S-70 "Okhotnik" UCAV

kvs wrote: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.

That's a flying wing. Forget super-manoevrability.

IR guided missiles stopped homing in on the tail pipe some time ago...

Considering this drone is intended to operate with Su-57 to support the aircraft in both attack and defence missions I would guess it will be more than likely it will operate with the same engine as they have very similar requirements and will operate from the same airfields.

Perhaps that extra hole is for releasing ionised gas to reduce the RCS from behind... ionised gas absorbs all frequencies of radar and radio emissions so a rapidly expanding exhaust of relatively cool ionised gas would form an expanding column behind the UCAV of radar and radio absorbing material relatively cheaply and simply... much easier than trying to ionise the gas in front of the aircraft to create a cloak of invisibility because the aircrafts forward speed means it needs to be rapidly generated and projected in front of the aircraft... which would not be so easy.

I would say a 3D TVC engine would make flight performance at transonic and supersonic speeds for a flying wing much easier and safer as TVC is not subject to control surface reversal or similar such aerodynamic problems...

That's a flying wing. Forget super-manoevrability.

It is not really about super manouverability... it is about manouverability in some extreme flight conditions, but also improved flight control without vertical control surfaces and without massively increasing drag or RCS...

A TVC engine means you can trim the aircraft in flight so you can get by with a much lower drag control surface setup... it also means the aircraft can adopt a more nose up or nose down flight profile which will also be useful depending upon whether the enemy radar is airborne or on the ground.

every time you watch these type of aircraft fly they have these split flaps way out of the wing ends opening and closing

Yes, the split flaps on wingtips is for yaw control, has been around since at least the early post-WWII flying wings.

Interesting on this one its not actually the ailerons that are split, its a separate bit ahead (mechanically simpler I guess? Maybe aerodynamically better?).
Also interesting how little this thing seems to be using it (or other surfaces) even in a banking turn vs B2 always seems to have them split pretty wide & constantly adjusting.

Regarding the engine nozzle: it's long been the dream to use 3D nozzle vectoring for yaw & pitch control without stealth-hurting control surface deflections, if this is doing that its a big step & it'll stay a circular nozzle.

I don't see this as being a super stealth drone... its basic shape is low drag and stealthy, but if they are not going to make the Su-57 super stealthy (ie as stealthy as they could possibly make it) then I don't think they would make the same mistake with this drone.

The US had the good sense to dial back the flight speed of the F-16 and F-18 which are mach 2 and mach 1.8 limited aircraft, because the tiny extra speed was almost never used and had weight and complication costs. they dialed back the top speed and saved some money and some weight... it is sad they are going full steam ahead with stealth and not realising that the money they are spending is going to be wasted as radar technology improves and makes the extra stealthiness of their aircraft irrelevant... a decent sized L band leading edge radar antenna in this thing could be huge and very precise for detecting stealth targets...

Just a pseudo-stealthy toy RC with some bombs.
Bit better than Isis RC planes.
UAVs are gimmick and totally useless in conventional conflict.

Regular wrote:Just a pseudo-stealthy toy RC with some bombs.
Bit better than Isis RC planes.
UAVs are gimmick and totally useless in conventional conflict.

This one is supposed to go bear su-57 and once threats are detected, it will be send to destroy it and it will mostly be air defences and ships.

this is the question everyone is asking ?

I do get tired of everyone parroting USA nonsense like "loyal wingman" …
why would a supersonic Su-57 have a subsonic drone flying in formation ? its ridiculous

as I see it - it is going into a Su-34 type role ….. a loitering …. long endurance reconnaissance and strike capable

eg description of Su-34 design ...
The most obvious design departure of the Su-34 when compared to the Su-27 was its larger cockpit cabin and forward fuselage assembly. The cockpit was deliberately designed as a large, comfortable operating space for the two crew and applicable systems. The area aft of the cockpit would feature a full in-flight galley and lavatory to help offset the fatigue and physical stresses undertaken by the crew over long sorties - the crew can stand or lay down as needed. The crew was made up of a primary pilot and his weapons operator, seated in a side-by-side arrangement (as in the American General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter-bomber). The use of two crew allowed the mission workload to be spread about, lessening crew fatigue (and inherent mistakes) while a consistently pressurized cockpit allowed for a working environment not requiring cumbersome oxygen masks to be worn.

… the "weak" part of the Su-34 …. is the crew

speaking of which ...
is it just a coincidence that the Su-70 seems destined to be built at the same factory as the Su-34 ?
that's where it seems to be being built … NAPO

maybe I'm wrong …. one thing is for sure some engineers are having a lot of fun ….

I do get tired of everyone parroting USA nonsense like "loyal wingman" …
why would a supersonic Su-57 have a subsonic drone flying in formation ? its ridiculous

The spec sheet revealed suggests top speed of 1,400km/h which is easily supersonic... flying faster at higher altitude would be much easier and much more efficient in terms of fuel burn.

And this drone probably carries either four heavy long range AAMs or ARMs or perhaps 8 medium range AAMs or a mix so most of the time it will be flying above the Su-57s at supersonic speeds ready to launch AAMs at any force multipliers it detects like AWACS or inflight refuelling aircraft or major SAM sites or JSTARs... it wont be a loyal wingman... it will be cannon fodder sent into enemy airspace with the chance of striking an early blow and disrupting enemy air defence without risking a pilot.

… the "weak" part of the Su-34 …. is the crew

Yeah, if the crew was the weak part then why increase the volume of space inside the aircraft dedicated to their comfort. Removing them and replacing them with something else would be the upgrade if they were the problem... not expanding their footprint inside the aircraft.

is it just a coincidence that the Su-70 seems destined to be built at the same factory as the Su-34 ?
that's where it seems to be being built … NAPO

They likely wont make more than a couple of dozen more Su-34s as they have in service over 120 right now, so it would make sense as production of Su-34s wind down to start production on something else.

UAVs are gimmick and totally useless in conventional conflict.

UAVs are useless as fighters and a few other roles, but as recon and weapon carriers they are cheaper and simpler than standard manned aircraft.

This design operating with the Su-57 makes rather more sense than the US plan to operate converted C-130s with their F-35s to carry enormous amounts of munitions just behind the front lines being targetted by the forward operating F-35s using their sensors to find targets that weapons released from the unmanned C-130s will engage.

The Su-57 can engage the F-35s while the S-70s take out the C-130s behind them.

One Su-57 could use half a dozen S-70s which can cycle between being on station, moving forward into enemy airspace and landing and rearming, so the Su-57 might even use some S-70s to take on fuel so they can remain on station for long periods... any threats can be engaged with weapons on high flying S-70s, while the information from sensors on the S-70 and Su-57 can be combined and analysed to create an accurate map of enemy force locations and strengths and at the same time deal with any attempts at attack like cruise missiles.

Gazputin wrote:this is the question everyone is asking ?

I do get tired of everyone parroting USA nonsense like "loyal wingman" …
why would a supersonic Su-57 have a subsonic drone flying in formation ? its ridiculous

as I see it - it is going into a Su-34 type role ….. a loitering …. long endurance reconnaissance and strike capable

eg description of Su-34 design ...
The most obvious design departure of the Su-34 when compared to the Su-27 was its larger cockpit cabin and forward fuselage assembly. The cockpit was deliberately designed as a large, comfortable operating space for the two crew and applicable systems. The area aft of the cockpit would feature a full in-flight galley and lavatory to help offset the fatigue and physical stresses undertaken by the crew over long sorties - the crew can stand or lay down as needed. The crew was made up of a primary pilot and his weapons operator, seated in a side-by-side arrangement (as in the American General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter-bomber). The use of two crew allowed the mission workload to be spread about, lessening crew fatigue (and inherent mistakes) while a consistently pressurized cockpit allowed for a working environment not requiring cumbersome oxygen masks to be worn.

… the "weak" part of the Su-34 …. is the crew

speaking of which ...
is it just a coincidence that the Su-70 seems destined to be built at the same factory as the Su-34 ?
that's where it seems to be being built … NAPO

maybe I'm wrong …. one thing is for sure some engineers are having a lot of fun ….

Yes, that is the point.

The S-70 will be destined to the reconnaissance units of each Air Army. One squadron per Air Army and other in North and Pacific Fleets

The missions of the S-70 will be those of exploration and armed recognition, just the ones that the Su-24MR does now
The speed is also similar: 1.3 M


The mixed regiments created with Su-24M and Su-24MR will be probably replaced by Su-34 and S-70 respectively

For the moment, that is the only possibility for replace about 70 Su-24MR. In other case , the total need of Su-34 would be more 270 machines and this will hot happend.

The S-70 will probably be able to interact with the entire Suhkoi range, but it is more reasonable that it will be operated and the regiments will be instructed to operate it with two-crew planes, specially designed for long missions as Su-34. (is usual SU-34 do misisons of 10-11 hours, from one extreme to other of Russia)


Now, There are 5 Su-24MR squadrons, and probably other  mixed regiment will be crated in Transbaikal after 2020.
Then the total need of S-70 will be 72 + training unit,  about 80 machines

The Su-34, just replace the rest of Su-24M , about 60 to 72 machines, included squadrons in North Fleet and a new unit in Pacific Fleet

What is the Take Off class of S-70 is it 20 Tons or 25 Tons ?

Can this bird design do a Mach 1.1 if AB is on ?

Yeah, if the crew was the weak part then why increase the volume of space inside the aircraft dedicated to their comfort. Removing them and replacing them with something else would be the upgrade if they were the problem... not expanding their footprint inside the aircraft.

Su-34 is a Soviet concept.
The misión of Su-34 is long range missions in a scenario of high scale war against NATO. This is tactical nuclear strike against western Europe countries.

They likely wont make more than a couple of dozen more Su-34s as they have in service over 120 right now, so it would make sense as production of Su-34s wind down to start production on something else.

In this moment, after the withdraw of the 5 Su-34 of the first batch, and lost 4 (3 in the same accident in january 2019) , there are 113 Su-34 in the ranks of VKS
By the year end , VKS will have 120 machines in 10 squadrons.


Other 90 Su-24M and Su-24MR are in service in VKS and 24 in Monchegorsk under the command of North Fleet.
Total more than 110, that need replacement. Also Pacific Fleet will be rearmed and probably will receive the same than North Fleet.



Su-34 will continue in production until the total replacement of Su-24M, about other 60 to 72 Su-34

The Su-57 can engage the F-35s while the S-70s take out the C-130s behind them.

Su-57 is the counterpart of F-22. The misión on RuAF is the to defence of mainland in the three main directions : Leningrad, Rostov and Jabarovsk
The number of 76 Su-57 is not a casuality. USAF has 166 F-22 in 9 squadrons of 18, +4 for training.
The most that USA can deploy outside is 4 squadrons or 72 F-22

F-35 is a joke, will have to see in the end how many are manufactured of the 2700 intended-No more comments.

And C-130 will be easy bread for Air Defence, S-400 or S-300, if invades the russian air space

Austin wrote:What is the Take Off class of S-70 is it 20 Tons or 25 Tons ?

Can this bird design do a Mach 1.1 if AB is on ?

I don't know and I doubt anyone knows for sure at the moment

Ask Sergei Shoigu

https://twitter.com/RuAviaPhotog/status/1159523705514594305

AMCXXL wrote:

Yes, that is the point.

The S-70 will be destined to the reconnaissance units of each Air Army. One squadron per Air Army and other in North and Pacific Fleets

The missions of the S-70 will be those of exploration and armed recognition, just the ones that the Su-24MR does now
The speed is also similar: 1.3 M


The mixed regiments created with Su-24M and Su-24MR will be probably replaced by Su-34 and S-70 respectively

For the moment, that is the only possibility for replace about 70 Su-24MR. In other case , the total need of Su-34 would be more 270 machines and this will hot happend.

The S-70 will probably be able to interact with the entire Suhkoi range, but it is more reasonable that it will be operated and the regiments will be instructed to operate it with two-crew planes, specially designed for long missions as Su-34. (is usual SU-34 do misisons of 10-11 hours, from one extreme to other of Russia)


Now, There are 5 Su-24MR squadrons, and probably other  mixed regiment will be crated in Transbaikal after 2020.
Then the total need of S-70 will be 72 + training unit,  about 80 machines

The Su-34, just replace the rest of Su-24M , about 60 to 72 machines, included squadrons in North Fleet and a new unit in Pacific Fleet

May I disagree there?
One cannot put on the same perspective a mature model like the Su-34, already in service in more than an hundred of plane with a prototype that have performed its first flight just few days ago.
Even postulating a tighter development schedule for the S-70 compared to a normal plane (as the need to enforce security of pilot is not just existent here) there would need a lot of time before serial production of the final product would be possible.
Above all, however its the same idea of developing not just one but two different platform (given that SKAT has been revamped also) to cover just the production of 80 items just doesn't make sense to me.
Maybe the substitution of Su-24MR with Okhotnik could happen anyway but together with the one of complete Su-25 fleet as a minimum.

I would be even more ambitious and stretch the performances of it into reaching the 1.5-1.7 M ballpark: a 5 gen Su-22 available in big numbers (as you didn't need active and physically fit pilots for them) to put F-35 into big troubles.

I like how the engine is shielded. Reduces RCS.

I agree... I have been looking close at the surfaces near the engine and am wondering if it is like the control surface above the intake on the Su-57 as airflow around the engine exhaust would be channelled through there by the thrust of the engine.


As an example get a large plastic bag... like a shopping bag... and flatten it... now try to blow it up with one breath.

If you hold it up to your mouth and blow you will fail because human lungs don't have the capacity to fill that sized plastic bag.

If you hold the bag away from your lips however extra air around your mouth is forced into the bag by the airflow and you can fill it up fairly easily... note it doesn't work with bags under pressure... it wouldn't work to blow up a balloon.

But what I am saying is that the forced airflow near the engine exhaust could be redirected by control surfaces that perhaps only work near supersonic speed to counter the effect of the cg shift during acceleration to supersonic speed... once you are flying at supersonic speed you are fine, but you normally need a tail surface... more accurately an all moving tail surface to reach supersonic speed.

Of course having said that a Mirage 2000 has no tail surface either and it is supersonic...

love this stuff ….
I don't think the Okhotnik is so aerodynamically stable - you could go supersonic ….
yes I've said it 100 times …

what is the point ? and having been involved in design and manufacture for over 20yrs ….
you are adding probably 2-3 times more cost and development time …. for what ?
you have to live in reality …. even the insane Americans ….

why would you bother if the Su-34 with a similar mission profile can go supersonic anyway ?
I just don't get it ….

if you told me to do a supersonic ground attack aircraft with no crew …
I'd get the plans for the Su-34 out … and start from there …
I'd go a tailless delta ….. eg FB-22
actually …. sounds weird I'd go Indian Tejas …. a reverse cranked delta ….. same as Fb-22 essentially

thing is - how do you steer it ?
I'd be thinking like a Phantom or Buccaneer
have a big central spine.... and blow your exhaust along that rear spine …. to create a "tail"
Su-34 already has one ….
point your exhausts inward slightly ? …..

but … what is the point of it ?
I don't get it …..

anyway any ideas from my "blown" rear spine …. keep the entertainment coming ! great stuff …..
I'm more than happy to be proved wrong … and have rocks thrown at me .

The Chinese ridiculed the heavy Russian drone "Hunter"
Russian experts called this discourse “pro-American trolling

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Chinese ridiculed the heavy Russian drone "Hunter"
Russian experts called this discourse “pro-American trolling

Chincoms grew quite an ego for someone who can't get 40 year old plane to take off from 30 year old carrier because they built it too heavy

Good thing they don't depend on foreign country for combat jets and aircraft engi... wait...

Good thing they don't depend on foreign country for combat jets and aircraft engi... wait...

Specially that they begged for the same engine that is on this drone ....

Isos wrote:

Good thing they don't depend on foreign country for combat jets and aircraft engi... wait...

Specially that they begged for the same engine that is on this drone ....

One that is about to be replaced even on legacy jets on top

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Chinese ridiculed the heavy Russian drone "Hunter"
Russian experts called this discourse “pro-American trolling

Thick and rich coming from clowns that don't even have a similar design flying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVIC_601-S

thing is - how do you steer it ?
I'd be thinking like a Phantom or Buccaneer
have a big central spine.... and blow your exhaust along that rear spine …. to create a "tail"
Su-34 already has one ….
point your exhausts inward slightly ? …..

but … what is the point of it ?
I don't get it …..

If it is a fly high type of aircraft then it wont need to turn and burn like a fighter... conventional control surfaces on the wing would be easily enough... thrust vectoring engines spaced apart give differential roll control as well as yaw and up and down...

The S-70 is a very low drag design because that is good for stealth and just low visibility with optics in IR and visual, which makes supersonic speed not that difficult.

Speed is about thrust velocity and drag and has very little to do with power to weight ratio... a MiG-29 has a much better power to weight ratio than a MiG-31, but the MiG-31 is much faster...

I recently read an article by an Indian expert who said the Su-57 was not ready and that the Russians were only going to make a dozen of so of them so it would be better to wait for the new engines and by then because they wont have made many they will be eager to sell them to India on good terms just to get some export sales... and then India could fix all its problems and make it an export success like they did with the Su-30MKI...

GarryB wrote:
I recently read an article by an Indian expert who said the Su-57 was not ready and that the Russians were only going to make a dozen of so of them so it would be better to wait for the new engines and by then because they wont have made many they will be eager to sell them to India on good terms just to get some export sales... and then India could fix all its problems and make it an export success like they did with the Su-30MKI...

Of course, but that will mean that they will have to pay the normal export price and not a preferential price for such aircrafts.