S-70 "Okhotnik" UCAV

Where is this from?

Same image not croped

I like the SU-57/Hunter UCAV partnership

dino00 wrote:

Same image not croped

I like the SU-57/Hunter UCAV partnership

Impressive looking.

One question: 20 ton class refers to empty, loaded or MTOW?

Apparently comes from here, the guy seems to be an insider or maybe a PR account by VVS.

https://www.instagram.com/fighter_bomber_/

The plane seems to use the same landing gear as the bigger Sukhois, only no size reference is available but for maybe the frontal section, air intake compared to an AL-31.

Very cool, and the teasing campaign with the Su-57 was smart too

20 tons are supposed to be MTOW from what I read. Paralay did some dimensional estimations

LMFS wrote:Apparently comes from here, the guy seems to be an insider or maybe a PR account by VVS.

https://www.instagram.com/fighter_bomber_/

The plane seems to use the same landing gear as the bigger Sukhois, only no size reference is available but for maybe the frontal section, air intake compared to an AL-31.

Very cool, and the teasing campaign with the Su-57 was smart too

20 tons are supposed to be MTOW from what I read. Paralay did some dimensional estimations

Thank a lot. Question was because of the Su-27 derived landing gear that seems to suggest a quite heavier frame.
P.S. Paralay went p to 22+ ton and capacity to carry 1500kg bombs, excellent if true.

Patienly await proper reveal...

Interesting how the plan view shown here:



is a close match for the "silhouette" on the T-50:

From SouthFront.

The nozzle... sigh....

The Nozzle indicates to me this can go supersonic if required to

We can always count on our loyal pet troll

That engine is clearly from Flanker series.

Considering extra room around the nozzle I'd say that it definitely has thrust vectoring. Which would imply that it's primary targets would aerial and not ground ones. It would also enable it to use shorter runways for takeoff.

Supersonic flight might be in play as well. Might be!



What I find interesting is that older image says ''Ohotnik-B. So what would be Ohotnik-A?

My bet is that this new one is Ohotnik-A, a full combat version while Ohotnik-B is recon version with emphasis on stealth.



Another thing: while this drone has exposed nozzle it also has plenty of room under it to install polymer panel that would obscure it from below.


And lets all keep in mind that first T-50s had exposed engines with large nozzles. Later ones got engine covers while new engines have smaller serrated nozzle.

PapaDragon wrote:
That engine is clearly from Flanker series.

Considering extra room around the nozzle I'd say that it definitely has thrust vectoring. Which would imply that it's primary targets would aerial and not ground ones. It would also enable it to use shorter runways for takeoff.

Supersonic flight might be in play as well. Might be!



What I find interesting is that older image says ''Ohotnik-B. So what would be Ohotnik-A?

My bet is that this new one is Ohotnik-A, a full combat version while Ohotnik-B is recon version with emphasis on stealth.



Another thing: while this drone has exposed nozzle it also has plenty of room under it to install polymer panel that would obscure it from below.


And lets all keep in mind that first T-50s had exposed engines with large nozzles. Later ones got engine covers while new engines have smaller serrated nozzle.  

Interesting! Good post!

Interesting! Good post!

Sssst, I will reveal you a big secret.

They are doing it on purpose, sneaky, sneaky russians!

They are showing it without the rear cover, so all western aeronautical experts, armchair generals, F-16net posters in disguise, eyeball mk1 RCS evaluators would conclude that's "not really stealth" and while the debate between them if it is three-quarter, four-fifth or even one half of six-fifth stealth they would forget to develop their own counterpart of it (i mean, after the one that started as an Ucav and took ten years to end up as a tanker, remember?).
In the end when they will have made all prototypes they need to complete the program , they would carry the last one to the Black Hole i.e. Aktubinsk and will mount the rear cover in secret...

After it, being them russians I expect them to conclude that it's simply not worth the added complication, the extra cost and the sure loss of performance to install smth that is needed just the time to perform an 180° turn before hauling off ass.      

P.S. It should be obvious that this is a humorous/sarcastic post targeting a certain stealthiness-no-matter-what-the-cost obsession running wild around there, so take anything I say with a whole grain of salt and above all, not even try to give a serious reply to it

I do not completely agree PapaDragon:

> Dorsal intakes are generally not valid for a plane that is expected to do high AoA, as expected in A2A combat. Nor has been this kind of layout been suggested for A2A role before, at least that I know.
> Wings are too thick for supersonic flight.
> Huge wingspan would kill the roll rate and possibly overload capability
> Short body means low pitch inertia but also that the aero surfaces or even TVC would have reduced authority in that regard.
> I am not sure but stability and controllability of a flying wing in combat manoeuvring may be complicated

So it maybe could have big amount of missiles and help in the A2A role as stealthy support for other fighters, but I don't think it could join WVR combat with any success as the use of TVC would suggest in your opinion.

The existence of another version of Okhotnik is an interesting possibility though... the images published before seem show a different plane altogether, not only in regards of the nozzle. But it could be due to different designs having been tested too.

What strikes me the most is the huge size of the thing... it is essentially as big as a heavy fighter. One single AL-31 derived engine for such a beast would mean very long TO runs, and Russians are known for planning with attrition on their air bases and hence demand STOL performance from their frontline aircraft. So maybe, just maybe, the Hunter is planed to fly with an item 30 engine without A/B in a mature phase and now uses an AL-31 with A/B to compensate for the missing thrust. In any case the T/W ratio would be much lower than in a fighter and the over-dimensioned landing gear would help using damaged / unprepared runways.

@marcellogo: indeed the Russians seem to enjoy puzzling their "partners"

Is This Russia's 'Hunter' Stealthy Flying Wing Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle?

“Judging by data on the Okhotnik-B’s takeoff weight, it is safe to assume that its characteristics will be similar to those of the US drone X-47B developed by Northrop Grumman. It can fly at high subsonic speeds, operating within a radius of up to 4,000 kilometers and carrying a diverse target load, including the strike one which weighs up to 2 tons,” Fedutinov said.
Earlier, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told Sputnik that Russia had swiftly reduced, and is expected to completely eliminate, its lag behind the United States and Israel in the creation of UAVs.
“Concerning the UAVs I should only say that there is no point of speaking about some lagging behind. It has been rapidly reduced and will be completely eliminated soon,” Rogozin said in an interview.
He specified that he was speaking about both combat and reconnaissance drones.
https://www.uasvision.com/2017/08/03/sukhois-okhotnik-b-project/

The T/W ratio would not be great but the wing area would be huge and it would be rather low drag too.

Not sure why people are suggesting it is supersonic... with no tail structure you are asking a lot from TVC...

Why does it need to be anything... they might be using it to test new technologies and flight control systems for the PAK DA... and crying about engine nozzles is amusing too... it could just be a HALE... why do you assume it needs to be stealthy?

For all we know it might be an AWACS platform with the equivalent of the wing mounted L band radar along both leading wing edges that is used for stealth target detection... or even datalink communication repeater to support a fleet of drones...

Why cant it go supersonic if AB are engaged or supercruise say at M 1.2?

If this is an AL-31 series engine it can later be replaced by the new engine developed for the Su-57. Supercruise!



Looks like this was made from the old pic.

It's the first prototype. Most probably they instal standard AL-31F engine with afterburner and nozzles for fligh testings. It is meant to fly at speed of 1000 km/h, so it doesn't need afterburner and nozzles. Most probably serial S-70 will have new AL-31F without afterburner and nozzles, what means it will bi lighter and shorter and this will enable to build more stealth jet exaust. Ohotnik will be a bomber, not a fighter jet. Anyway, stealth Ohotnik armed with stealth Kh-59MK2 cruise missiles will be quite unpleasent strike combination. bit for usual attacks on terrorists, they will mostly use laser guided bombs.

GarryB wrote:The T/W ratio would not be great but the wing area would be huge and it would be rather low drag too.

At subsonic speed yes, considering the internal volume, the wing should create huge lift for its drag. For supersonic flight a wing with such relative thickness would be a no-go, me thinks.

medo wrote:It's the first prototype. Most probably they instal standard AL-31F engine with afterburner and nozzles for fligh testings. It is meant to fly at speed of 1000 km/h, so it doesn't need afterburner and nozzles. Most probably serial S-70 will have new AL-31F without afterburner and nozzles, what means it will bi lighter and shorter and this will enable to build more stealth jet exaust. Ohotnik will be a bomber, not a fighter jet.

Yes this makes sense and is what the figure in the Su-57's tail suggests. But showing now these clear images of the nozzle, contrary to the usual secretiveness of US regarding this particular part of their stealth planes offers the partners the other side of the pond a new chance to embarrass themselves by dismissing the Russian designs... this looks pure trolling by now

From Twitter, size comparison

Why cant it go supersonic if AB are engaged or supercruise say at M 1.2?

Because when you go from subsonic flight to supersonic flight the centre of gravity of the aircraft shifts dramatically.

It is why most post WWII fighters needed radical design changes when they turned them into jets and then supersonic jets.

You don't need a swept wing to be supersonic, but you do need an all moving tail surface to counter the serious shift in centre of gravity.

It might be possible to fake it with TVC engines but I would not bet money on it.

At subsonic speed yes, considering the internal volume, the wing should create huge lift for its drag. For supersonic flight a wing with such relative thickness would be a no-go, me thinks.

Why would it be supersonic?