• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Sukhoi S-70 Okhotnik UAV revealed

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,364
Reaction score
570
This prototype at least appears to use the Su-57's undercarriage, which should allow scaling, and the size implies it's probably using a single AL-31F or AL41F1 engine.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,761
Reaction score
805
Nice find my dear Paul.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
260
Reaction score
4
this drone is huge. From the engine alone, seems it still retaining afterburner.

If it's indeed AL-41F1. assuming 8800 kgf dry thrust and 0.5 T/W ratio. The MTOW can be as high as 17600 Kg
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
22
Well, here's a design that makes precisely no sense at all.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,959
Reaction score
168
Nuclear armed missileer, designed to interdict supply and ingress routes perhaps?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,779
Reaction score
199
LowObservable said:
Well, here's a design that makes precisely no sense at all.
Now they don't need to buy F-15Xs. Sure glad we cancelled that useless X-47B.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,487
Reaction score
52
Interesting, very much interesting, however I'm surprised - indeed disappointed - about these numerous lumps and bumps, scoops and intakes around the fuselage. ???
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,174
Reaction score
98
Deino said:
Interesting, very much interesting, however I'm surprised - indeed disappointed - about these numerous lumps and bumps, scoops and intakes around the fuselage. ???
Not to mention the exposed, round, engine nozzle. Stealth was clearly not a serious consideration here.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,487
Reaction score
52
I had a similar idea! ::)

https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1088436480937283585
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
354
Reaction score
2
TomS said:
Deino said:
Interesting, very much interesting, however I'm surprised - indeed disappointed - about these numerous lumps and bumps, scoops and intakes around the fuselage. ???
Not to mention the exposed, round, engine nozzle. Stealth was clearly not a serious consideration here.
Its bad from the rear aspect, which makes loitering about problematic. But if you have a UCAV on a strike mission headed right toward the target/emitters, then ...
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,174
Reaction score
98
_Del_ said:
Its bad from the rear aspect, which makes loitering about problematic. But if you have a UCAV on a strike mission headed right toward the target/emitters, then ...
It still has to penetrate defenses. Any radar looking from off axis (from the side or even from above or below) will see a nice clear constant-radius curve.

And don't even get started on the IR issues of making no attempt to conceal hot metal or to attenuate exhaust.

This is a bad joke of a design if they are even slightly concerned about signature management.
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
719
Reaction score
7
TomS said:
Not to mention the exposed, round, engine nozzle. Stealth was clearly not a serious consideration here.
The American teams have always been very secretive about revealing final exhaust configurations, could be that the Russians are too.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,779
Reaction score
199
Or it could be, as has been indicated in a couple release pictures, that this is intended to be a "wing man" for the Su-57. A reduced RCS is a plus but, like notional F-15Xs (or existing 4th gen aircraft working with F-22s & F-35s) it's not mandatory.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
354
Reaction score
2
TomS said:
_Del_ said:
Its bad from the rear aspect, which makes loitering about problematic. But if you have a UCAV on a strike mission headed right toward the target/emitters, then ...
It still has to penetrate defenses. Any radar looking from off axis (from the side or even from above or below) will see a nice clear constant-radius curve.

And don't even get started on the IR issues of making no attempt to conceal hot metal or to attenuate exhaust.

This is a bad joke of a design if they are even slightly concerned about signature management.

Yes, and those "off-axis" emitters will only become relative here after it has become relatively close to those threats. Before that, they are not off-axis. The signals from even an IAD line with multiple emitters distanced 20 miles away from eachother will be coming from the front quarter for most of the ingress.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,767
Reaction score
186
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
it's probably using a single AL-31F or AL41F1 engine.
S-70 is using mod of Izd.117
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,767
Reaction score
186
Deino said:
Interesting, very much interesting, however I'm surprised - indeed disappointed - about these numerous lumps and bumps, scoops and intakes around the fuselage. ???
It's not representing final configuration neither intended for RCS tests. Just like X-47B which had her own collection of bumps.
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,779
Reaction score
199
Interesting that it also appears to have a radome up front.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,487
Reaction score
52
flateric said:
Deino said:
Interesting, very much interesting, however I'm surprised - indeed disappointed - about these numerous lumps and bumps, scoops and intakes around the fuselage. ???
It's not representing final configuration neither intended for RCS tests. Just like X-47B which had her own collection of bumps.
I know that this is a testbed or test-specimen only and I also did not want to offend anyone ...
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,364
Reaction score
570
The lumps and bumps are expected on a first prototype. I would imagine the use of an off-the-shelf Izdeliye 117 engine is expediency - they have lots of control, guidance and other issues to work through before RCS becomes important. Maybe its waiting on a new nozzle to comes with Izdeliye 30...
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
431
Reaction score
138
Website
galgot.com
Wow, the thing is big. Good there is that tractor to give a scale :)
It flew ?
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
820
Reaction score
18
TomS said:
It still has to penetrate defenses. Any radar looking from off axis (from the side or even from above or below) will see a nice clear constant-radius curve.

And don't even get started on the IR issues of making no attempt to conceal hot metal or to attenuate exhaust.

This is a bad joke of a design if they are even slightly concerned about signature management.
With all due respect, the bad joke here is the assumption that this is what the final product will look like. Where does that come from?

It seems *decidedly* more likely to me that this is but the first of several prototypes, and intended to test aspects (FCS? Autonomy? Structures? Inlet performance?) for which full LO would be a needless waste of money. Flateric has already mentioned the X-47B as such an example, which was aerodynamically representative but also paid little heed to RCS reduction in detail because its job was merely to demonstrate aerial refueling and carrier ops. Apart from its "antenna farm", the nozzle was actually decidedly improvised too - sure, it was non-axisymmetric but the exhaust deck edges were exposed and *anything* but stealthy:

https://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/06/x-47b.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/X-47B_receiving_fuel_from_a_707_tanker_while_operating_in_the_Atlantic_Test_Ranges.jpg

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Photos/pgL_UC-10028_020.jpg

http://cms.ipressroom.com.s3.amazonaws.com/295/files/201607/220750.jpg

Last but definitely not least, the leaked slide which gave us the first public glimpse of Okhotnik showed a configuration (with hindsight probably a full-scale mock-up or RCS test model) that had a perfectly stealthy rear end:

https://www.uasvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Hunter-B-project.jpg

As do the silhouettes painted on Su-57 #053. So to believe that the engine nozzle will stay this way flies in the face of both logic and multiple clues.

sferrin said:
Interesting that it also appears to have a radome up front.
The B-2 has two ;) Another possibility could be a sense-and-avoid radar for peace time operations in civilian airspace (which would be another important technology to test that doesn't require the airframe to be stealthy, in fact).
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,174
Reaction score
98
Trident said:
TomS said:
It still has to penetrate defenses. Any radar looking from off axis (from the side or even from above or below) will see a nice clear constant-radius curve.

And don't even get started on the IR issues of making no attempt to conceal hot metal or to attenuate exhaust.

This is a bad joke of a design if they are even slightly concerned about signature management.
With all due respect, the bad joke here is the assumption that this is what the final product will look like. Where does that come from?

It seems *decidedly* more likely to me that this is but the first of several prototypes, and intended to test aspects (FCS? Autonomy? Structures? Inlet performance?) for which full LO would be a needless waste of money.
This is a fair point, and mine was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. It still looks like a remarkably rough draft design, but perhps it will eveolve into something more refined.
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
820
Reaction score
18
TomS said:
This is a fair point, and mine was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. It still looks like a remarkably rough draft design, but perhps it will eveolve into something more refined.
Fair enough - I would certainly have been more excited if it had been more "finished" too.

I still think the X-47B is a strikingly apt counterpart, about the only respect in which Okhotnik is less refined is the axisymmetric nozzle (and even then, as mentioned, the X-47 nozzle was clearly somewhat of a shortcut too).

EDIT: Another aspect in which the X-47B is probably the closest equivalent to this is sheer size - both are quite a bit larger than the other UCAV demonstrators to date.
 

flanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
830
Reaction score
5
flateric said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
it's probably using a single AL-31F or AL41F1 engine.
S-70 is using mod of Izd.117
Retaining AB section or not? Obviously Okhotnik doesn't need AB, just wondering how much they modified this exact engine...

Otherwise, a few pieces of information, take with a grain of salt;

- The bloody thing is fucking huge; https://i.imgur.com/17PbEO8.jpg

- Album with the best available pictures so far; https://imgur.com/a/Z5xfa1J

- It has 4 (!) weaponbays. 2 on each side. 1 of the weaponbays is currently occupied by APU, obviously that will change as the frame evolves and frees up the space.

- Originally it had 2 large weaponbays, now each is split in 2 making 4 in total. This was done as the result of static testing.

- Landing gear is from T-50 (duh) and it will get its own landing gear from the next frame on.

- Nozzle will be flat starting from the next frame, supposedly. (Source is calling BS on that, as in too soon, me too but we shall see) Also obvious to be the case both from the previously leaked mock up (or a static testing frame?) and the T-50-3 silhouette.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,364
Reaction score
570
Paralay estimates:

Span: 19.3 - 19.4 meters
Length - 15.1 m
Wing area - 118 m2
Loaded Weight: 27000kg
Payload: 3500-4000kg
Fuel - 9000kg
Empty weight: 13500kg
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
22
Tractorology?

I'd say that the Kirovets K 700 is pretty much overkill for an airplane tug, but you go with what you've got.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqkKsB6NxTU
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
814
Reaction score
34
It is worthy to remember that there is not much room to integrate a diffusing outlet, unless they remove completely the afterbuner. That means that the definitive engine would have to be much more powerful (dry trust). I see an added aerodynamic cache that make a bump on the back to accommodate the present engine nozzle; something that converges with that idea.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,767
Reaction score
186
TomcatViP said:
It is worthy to remember that there is not much room to integrate a diffusing outlet, unless they remove completely the afterbuner.
To start with, S-70 engine you see doesn't have afterburner.
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
820
Reaction score
18
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Paralay estimates:

Span: 19.3 - 19.4 meters
Length - 15.1 m
Wing area - 118 m2
Loaded Weight: 27000kg
Payload: 3500-4000kg
Fuel - 9000kg
Empty weight: 13500kg
Based on the very similar (though smaller) Boeing Phantom Ray those figures look pretty plausible. I could see somewhat higher empty and take-off weights with an increase in fuel capacity to double digit tons if those external dimensions are accurate, but that's mostly gut instinct.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
814
Reaction score
34
It would be quite weird for Sukhoi to re-engine an hybrid engine made out of their core without the afterburner exhaust pipe and plugged to the heavy TVC nozzle. To me it's just a straight Iz117 to validate their flight dynamics.
Then if you tell me that the length of the pipe have been trimmed somewhat to fit better in it, I would be ok with that.

But I do see an afterburner engine.
 

Austin

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
194
Reaction score
1
Hunter may have capability to go supersonic if required with AB


Russia Developing New Supersonic Attack Drone

https://i-hls.com/archives/81761
Speaking to a television channel, Alexander Nemov, deputy chief of the research department at the 30th Central Scientific Research Institute outside Moscow, confirmed that the large unmanned aircraft would appear sometime in the next few years.

“Development work is currently underway on a long-range unmanned system capable of carrying out unmanned low-altitude supersonic flights, and striking both stationary and mobile targets at operational-strategic depth,” the officer explained.
 
Top