S-70 "Okhotnik" UCAV

PapaDragon wrote:

kvs wrote:Some moron in another thread was laughing it up that the Altius-U supposedly needs an accompanying helicopter to operate ...

Altus definitely did require helicopter to in order to operate because once it's out of it's pathetically small signal range it would become dead weight

It was the reason why project was nearly scraped and why the whole thing was transferred to different developer

Of course nobody was prosecuted for this attempted fraud and no money was refunded

If anyone thinks that designing a drone which can't operate without a helicopter in close proximity is a good idea then he is definitely a moron

Can't tell if serious or trolling.

ult wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

kvs wrote:Some moron in another thread was laughing it up that the Altius-U supposedly needs an accompanying helicopter to operate ...

Altus definitely did require helicopter to in order to operate because once it's out of it's pathetically small signal range it would become dead weight

It was the reason why project was nearly scraped and why the whole thing was transferred to different developer

Of course nobody was prosecuted for this attempted fraud and no money was refunded

If anyone thinks that designing a drone which can't operate without a helicopter in close proximity is a good idea then he is definitely a moron

Can't tell if serious or trolling.

Check several pages back, serious as a heart attack

ult wrote:Can't tell if serious or trolling.

I think both  

Going by what's been reported so far, the only thing limiting it's range would be it's fuel capacity since it's controlled via a satellite uplink

It seems some people are of the belief that a drone is telecontrolled like a remote control model aircraft...

UAVs are not model planes.

The S-70 and the Altius-U are autonomous aircraft... effectively they are flown most of the time by autopilot but can receive commands to perform certain missions... much like a human pilot.


Both have satellite links to communicate in real time if needed, but not to be manually flown.

Just like a modern fighters self defence ECM and EW suite... they would be bloody useless if they needed to be directed manually.

You can send them way points and speeds and altitudes and where to point sensors and when to turn them on or off, but you don't manually change the engine thrust settings or manually fly these drones... you give them a set of coordinates and they fly there... give them a command to loiter and they might fly an orbit to remain in an area for a period, or you might send a command to fly at x altitude and y speed via this flight path and use optical or radar or electronic sensors to listen for threats or targets and then if you detect a target to manouver to attack said target.

Following a brand new drone with a helicopter is so you can monitor its flight externally over a much larger area than if you were monitoring the drone externally with a pair of binoculars in the tower at the airfield it is operating from.

Following a brand new drone with a helicopter is so you can monitor its flight externally over a much larger area than if you were monitoring the drone externally with a pair of binoculars in the tower at the airfield it is operating from.

Yes I think it was probably something like that rather than inability to make a system to work at longer range.
Its an aerodynamic config that Russia hasn't used before -> FBW/Autopilot not guaranteed to be on the ball -> having an observer pilot following it in a chopper makes sense while getting some real flight data.
I suspect that article (which I posted) was wilfully misinterpreting.

Certainly chaseplanes for first/early flight tests is totally normal.

On the other hand, S-70 first flight vids appear to show extremely good control for a first flight of a perhaps even more unusual to Russia flying wing config.
That said, Sukhoi has a lot of experience with FBW on unstable aircraft so if anyone is going to do it right first time its probably them.

Autopilots are not new... and fly by wire flight control systems are not new either...

If they were actually testing UAVs for the first time would they want to test the satellite link as well as basic flight performance... either way I doubt either aircraft flew out of range of ground control and monitoring... and both UAVs had aircraft escorting them... with the S-70... what do you think was filming it?

In the later video there was a Flanker clearly visible in shot for part of the flight but the aircraft carrying the camera was also there as well.

With the Altius a camera was fixed to its vertical tail surface, but you can bet it was not alone in the sky for its flight too.

Chase planes are not always a good idea... look up the Flight of the Valkyrie...

A model from MAKS 2019.

When in a prototype that will shut up the western experts.
Nice find.

ult wrote:A model from MAKS 2019.
....

...

There, was this so hard to do?

First thing any defense company does is to show CGI or scale model of new product but forr Russian ones it's the last and apparently hardest thing to do

Not like it's hard or time consuming or expensive or anything so what gives?

Why should they care if others would underestimate Okhotnik's capabilities?

ult wrote:Why should they care if others would underestimate Okhotnik's capabilities?

I don't care about others, I am just curious to see how the thing will look like

Does the flat nozzle suggest it won't be supersonic

Cyberspec wrote:Does the flat nozzle suggest it won't be supersonic

There was never a chance it would have been supersonic, wing type precludes it

JohninMK wrote:

dino00 wrote:When in a prototype that will shut up the western experts.
Nice find.

Shut them up! fat chance

This reads quite well

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29559/russias-sukhoi-shows-off-stealthier-vision-for-its-hunter-unmanned-combat-air-vehicle

Should have warned us it was written by Tyler Rogoaway, Lockheed fanboy extraordinare

This alone is gold:

We now know that Sukhoi intends to make its unmanned combat air vehicle very stealthy, which will help overcome some of the Su-57's shortcomings.

Cyberspec wrote:Does the flat nozzle suggest it won't be supersonic

Why should the nozzle prevent it to be supersonic?

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:Does the flat nozzle suggest it won't be supersonic

Why should the nozzle prevent it to be supersonic?

It usualy means less thrust

'The Drive' or is it the 'The Drivel'? Those Lockheed kickbacks must be really something, their getting more kickbacks than an ornery mule!

Fanbois are morons. Unless the jet is flying towards its targets backwards, the shape of the nozzle means nothing. And even then
how is the radial scatter relevant for tangential line of sight to the nozzle from radar stations? If one is going to biatch about side
views, then the F-22 is a freaking flying billboard. Slanting of the rudders actually makes it worse since side view radars will be
on the ground looking up at an angle. Having vertical rudders would be better. But if you care about dog fights, then the criteria
are different.

If you want real stealth, then you want a high tech alien drone less than 1 meter in size that is shaped like a diamond and
shoots a sci-fi laser strong enough to sink an aircraft carrier. Back in the real world, all stealth air craft will have some angle
from which their cross-section is very large.

I don't care about others, I am just curious to see how the thing will look like

That interest is perfectly normal, but why do you think they should reveal everything before they are good and ready... they don't have a currently flying B-2 analog so they need to test to make sure it works... and they are hardly going to risk an expensive stealthy drone with flight testing... make a cheaper simpler model to test to work out the problems... isn't that just obvious common sense?

First thing any defense company does is to show CGI or scale model of new product but forr Russian ones it's the last and apparently hardest thing to do

Why... it wont be for export for quite a while yet...

You show a CGI video if it is for export to see what potential customers are interested in joining the programme and helping with funding or contributing components... not really relevant in this case is it?

Does the flat nozzle suggest it won't be supersonic

Would suggest an attempt to make it more stealthy... a rectangular exhaust on a low bypass turbofan engine makes the hot air flowing through the core turbojet section mix more rapidly with the cold air moving through the bypass section of the engine leading to rather less IR signature.

Of course with the F-22 it works at supersonic speed and it probably simplifies the design of the engine exhaust to a 2D TVC instead of a 3D one... probably making it cheaper and lighter...

There was never a chance it would have been supersonic, wing type precludes it

This is a thin profile wing... the only reason it could not operate at supersonic speeds would be cg shift at transonic speeds... something an all moving tail plane was needed to fix going from the MiG-17 to the MiG-19, but there is no reason why a vectored thrust engine couldn't be used to compensate for the cg shift instead of a tail plane.

We now know that Sukhoi intends to make its unmanned combat air vehicle very stealthy, which will help overcome some of the Su-57's shortcomings.

But not its biggest shortcoming of not being American....

It usualy means less thrust

If I remember correctly testing of flat nozzle attachments for the engine on the Flanker resulted in a 15% loss of thrust, for an improvement of about a 30% reduction in IR signature or something.

Obviously with flankers it wouldn't matter, but I suspect the test info was more for the PAK FA than for the Su-35 developments.

Back in the real world, all stealth air craft will have some angle
from which their cross-section is very large.

Especially in frequencies they were not designed to be low observable to. Like visible light, where they are actually rather easy to see and track through the air... especially in that grey or the B-2 Black really stands out...

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:Does the flat nozzle suggest it won't be supersonic

Why should the nozzle prevent it to be supersonic?

Because it implies the lack of a TVC control, so no possibility of use it instead than tail and rudder to stabilize plane during transonic phase.

Because it implies the lack of a TVC control, so no possibility of use it instead than tail and rudder to stabilize plane during transonic phase.

The F-22 has 2D TVC engine nozzles that are also flat... flat nozzles are easier to articulate and make TVC for.

The fact that the tubes in front of the exhausts are tubes... ie round... one inner one that gets very very hot where the fuel is burned and an outer one where the big fan on the front sucks air in and through without fuel being added and burned means the air going around the outside tube... also known as the bypass air as it bypasses the hot section, is cold and oxygen rich so when it comes out the back if you engage AB then it allows rather more fuel to be added and burned allowing a higher thrust with AB.

Having a square exhaust of course means the airflow is distorted and the hot and cold air in dry thrust mixes up more rapidly which reduces IR signature and also slightly thrust as it comes out a bit more dispersed rather than the blowtorch beam you would normally get.

With modern flight control systems and TVC nozzles a supersonic flying wing should be a realistic goal... though looking at that model they might make it in different versions... high stealth for missions into enemy territory or with stealth aircraft, where it would be money well spent, and a lower stealth model that just relies on slim aerodynamic shape to not be a big target, and something with good range and reasonable payload to support other aircraft, or take on ground targets.

The serial production of drones "Hunter" will begin after 2024

https://ria.ru/20190827/1557940324.html