Interesting video Tsavo... it talked a lot about Soviet bombs but the video didn't usually match what was being discussed...
They mentioned the 1962 model iron bombs with the aerodynamic shape while the flat nosed 1954 model iron bombs were being fitted to aircraft... not to mention a lot of footage of western bombs and western bombers.
I would say the 1952 model bombs would fit better into internal bomb bays because they are shorter, the 1962 models are more efficient for external carriage because of their lower drag but as shown the Su-25 and Su-24 often carry the high drag 1954 bombs because the can be released at lower altitudes more safely because they slow down faster and are less dangerous the aircraft dropping the bomb.
When dropped at altitude the lower drag later model bombs arrive without warning and cause less drag in flight when carried externally... but they likely have enormous numbers of both types in stock.
If it has the same internal weapons bay as the Su-57 then it can also carry the internal fuel cells weighing up to 8 metric tons of fuel. S-70 already has a phenomenal range of 6000km, but with the internal fuel cells, unlike conventional fuel drop tanks that cause immense drag, additional 'internal' fuel cells will not. 8 additional metric tons of fuel means it goes from 6000km max range, to 8000km, maybe 10,000km, perhaps even doubling the max range to 12,000km.
You are right that the lack of extra drag will make the extra fuel carried effect the max range rather more than external tanks would because external fuel tanks as you point out add drag and weight... but extra internal fuel also adds weight so higher power settings would be needed for normal operations so I would say it might increase its range by 50% perhaps if not a little more if the fuel is used efficiently...
The potential bay space for fuel assuming the bays like those on the Su-57 is ca. 1.5 t, not more, you can make the numbers. It is nice for some long endurance light weapons load A2A missions like CAP, specially on a fighter, but for a strike platform which already has huge range it is not going to make a very big difference I assume. Either it detracts from big A2G ordnance, which is at a premium for a stealth platform in strike roles, or it adds not much range for a platform with already huge fuel fraction.
I would agree with that... extra fuel might be useful for operations in the middle of nowhere, but extra weapons in an aircraft that already has a generous range make more sense. It would be like filling all the main weapon pylons on a Su-35 with external fuel tanks when it already has excellent range and an inflight refuelling probe... unless you want to use some S-70s as buddy refuelling platforms of course...
I rather suspect the limiting factor for armament for the S-70 would be the physical internal space available and as such I rather doubt if a payload larger than 3-4 tons would even be possible.
The concrete piercing 1,500kg guided bombs (laser and TV guided) are not huge weapons because they are mostly metal to penetrate the ground and layers of concrete where their HE charge collapses tunnels and cavities.... I would say two of them should fit which is going to be 3 tons...
It could potentially carry disposable jammers or towed decoys that could be released from the bay to hang behind the drone to distract missiles...
Home
Register
Log in
LMFS
