S-70 "Okhotnik" UCAV

The radar is larger than that of an old MiG-21. With the new tech of the Su-57 the radar could have a range of around 100km against a F-16 like target. And the Okhotnik will have a small frontal RCS so it would probably see the F-16 (or EF-2000) earlier.

Two things about dimensions: Flying wings have a different shape than other planes, so the fact that S-70 has longer wing than T-50 i.e. Su-57 is just misleading as the first one has swept wings while the second has trapezoidal ones.
So I assume wing square volume would be minor.
Fuselage at the contrary is almost non-existent: foto shown a sort of reversed Flanker pod + a protrusion containing front wheel and a small navigation/targeting AESA radar.

Probably main sensor would instead be an L- band (or a photonic one ) radar on the wings, so I expect than an eventual A2A version would fly behind the Su-57, not in front of it illuminating a wider space, if an enemy plane get close , it just trn off its radar and turn away, if enemy fighter try to intercept it the same it will risk to have the Su-57 at its own tail.

marcellogo wrote:Two things about dimensions: Flying wings have a different shape than other planes, so the fact that S-70 has longer wing than T-50 i.e. Su-57 is just misleading as the first one has swept wings while the second has trapezoidal ones.
So I assume wing square volume would be minor.
Fuselage at the contrary is almost non-existent: foto shown a sort of reversed Flanker pod + a protrusion containing front wheel and a small navigation/targeting AESA radar.

Probably main sensor would instead be an L- band (or a photonic one ) radar on the wings, so I expect than an eventual A2A version would fly behind the Su-57, not in front of it illuminating a wider space, if an enemy plane get close , it just trn off its radar and turn away, if enemy fighter try to intercept it the same it will risk to have the Su-57 at its own tail.

Yes, flying wings are difficult to compare to conventional planes. Calculations I report are volumetric and not eyeballed but in any case they are only approximates when trying to calculate TO weight and so on. Paralay also did some calculation of wing area, IIRC was bigger than PAK-FA but that shouldn't surprise.

Look a comparison with Su-34...

Body is very short true but it is blended with the wing so quite big in internal volume in the end.

Such wing could provide for a extremely big and powerful L band radar or jammer indeed. Radar at the nose looks smallish, probably only intended for A2G modes

Regarding the unmanned plane following the manned one into enemy airspace, I don't quite see it...

LMFS wrote:

marcellogo wrote:Two things about dimensions: Flying wings have a different shape than other planes, so the fact that S-70 has longer wing than T-50 i.e. Su-57 is just misleading as the first one has swept wings while the second has trapezoidal ones.
So I assume wing square volume would be minor.
Fuselage at the contrary is almost non-existent: foto shown a sort of reversed Flanker pod + a protrusion containing front wheel and a small navigation/targeting AESA radar.

Probably main sensor would instead be an L- band (or a photonic one ) radar on the wings, so I expect than an eventual A2A version would fly behind the Su-57, not in front of it illuminating a wider space, if an enemy plane get close , it just trn off its radar and turn away, if enemy fighter try to intercept it the same it will risk to have the Su-57 at its own tail.

Yes, flying wings are difficult to compare to conventional planes. Calculations I report are volumetric and not eyeballed but in any case they are only approximates when trying to calculate TO weight and so on. Paralay also did some calculation of wing area, IIRC was bigger than PAK-FA but that shouldn't surprise.

Look a comparison with Su-34...

Body is very short true but it is blended with the wing so quite big in internal volume in the end.

Such wing could provide for a extremely big and powerful L band radar or jammer indeed. Radar at the nose looks smallish, probably only intended for A2G modes

Regarding the unmanned plane following the manned one into enemy airspace, I don't quite see it...

That drone clearly looks like a stealth drone on a budget. with minimal innovation. The design does not look like it is going to compete with an F-35 in air to air combat. The only air to air special use could be to network its potential radars with a T-50 or Su-35 plane and get a weapons lock on a stealth aircraft or clearer vision.
Besides that the drone looks inferior in stealth as of now and meant for ground attack but not in an as defended airspace as a Russian one, maybe even to gain some experience before pak-da. I (old engine, no curved ducts, protruding exhaust, no sign of heat signature reduction, same landing gear as Pak-fa etc.). i do not know how a drone can pass through an electronically jammed contested airspace. Rq170 was brought down by Iranians!
I still hope this drone would be fitted with the newer shorter art.30 engine and perhaps be significantly redesigned to be more stealthy around that more powerful engine.

Actually that image with it on the ground seems to suggest thickness in the wing right to the end... now for a super cruising flying wing that would not be ideal, but for a full wing length L band AESA radar able to detect enemy stealth aircraft from great ranges it would be ideal.

In support of any aircraft... whether it is an Su-35 or an Su-57 flying very high would be rather easy for a low drag flying wing design with a big engine in it... especially a powerful engine optimised for supercruising... whether it can in this drone or not it would improve high altitude performance significantly...

Operating above Su-57s even if it is subsonic its enormous radar apeture and internal AAM missile payload should make it a valuable addition for Su-35s or Su-57s in that it should be able to detect enemy stealth aircraft at enormous ranges, but also detect any Link 12 NATO communications traffic including guidance signals to AMRAAM missiles in flight.

Being able to launch missiles will keep the Su-57 hidden and fully armed, and having a normal X or Ku band radar array mixed in with the same L band AESA should also give it excellent detection and sensor capacity above the modern battlefield.

It wont be a dogfighter... but then neither is the F-35... the Su-35 and Su-57 are clearly designed for dogfighting... in my opinion these drones are intended to replace the MiG-31 in a more stealthy platform to support the VVS defending from an attack by NATO... it will operate high and likely use R-37M missiles to eliminate NATO JSTARS and AWACS, and other aircraft including jammers and heavy bombers like the B-1B... the Su-57 and Su-35 will then swoop in and clean up the rest...

LMFS wrote:

Gunship wrote:@LMFS S-70 drone is not cheap as dirt but easily cheaper than Su-57 fighter.

Yes, I just found tone of the video misleading. This will be an expensive machine.

south-front are cool guys but no military ones ;-)

LMFS wrote:

]a)you dont spend time/money on training (both intl and 200h/year flight) pilots - hour of flight forSu-30MKI is ~$14,000, I dont think in Russia it is cheaper, especially for Su-57.

To me the main issue is about pilots of modern planes not being replaceable in war conditions. It is not anymore about piloting, it is about managing very complex weapons systems in complex informational environments so you need many years of training and high intellectual capability to cope with the tasks. UCAVS can be sent where you wouldn't dare sending pilots and get the task done, regardless of the plane surviving or not, which allows you to be much more aggressive and effective. Plus of course, they will operate all the same without need of training and many other advantages we already discussed.

I hate to admit but I agree in 100%

LMFS wrote:

b) izd 30 doesn't have to be about super-cruise. It's fuel efficient so just greater then any other engine thus range increases significantly

But it is, among other things, about supercruise. This has been confirmed by Russian sources.

whoa, lets now figure out to which ts super-cruise might be needed?

LMFS wrote:

c) AFAIK Russians say it is 20tons drone vs 35tons MTOW Su-57 so yes it is lighter

I remind that we don't have official weight figures for any of both. Last estimations for Okhotnik, considering 2.8 tons payload, are 27-28 tons TO weight. Just look at the size of the thing compared to the tractor vs. Su-34 in same conditions. The plane is simply huge.

OK thingy is huge. but such huge thingy and payload representing ~10% of MTOW ? somehow I dont see it.

GarryB wrote: It wont be a dogfighter... but then neither is the F-35...

\


you men then best fighter in the world?

GB wrote:.. in my opinion these drones are intended to replace the MiG-31 in a more stealthy platform to support the VVS defending from an attack by NATO... it will operate high and likely use R-37M missiles to eliminate NATO JSTARS and AWACS, and other aircraft including jammers and heavy bombers like the B-1B... the Su-57 and Su-35 will then swoop in and clean up the rest...

or use DEW to protect Russian manned fighters from incoming AAMs? MiG-31 s missile truck or "point" interceptor sure, but to chase anything still to slow. Unless it relly flies 2000km/h

GarryB wrote:Actually that image with it on the ground seems to suggest thickness in the wing right to the end... now for a super cruising flying wing that would not be ideal, but for a full wing length L band AESA radar able to detect enemy stealth aircraft from great ranges it would be ideal.

In support of any aircraft... whether it is an Su-35 or an Su-57 flying very high would be rather easy for a low drag flying wing design with a big engine in it... especially a powerful engine optimised for supercruising... whether it can in this drone or not it would improve high altitude performance significantly...

Operating above Su-57s even if it is subsonic its enormous radar apeture and internal AAM missile payload should make it a valuable addition for Su-35s or Su-57s in that it should be able to detect enemy stealth aircraft at enormous ranges, but also detect any Link 12 NATO communications traffic including guidance signals to AMRAAM missiles in flight.

Being able to launch missiles will keep the Su-57 hidden and fully armed, and having a normal X or Ku band radar array mixed in with the same L band AESA should also give it excellent detection and sensor capacity above the modern battlefield.

It wont be a dogfighter... but then neither is the F-35... the Su-35 and Su-57 are clearly designed for dogfighting... in my opinion these drones are intended to replace the MiG-31 in a more stealthy platform to support the VVS defending from an attack by NATO... it will operate high and likely use R-37M missiles to eliminate NATO JSTARS and AWACS, and other aircraft including jammers and heavy bombers like the B-1B... the Su-57 and Su-35 will then swoop in and clean up the rest...

It can be used in this way but generally speaking... why make from scratch a wing unmaneuvarebale slow design and use it in any AA mode while you can make a G capable drone? T-50 is already there a single engine drone version could have probably been quickly developed. The primary role of this drone can not logically be a BVR fighter.

william.boutros wrote:That drone clearly looks like a stealth drone on a budget. with minimal innovation.

Well, all UCAVS based in flying wing design look the same. It is just the optimized design for their function.

The design does not look like it is going to compete with an F-35 in air to air combat.

Of course not, there are many reasons for this. Its role is not A2A

Besides that the drone looks inferior in stealth as of now and meant for ground attack but not in an as defended airspace as a Russian one, maybe even to gain some experience before pak-da.

On the contrary, A2G requires (and allows) more stealth than A2A. Hence the flying wing layout.

Rq170 was brought down by Iranians!

That speaks books about Ultra VLO and all that, don't you think??

I still hope this drone would be fitted with the newer shorter art.30 engine and perhaps be significantly redesigned to be more stealthy around that more powerful engine.

Izd. 30 will be minimally shorter, if at all. But a turbofan without AB section would allow for a more "conventional" nozzle compared to other similar aircraft, with better rear sector stealth both radar and IR. We have discussed the possible reasons for current engine in previous posts.

GarryB wrote: in my opinion these drones are intended to replace the MiG-31 in a more stealthy platform to support the VVS defending from an attack by NATO... it will operate high and likely use R-37M missiles to eliminate NATO JSTARS and AWACS, and other aircraft including jammers and heavy bombers like the B-1B... the Su-57 and Su-35 will then swoop in and clean up the rest...

Not quite seeing this. High value aircraft of NATO would be hidden deep behind cover, the best plane to go for them remains the MiG-31 with its speed and supersonic range (it is very difficult to engage it), maybe Su-57 depending on a number of parameters which we don't know yet. The Okhotnik should not be expected to be "invisible", at high altitude it would be very vulnerable. Not saying it cannot support in some other role, but the best way I can imagine it is doing low altitude strike

It wont be a dogfighter... but then neither is the F-35...

To be fair, the Okhotnik would not come even remotely close to F-35 in dog fighting.

Gunship wrote:I hate to admit but I agree in 100%

I am so sorry that I was being reasonable!

whoa, lets now figure out to which ts super-cruise might be needed?

Supercruise is one of the real advantages of real 5G planes. Both for A2G and A2A it can be a dominant attribute, regardless of VLO.
> Allows to reach a ground target faster and give more energy to the weapons, with longer range strike capability. It allows to egress significantly faster, reducing notably the chances of the air defence and the engagement envelope of the missiles.
> Allows to dominate other fighters by dictating terms of engagement. I.e. imagine how a F-35 limited to 1.6 M (after sluggish accelerating to that speed and requiring AB) could rule engagement against a 1.8 M, long range supercuiser, it simply cannot.

OK thingy is huge. but such huge thingy and payload representing ~10% of MTOW ? somehow I dont see it.

Only internal payload is considered I guess. Current VLO designs do not better that AFAIK

whoa, lets now figure out to which ts super-cruise might be needed?

Super cruise would allow it to move around the battle space faster, and would also make it a much more difficult target to chase down... very simply to chase down a target moving at mach 1.3 plus you need to engage AB, which greatly reduces your flight range and time on station... whether you are in a Typhoon or Rafale or F-35 or F-22 your legs suddenly got much shorter... which is a good thing for the enemy (Russia).

For any missiles you might be launching speed as well as altitude add range and performance to any missile you happen to launch which is also good news.

OK thingy is huge. but such huge thingy and payload representing ~10% of MTOW ? somehow I dont see it.

We really don't know what their plans are for it... is it an AWACS type platform that is mostly radar that operates in L band so is hard to detect... most NATO aircraft could detect an L band signal but their L band sensors are datalinks and are not directional so they could not locate it even if it was blasting out megawatts of energy...

If that is the case it could fly high and basically act as a stealth AWACS locating enemy aircraft and passing such info to Su-35s and Su-57s which only use their L band radars for the intercept.

Or it might carry 3 tons of R-77 missiles from high altitude... that could be up to 15 or so missiles ready to fire... or perhaps 4-6 X R-37Ms... two or three per Su-57 would add up... one with 4 R-37M missiles and two with a total of 30 R-77 missiles that are supporting each Su-57 or Su-35 which will be carrying their own missiles... sounds like a useful way to blunt an F-35 and F-22 attack from NATO with perhaps 2,500 F-35s.

Obviously coordinated with ground forces with S-350s, S-400s, S-500s etc etc....

you men then best fighter in the world?

The F-35 is renowned for putting the dog in dogfighter...

or use DEW to protect Russian manned fighters from incoming AAMs? MiG-31 s missile truck or "point" interceptor sure, but to chase anything still to slow. Unless it relly flies 2000km/h

The purpose of MiG-31s in this scenario is to shoot down the force multipliers like AWACS and AEW aircraft as well as JSTARS and Growlers and other support aircraft as well as inflight refuelling tankers which the F-22 and F-35 will be relying upon... this drone could use stealth where the MiG-31 would use speed to get close enough to launch an R-37M missile at them...

It would free up more MiG-31s for defending from strategic threats and naval threats too.

It can be used in this way but generally speaking... why make from scratch a wing unmaneuvarebale slow design and use it in any AA mode while you can make a G capable drone? T-50 is already there a single engine drone version could have probably been quickly developed. The primary role of this drone can not logically be a BVR fighter.

It is a flying wing... its features support endurance and range and altitude, so we are talking about wide apeture radar along its wing leading edge and the capacity to carry missiles in a fuselage that does not need to hold two engines and a pilot.

If you want manouver performance than an unmanned variant of the Su-57 would be a much better solution as it is already designed for manouver... has the extra energy of two engines but without a pilot to limit g performance and its aerodynamic performance has already been tested during development of the Su-57 anyway.

Not quite seeing this. High value aircraft of NATO would be hidden deep behind cover, the best plane to go for them remains the MiG-31 with its speed and supersonic range (it is very difficult to engage it), maybe Su-57 depending on a number of parameters which we don't know yet. The Okhotnik should not be expected to be "invisible", at high altitude it would be very vulnerable. Not saying it cannot support in some other role, but the best way I can imagine it is doing low altitude strike

Vulnerable to what?

At that altitude it could carry R-37M or some future long range scramjet powered long range AAM... what exactly can outrange it?

I would suspect it will be using wing mounted L band AESA radars the full span of the front of the aircraft that could scan continuously for NATO stealth aircraft... NATO L band capabilities are basically datalinked based and not directional so even if they detected the signal they would have no idea where it was coming from... meanwhile it has a high power L band radar scanning for stealthy NATO items... drones, missiles, aircraft etc... with a 3 ton payload it might have up to 15 R-77 variant medium range missiles or 4-6 R-37M missiles on board... not only could it provide early warning of stealthy aircraft it could also fire the first shots to blunt any attack and sneak forward and try to pick off inflight refuelling tankers and AWACS and JSTARS platforms lurking in the rear...

Russia is developing their own Harpy like kamikaze drones. thumbsup Big headache for US air defense. They will be now also on receiving end of such swarm of kamikaze drones.

If you watched that video you might recognise the drone itself is the same Zala drone shown with the Ka-52... a large box is carried under a weapon pylon that holds 4-5 of these drones vertically... if the airspace ahead is seriously contested one of these drones can be released to scout ahead and clearly after identifying threats and targets it can ram a suitable target and destroy it in a kamikazi attack... would be rather useful for a scout helo...

We know why Russia has a UAV "gap", it was actually abiding by the INF treaty and the USA wasn't. Now that Uncle Scam has killed the INF,
Russia's hands are untied and surprise surprise we get a flying wing heavy UCAV. Russia is only getting started so don't discount it.

Of course in a few years time when Russia has similar murder drones to the west then the west might start demanding regulation and limitations and treaties regarding their use... because no rules need apply when the west uses them for good but what if Russia uses them for evil...

GarryB wrote:Vulnerable to what?

At that altitude it could carry R-37M or some future long range scramjet powered long range AAM... what exactly can outrange it?

You cannot trust just in your long range missiles for this, the other side can come up with them too in the short term. Loaded onto planes with superior kinematics they would be superior.
A slow UCAV would have difficulties to deploy where needed, to engage and disengage. A powerful enemy attack would leave it exposed due to low speed and scarce manoeuvrability.
Also long range SAMs that could be brought to the front could be an issue.

I would suspect it will be using wing mounted L band AESA radars the full span of the front of the aircraft that could scan continuously for NATO stealth aircraft... NATO L band capabilities are basically datalinked based and not directional so even if they detected the signal they would have no idea where it was coming from... meanwhile it has a high power L band radar scanning for stealthy NATO items... drones, missiles, aircraft etc... with a 3 ton payload it might have up to 15 R-77 variant medium range missiles or 4-6 R-37M missiles on board... not only could it provide early warning of stealthy aircraft it could also fire the first shots to blunt any attack and sneak forward and try to pick off inflight refuelling tankers and AWACS and JSTARS platforms lurking in the rear...

Big "mothership" with many missiles, DEW and intelligence capabilities is what many (I support it too) have foreseen for PAK-DA. This case I think it is more about a cheaper product, with more reduced capabilities. For instance, Su-57 has only two sections of leading edge equipped with L-band radar, not the full wing.
Regarding links: NATO uses directional links now too, IIRC the newer one for F-35 is of that kind. And modern EMS suites can locate source of radiation, is it that not the case for L band?? Not to talk about ISR planes that would be lurking in the background.

Actually many missiles impose a limit speed during launch. And lot of them can't be used in supersonic speed.

Very true... when equipped with R-60M missiles the MiG-31 had a seriously limited flight profile... it could not operate at high speed for very long at all because the sensor window on the R-60M missile overheated if the aircraft was operating at over mach 2 speeds for long periods... which was the sort of thing the aircraft was likely to do because of its job.

However I don't thing a flying wing drone will have any problem launching R-77s or R-73s or R-37Ms at subsonic or transonic speeds as they are all carried by MiG-31s and are cleared to be fired at speeds faster than mach 2... which I suspect is beyond the capacity of this flying wing drone...

Note the MiG-25RB and MiG-31RB also had problems with 1,500kg dumb iron bombs as the very high speeds created problems for their fuses so special high speed fuses were developed...

I rather suspect the nav bombing system used in the Gefest and T system used in modern Russian aircraft was probably based on the system they developed for those MiG "bombers".

There is also the issue of separation of the missile from the aircraft. The flow of air is not the same at sub trans and supersonic speeds and depending on the missile shape it can destroy your aircraft.

The R-77 and R-37 have a pneumatic arm built in to the launch pylon they are located on that throws the missiles down into the slipstream... both weapons were designed to be loaded into internal weapons bays (the R-77 with rear grid fins folded), so they, from the very start had a launcher that threw them clear of the aircraft that was launching them... so separation is not an issue.

I rather suspect an internally launched R-73 would have the same system because the airflow around a weapons bay generally requires such a launch method for relatively light weight weapons with large wings and control surfaces like AAMs.

You cannot trust just in your long range missiles for this, the other side can come up with them too in the short term. Loaded onto planes with superior kinematics they would be superior.
A slow UCAV would have difficulties to deploy where needed, to engage and disengage. A powerful enemy attack would leave it exposed due to low speed and scarce manoeuvrability.
Also long range SAMs that could be brought to the front could be an issue.

Most armed aircraft operate subsonicly. With S-400 and soon S-500 they will not be operating at high enough altitude to supercruise and at low level they can try to fly supersonicly but their flight radius will be pathetic.

NATO certainly has the advantage both in numbers and the fact that they are the aggressors so they choose where and when the attack takes place, but having these drones... even if they are subsonic operating at high altitude and able to carry missiles in service right now that can reach further than any NATO missiles seems to me to give them an edge and make them not vulnerable at all.. the primary aircraft they will be hunting will be inflight refuelling aircraft and AWACS platforms and JSTARS aircraft, which will be well protected but not invulnerable either and to be honest the only variable a manned Su-57 could offer is higher flight speed at launch... otherwise the flying wing should potentially be able to operate at higher altitudes and operate with a huge L band AESA radar array for detecting NATO stealth platforms at extended ranges...

Regarding links: NATO uses directional links now too, IIRC the newer one for F-35 is of that kind. And modern EMS suites can locate source of radiation, is it that not the case for L band??

My understanding is that it is only general direction...  MMW radar and long wave radar don't have any problems regarding ARMs because of directionality issues.

Even a short AESA array as fitted to Su-35 and Su-57 can allow detection of sources of returns of the signal, so a long one as fitted to this drone should allow better accuracy and range performance...

Not to talk about ISR planes that would be lurking in the background.

These are active AESA L band radars so even a non emitting target will be detected... tankers and troop transports don't give off many signals either...

Thanks for posting Austin...

I have been reading opinion of many posters in secretprojects website.

They seem to conclude the Flying Wing Design cant go supersonic because it has the tendency to push up , It is not a good design for supersonic flight.

So use of AB on S-70 would be use to improve its accleration in a dog fight and not to go supersonic

I think I have mentioned several times that when an aircraft (any aircraft) moves from subsonic to supersonic speed the centre of gravity shifts dramatically.

Early planes that were subsonic but were pushing the sonic boundary had problems with their rear tail surfaces as most has fixed tails with moving surfaces at the rear... like modern wings have aelerons at the rear that control the air flow.

One of the secrets of supersonic flight is an all moving tail surface... another is called area rule, but that is another story.

Anyway flying wings like the B-2 can't go supersonic because they have no tail surface to counter the shift in cg... on a plane like a MiG-29 the tail surface is just deflected to a sharp angle to counter the shift... once you are supersonic it stops being a problem.

In that case TVC engine nozzles could counter the shift in cg... the flying wing is a very low drag design so with enough engine power it should be possible.

It wont be any sort of dog fighter... TVC would be good for long range cruise... as the exhaust could be angled to trim the aircraft to change its angle of attack to reduce drag and RCS.

The max speed of 1,400km/h at low altitude is supersonic, so if it can go supersonic at low altitude then doing it at medium and high altitude should be easy.

The point that a flying wing can go supersonic is quite debatable is what I can gather from the discussion.

I am not an aerodynamic expert so cant comment , May be some one like kvs or other can.

Garry pls check the discussion here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,31319.105.html

Look at this image (computer generated but good enough) of a subsonic MiG-15:



Notice the horizontal tail surface... along the trailing edge is the small control surface it uses to manouver...

Now look at a similar computer generated image of a supersonic capable MiG-21:



Notice the tail is a one piece all moving slab?

That is because it needs extra force when moving from subsonic speeds to supersonic speeds... the little trailing edge control surface on the MiG-15 did not apply enough force and in fact the entire horizontal tail surface could flex because of the force applied by the trailing control surface and the result is a control reversal, where you want a down force but the down force flexes the tail up and the up moving tail generates more force than the little control surface so instead of a down force you get an up force.

With the MiG-21 the entire tail moves and generates a much more powerful force to help counter the shift in cg so it can continue to fly normally.

A flying wing has no tail surface so as the cg moves it would yaw up or down and the tiny rear control surfaces wont be enough to stop it flipping over and completely losing control... or at least losing all lift and slowing down...

With TVC it should be able to retrim the aircraft and maintain controlled flight... it doesn't need it all the time at supersonic speeds... just for the shift from subsonic to supersonic speeds...

BTW I am no aerodynamics expert either.

Austin wrote:The point that a flying wing can go supersonic is quite debatable is what I can gather from the discussion.

I am not an aerodynamic expert so cant comment , May be some one like kvs or other can.

Garry pls check the discussion here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,31319.105.html

Also no aero expert so not going to pontificate here. Just making sense of what I have read, flying wing should be able to fly supersonic, proven it can provide for trimming and stability (see tailless proposals for 6G planes). BUT, a subsonic wing profile with huge wingspan + very small T/W and overall fineness ratio compared to examples of supersonic planes do not indicate any kind of supersonic performance for Okhotnik in particular. This is all in plain sight to see, no need to run wind tunnel tests at home with a scale model to point out the obvious