "extreme sweep" is about speed envelope … I think its about yaw control ….. and creating 2 "tails" at the rear end of the UAV
is most easily created via extreme sweep ….. and a straight line is easier to make it stealthier

also if you want a reasonable loiter time …. you need a reasonable amount of bypass in your engine
which creates a widish diameter engine …. so you need a "fat body" to stick it into …..
and that just happens to allow you to have some nice internal weapon bays ….

I think logically you just end up with a shape like this ….
if you are trying to achieve a long distance, long loiter, stealthy design ….

I see this thing as an unmanned Su-34 …..
with no microwave oven, toilet, bed …. crew

every time I see one of these types of aircraft fly with those split flaps/rudders ….. I get more convinced how they work

The inlet is in front of it.